Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2004, 04:27 AM   #101
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
He didn't pretend to have WMDs you tard. They said "No we don't have any", guess what Einstein, looks like they told the truth
That's right Zaniel..I'm sure the 12,000 Kurds who died from Sarin and VX gas would agree with you..Saddam didn't have them.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 04:54 AM   #102
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Originally Posted by Trith
That's right Zaniel..I'm sure the 12,000 Kurds who died from Sarin and VX gas would agree with you..Saddam didn't have them.
I'm sure Saddam could pull a Kerry and say they didn't belong to him, they belonged to his family.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 05:02 AM   #103
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by Caelie123
We can all say we think this and we think that, but what I actually think is this whole little incident is being really overrated. They humiliated some prisioners. Deal with the quilty soldiers, give the prisioners some milk and cookies and move along.

Precisely...
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 05:13 AM   #104
Usna
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 226
"We can all say we think this and we think that, but what I actually think is this whole little incident is being really overrated. They humiliated some prisioners. Deal with the quilty soldiers, give the prisioners some milk and cookies and move along."

I really do not think this is a "little incident". The abuse of prisoners by both the British and American forces is a major issue, both from an ethical and a propaganda standpoint. As such a big deal was made of the abuse metted out by the old Iraqi regime, then equally a big show needs to be made, on the part of the allies, to illustrate to everyone that this behaviour is unnacceptable. You are never going to win over all the hearts and minds, but as many as possible would be beneficial.

Saying that the incident is being overrated or not a big deal can and would be seen in some quarters as tacit approval of the actions. Hell they were only damn arabs after all.
Usna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 05:28 AM   #105
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by Usna
"We can all say we think this and we think that, but what I actually think is this whole little incident is being really overrated. They humiliated some prisioners. Deal with the quilty soldiers, give the prisioners some milk and cookies and move along."

I really do not think this is a "little incident". The abuse of prisoners by both the British and American forces is a major issue, both from an ethical and a propaganda standpoint. As such a big deal was made of the abuse metted out by the old Iraqi regime, then equally a big show needs to be made, on the part of the allies, to illustrate to everyone that this behaviour is unnacceptable. You are never going to win over all the hearts and minds, but as many as possible would be beneficial.

Saying that the incident is being overrated or not a big deal can and would be seen in some quarters as tacit approval of the actions. Hell they were only damn arabs after all.
Technically it is a big deal, as it demonstrates a breakdown in discipline. It also violates a basic human precept of respect and honor. But...it is not prevelent. I know no one who says "They had it coming". It basically comes down to a small group of dumbasses who let power go to their heads. I hope they get hammered, and thrown into prison for a LONG time. If nothing else, as an example.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 05:56 AM   #106
Zaniel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Trith
That's right Zaniel..I'm sure the 12,000 Kurds who died from Sarin and VX gas would agree with you..Saddam didn't have them.
Yes I'm sure those stocks from years and years ago managed to avoid the eyes of both UN and US weapons inspectors in the incidents prior to the invasion. Your own President has stopped playing this card, follow his lead.

The black helicopters are coming for you and your family Trith, the whole of Iraq is one giant weapons bunker that no one could find.
__________________
Zaniel Stormseeker
Affliction
Zaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 06:26 AM   #107
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Quote Zaniel "He didn't pretend to have WMDs you tard. They said "No we don't have any", guess what Einstein, looks like they told the truth."

Hello??? He said we don't have any and then he refused to fully comply with the inspections. You are an idiot if you take people's word at face value. By not fully complying, he was bluffing, or as I said, he moved or hid them. If our government believed there wasn't any, why are they still looking??
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:02 AM   #108
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Alauradana
How is this showing the Bush administration made a mistake? What--Bush made a mistake when he humiliated those prisoners? I'm sorry, I didn't think he was the one who did it.
I think the assumption you are making is that in order for Bush to be able to apologize he has to be causally involved, but that is not the case. As the Commander in Chief and the President of the US, it is his duty to speak for Americans to the rest of the world. If he can't tell the people of Iraq he is sorry (he can tell a King and then report about that), then the impression is that all of America is not sorry that the torture happened.

We will likely just have to agree to disagree on this. I see your point and honestly, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this, but there is a best answer, and I think a bonefide apology to Iraq and America is the best answer... not some report of "I told King of blah, blah, how sorry we are", or speaking through surrogates.

Also, why should Bush apologize for the WMDS?
I didn't write that. What I did write is that Bush should just come right out and say he screwed the pooch by acting on the WMD intelligence. He should take responsibility, but he just played the "blame game". He let the buck stop on Tennet, just like he is letting it stop on Rumsfeld when it comes to the torture of Iraq prisoners. It is a pattern.

He was told to come clean and let us inspect, he didn't, he paid the price. There is no reason for the president to apologize because citizens of his own country choose to believe Saddam than to believe him. Bush did nothing wrong. If Gore were in and he did nothing after Saddam repeatedly violated the UN mandates, I would have been extremely mad that we had a wuss for a president.
Saddam was told to destroy the WMD US intelligence (which we now know was wrong) said he had at the time. Saddam said they didn't have the weapons and allowed for UN inspectors to come back into the country to confirm his claim. Bush was not satisfied with the inspections or Saddam's claim. Bush was requiring Saddam to prove a negative... "prove you don't have WMD" was the requirement.

Well, golly-gee-wiz, how does one set out to prove they don't have something? Well, first you say "I don't have that", then you invite inspectors to come confirm your claims. Isn't that what Saddam did? In fact, it turns out the poor SOB was right all the time. We now know that there is no WMD in Iraq.

Doesn't Bush have an obligation to Americans and the world to "fess up" and at least take responsibility for ordering a preemptive strike on a mistaken basis? I think we should hear something from the White House along the lines that the doctrine of preemption is a mistake and now we understand why, but we aren't hearing that from the White House.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:05 AM   #109
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by Lurikeen
Saddam was told to destroy WMD US intelligence (which we now know was wrong) said he had at the time. Saddam said they didn't have the weapons and allowed for UN inspectors to come back into the country to confirm his claim. Bush was not satisfied with the inspections or Saddam's claim. Bush was requiring Saddam to prove a negative... "prove you don't have WMD" was the requirement.

Well, golly-gee-wiz, how does one set out to prove they don't have something? Well, first you say "I don't have that", then you invite inspectors to come confirm your claims. Isn't that what Saddam did? In fact, it turns out the poor SOB was right all the time. We now know that there is no WMD in Iraq.

Doesn't Bush have an obligation to Americans and the world to "fess up" and at least take responsibility for ordering a preemptive strike on a mistaken basis? I think we should hear something from the White House along the lines that the doctrine of preemption is a mistake and now we understand why, but we aren't hearing that from the White House.
The Weapons Inspectors were balked daily. Their inspections were hampered regularly and there was never a complete accounting.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:12 AM   #110
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Felessan
The Weapons Inspectors were balked daily. Their inspections were hampered regularly and there was never a complete accounting.
Felessan, the point I am making is that the Bush administration invoked their new doctrine of preemption on a false basis (bad intelligence). So, where is the Bush administration coming forward and admitting that the doctrine needs to be scrapped because of the very thing we are seeing right now with faulty intelligence? It was an obvious mistake, but Bush isn't coming forward and assuring Americans, or the world, that the US won't be preemptively attacking other nations on the basis of intelligence reporting. Instead, Bush has simply washed his hands of the mess by blaming Tennet.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:21 AM   #111
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
I expect in his position he would be tieing his own hands, if he said Ill never do it again. I doubt attacking other countries will be an ongoing theme of his presidency, anyway.

At that time, whatever "real" reasons there were, he acted in good faith, intelligence-wise. Intelligence gathering will need some re-vamping/funding. It will take some time, to be sure.

They will definately have to look at these resources as a potential goose egg before acting on them. I hope it doesnt bog ops down too much while they try to decide if the source is credible or not. Intel is already pretty stale by the time it gets utilized.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:38 AM   #112
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Felessan
At that time, whatever "real" reasons there were, he acted in good faith, intelligence-wise.
I think the jury is still out on whether or not he acted in good faith. There have been too many reports that Bush pushed for a case to be made against Iraq, even when the evidence was shoddy at best, to ignore the substance of the claims.

I have no doubt that Bush wanted to remove Saddam from power by force even before 9/11. 9/11 simply gave him a political tool to use in selling a war of choice.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 08:58 AM   #113
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
True...he definately wanted SH out of the way. Rightfully so, IMO. As far as the "good faith" goes, Ill err on the side of the President till proven otherwise.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 09:11 AM   #114
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Yes I'm sure those stocks from years and years ago managed to avoid the eyes of both UN and US weapons inspectors in the incidents prior to the invasion.
To be fair, weapons inspectors were never given full access as requested, so them not finding anything could have been because they couldn't look. Just like I can say in total honesty that I've never found any bums in NYC. Well, this is true, but only because I've never been to NYC.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 09:27 AM   #115
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Wildane
To be fair, weapons inspectors were never given full access as requested, so them not finding anything could have been because they couldn't look.
Your statement is inaccurate. Saddam did not make it easy for the inspectors to get full access, but ultimately they did get full access even to the "presidential" palaces.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:09 AM   #116
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Allowing Saddam to choose the time to inspect his facilities is not full disclosure. His barring the inspectors until he saw fit to allow them in allowed any materials to be removed and placed elsewhere.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:16 AM   #117
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Felessan
Allowing Saddam to choose the time to inspect his facilities is not full disclosure. His barring the inspectors until he saw fit to allow them in allowed any materials to be removed and placed elsewhere.
I think you may be forgetting that the UN inspections team was finally given full access to all facilities they wanted to go into and at anytime.

Also, I don't see how you can reasonably fault Iraq (a soverign nation at the time) for kicking and screaming about the inspections. You know, the US government will not stand for UN weapons inspections of their facilities, and neither will any other country.

Edit: Another point to consider is that Saddam was seaking to have economic sanctions against his country lifted (like Libya), so he had a financial interest in allowing the inspectors in, but being the "tough-guy" dictator he was he couldn't stage some resistance.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:19 AM   #118
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Actually this was after the fact. Presumably any and everything they wanted to move was done by the time they were allowed access.

The US is not a conquered nation.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:24 AM   #119
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
Default Headquarters United States Central Command

Would you people get off the WMD bullshit already. Every damn thread.


January 16, 2004
Release Number: 04-01-43


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


DETAINEE TREATMENT INVESTIGATION

BAGHDAD, Iraq – An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility. The release of specific information concerning the incidents could hinder the investigation, which is in its early stages. The investigation will be conducted in a thorough and professional manner. The Coalition is committed to treating all persons under its control with dignity, respect and humanity. Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the Commanding General, has reiterated this requirement to all members of CJTF-7.
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/N...e=20040143.txt

Who was hiding what? I'd say the Dems were holding back untill
their nominee ran out of steam. And only now is everybody (media)
upset over this. It's not even a scandal. It's all hype.



God Bless America
Zolmaz.
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:24 AM   #120
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Quote Luri: "Bush was not satisfied with the inspections or Saddam's claim. Bush was requiring Saddam to prove a negative... "prove you don't have WMD" was the requirement."

Bush wasn't requiring Saddam to prove a negative..Saddam had WMDs--they existed. Bush wanted proof they were destroyed. Saddam had them and said he destroyed them but he offered no proof they were destroyed. Knowing that he was being inspected and they wanted proof, why would he not film the WMDS being destroyed and make it easy? When we went to inspect, he refused us access. What was he hiding? If he had destroyed them as he claimed, why would he not allow us to inspect to make sure they weren't there? Bush was left with those questions hanging. Saddam was playing games. Saddam was a threat, he had invaded another country. Saddam made a laughing stock out of the world by refusing to comply with the resolutions. We have discussed this a million times and I am not going to keep repeating myself.

You have said we need to agree to disagree--very smart. You feel that it was unneccessary for Bush to attack Iraq, I feel it was a smart move. You can't change my mind, I can't change yours.

As far as the whole apology thing--I am not sorry about what the soldiers did--I had nothing to do with it. The reason I used the example of all Arabs should be sorry about 9/11 was to prove how silly the idea that a whole nation has to be sorry for the actions of SIX people. You may as well be sorry about what McVeigh did, be sorry because the Unabomber did what he did. People act on their own accord, I can enlist in the Army tomorrow and go kill fifty people--should you have to apologize for that? No. It is an impossibility for anyone to predict the behavior of another individual. The people who should apologize are the ones who were directly involved and could have prevented or lessened the abuses that took place.
Again, that is my opinion, you have yours.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:27 AM   #121
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
Yes I'm sure those stocks from years and years ago managed to avoid the eyes of both UN and US weapons inspectors in the incidents prior to the invasion. Your own President has stopped playing this card, follow his lead.

The black helicopters are coming for you and your family Trith, the whole of Iraq is one giant weapons bunker that no one could find.
It really is sad to know there are people in this world like you who can deny the death's of thousands and still sleep comfortably at night. Let me guess you probably think Hitler wasn't such a bad guy either and sometimes you find yourself thinking maybe he really didn't kill all those Jews...don't you Zaniel.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:27 AM   #122
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Felessan
Presumably any and everything they wanted to move was done by the time they were allowed access.

Where are you getting that information? I haven't heard the Bush administration make such claims.

Also, we had regular sattelite survelliance and reconnaissance over Iraq. For them to move any significant amounts of WMD undetected would only prove just how ineffective the US military might be. Since I believe our monitoring and survelliance systems are very effective, I don't buy into the idea that the WMD, had there been any at the time, were moved.


The US is not a conquered nation.
If a nation is returned its soveriegnty, being conquered in the past is irrelevant.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:49 AM   #123
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Alauradana
Bush wasn't requiring Saddam to prove a negative..Saddam had WMDs--they existed. Bush wanted proof they were destroyed. Saddam had them and said he destroyed them but he offered no proof they were destroyed.
There are a number of issues being raised. First, did Saddam have WMD at that time? Nobody denies he had WMD up to 1990. After 1991 he had been disarmed.

Second, Saddam provided a 10,000+ page document showing what weapons he had destroyed. The Bush administration provided numbers for what was not accounted for in that document and then declared that Saddam was hiding WMD. Saddam's claim was that he wasn't and Bush required he prove that. In other words, Iraq was being required to prove a negative.

What is interesting is that the US has found chemical and biological agents the government dumped but there was no record at all of the agents or their burials. Is it plausible that the Iraqi government didn't account for some of their weapons because they had incomplete records, just as the US government does?

Knowing that he was being inspected and they wanted proof, why would he not film the WMDS being destroyed and make it easy?
The US government doesn't film the destruction of all our biological weapons. In fact, the feds are scheduled to destroy much of our biological arsenal by 2005 and I don't think they are filming the destruction.

When we went to inspect, he refused us access. What was he hiding?
Was he hiding something? We now know he wasn't. He was playing the part of the ruthless dictator. If he showed weakness, then those Shia who are kicking ass right now in Najaf, Kufa, and Karbala might have been kicking his ass. Saddam couldn't simply back down, I don't see why that is terribly surprising.

Saddam was a threat, he had invaded another country.
No, Saddam had been a threat. Notice the tense. He invaded another country in 1991 and had promptly gotten the ass kicking he deserved. He hadn't invaded another country since then, and it would have been very hard for him to roll tanks across the desert under the no-fly zones.

You have said we need to agree to disagree--very smart. You feel that it was unneccessary for Bush to attack Iraq, I feel it was a smart move. You can't change my mind, I can't change yours.
I actually made that remark in regard to the whole apology thing. Also, I don't think many are viewing the attack on Iraq as a "smart move". If anything, more and more people are coming to realize just how incompetent Bush is when it comes to foreign policy. In fact, he hasn't succeeded in a single thing when it comes to foreign policy... and yes, I don't think invading Iraq can be counted as a success. The worst is yet to come.

As far as the whole apology thing--I am not sorry about what the soldiers did--I had nothing to do with it. The reason I used the example of all Arabs should be sorry about 9/11 was to prove how silly the idea that a whole nation has to be sorry for the actions of SIX people.
I think you are still misunderstanding the point over the President representing Americans to the world and how the people of other countries view Americans based upon the President's actions. Like I said earlier, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this entire apology bit.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:53 AM   #124
Felessan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by Felessan
Presumably any and everything

I hate to re-quote myself.

No one said...the nature of presumably states it is a presumption. A logical deduction? Why else would they bar access? Repeatedly.
__________________
Felessan Oakhallow
Ginsu Stalker of Anlah 'Shok
Retired

"The things we do in life, echo in eternity!"
Felessan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2004, 11:59 AM   #125
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
If a nation is returned its soveriegnty, being conquered in the past is irrelevant.
Not if one of the stipulations tied to a cease of hostilities towards that country include full access for UN inspectors. If Saddam had nothing to hide, why did he make the inspectors wait? There is no other possible reason other than he had things he didn't want them to see.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:09 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.