billvon 2,991 #151 April 9, 2004 >Nope, my memory is just fine. OK, so it's a language problem. When you said "Problem is those who think thing should be done differently never seem to be able to tell us how" you really meant "those who think things should be done differently have plans I don't like." I will remember that in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #152 April 9, 2004 Posted by me 23rd Dec 2002 Surely you don't still belive the bunkum about WMD's? What have they got? OIL. Simple as that. The US has about 15 years oil reserves left, the UK about 6 years, Iraq 100 years (and that's just known oil fields). I wish the governments would just be straight about this. US and UK troops are to die and to kill for the oil, lets get real. I for one never belived they had WMDs at the time of the start of the war.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #153 April 9, 2004 QuoteThe UN is nothing more than a criminal enterprise as is becoming evident. Look at how the UN handled Somolia and Rwanda.The U.N. was given plenty of opportunities to get involved and each time they refused or ran when the going got tough. Looks like we are starting to find out why. Don't forget the extremely corrupted "Oil for Food" program, previously led by none other than the UN. Why would anyone wish that BS on the Iraqis again? Giving the UN control over Iraq's recovery would be a huge mistake. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #154 April 9, 2004 QuoteI really don't see an alternative to an organisation like the UN. Sure there is. Don't have a UN. It's in a state of decline in its effectiveness, and has been since the Cuban missile crisis. It wasn't a UN blockade, or a UN forum that ended the crisis. OAS voted to support the US and the US acted alone. The UN plays or played no role in the Balkans, Grenada, Panama or Rwanda (is that the right country). The decline of the League of Nations helped plant the seeds that started WWII. As the UN is not a governmental body, and was never intended as such, and as the UN has countries like Syria heading the human rights commissions, the list goes on.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #155 April 9, 2004 QuoteThe decline of the League of Nations helped plant the seeds that started WWII. And what was the principle reason for that decline? QuoteAs the UN is not a governmental body, and was never intended as such, and as the UN has countries like Syria heading the human rights commissions, the list goes on. I think it's funny when we Americans bitch about some other country running the human rights commission when we're one of the few countries left in the world that will still execute people for crimes they committed as children. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #156 April 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe decline of the League of Nations helped plant the seeds that started WWII. And what was the principle reason for that decline? You tell me. The US was not a participant. The troubles that brewed in Europe were sewn by their own.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #157 April 9, 2004 If it really was about oil......why not invade Venezuela or Mexico or Brunei or some other country with huge oil reserves and an ineffective defense force?I dont buy it!!It's not about oil,its about taking out a hostile force before they take you out.And if they really wanted to be dishonest about the WMD's they could have always manufactured some evidence and planted it too......On the plus side Libya has seen the light with regard to state sponsored terrorism and wont be bringing down 747's over scotland anymore.........Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
damion75 0 #158 April 10, 2004 QuoteThen explain to me why 3 Japanese humanitarian workers have been kidnapped Er... they are not humanitarian workers, they are journalists... I have no problem with people attacking journalists - I have wanted to do it myself on many occasions... Quotetheir approximately 500 humanitarian workers from Iraq These are also not humanitarian workers - they are soldiers. You are right however that they are here solely to help rebuild Iraq, and that asking them the leave with their $1.4 billion seems a bit daft...*************** Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #159 April 10, 2004 QuotePosted by me 23rd Dec 2002 Surely you don't still belive the bunkum about WMD's? What have they got? OIL. Simple as that. The US has about 15 years oil reserves left, the UK about 6 years, Iraq 100 years (and that's just known oil fields). I wish the governments would just be straight about this. US and UK troops are to die and to kill for the oil, lets get real. I for one never belived they had WMDs at the time of the start of the war. Since we're into history: posted by me Feb 2003: "Why do you believe every line the administration puts out without the appropriate skepticism, given the historical tendency of all administrations to lie to the American people and even to Congress? The "evidence" so far presented on which you place your belief that everyone "knows" about WMDs, etc. would not be strong enough to convict a shoplifter in a US courtroom (except maybe in Illinois where we routinely sentence innocent people to death), but you are prepared to go to war on the strength of it?"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #160 April 10, 2004 Things that make you go hmmmmmm...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #161 April 10, 2004 Quotewhy not invade Venezuela or Mexico or Brunei or some other country with huge oil reserves and an ineffective defense force? Because nobody would buy the evil dictator with WMD crap your not-so-democratically-elected president lied to the world about...The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #162 April 10, 2004 QuoteBecause nobody would buy the evil dictator with WMD crap your not-so-democratically-elected president lied to the world about... I like this one too. If you asked any leader in Western Europe, or North America, or representative of the precious UN if Iraq had WMDs on April 9, 2000, the only one that would've answered "no" would've been Saddam Hussein. P.S. The US is not a democracy.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #163 April 10, 2004 Well, even though i don't like the german chancellor too much, he'd have said: Well, maybe, but the evidence is really bad and partially even made up... He DID say, like France, that there wasn't enough proper evidence to start a war. Thanks to that, our soldiers aren't dying for lies... Wasn't that about the time when you started calling french fries "Freedom fries"? Smart move, like the french prime minister said... "So then i'm the freedom prime minister now..." Keep an open mind, please...The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #164 April 10, 2004 QuoteKeep an open mind, please... Mine is open enough to not discard what you just referred to as lies by my President. As to the "freedom prime minister", that would be in the country where one is not allowed to express his or her religion in school anymore.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #165 April 10, 2004 Well, i was referring to reports that university students wrote and that came up as "CIA evidence", as well as statments by GWB like:"We know that he has them" (WMD). Now, he's making fun of that... Knowing involves a 100% certainty. 99% certainty is not knowing. Not finding any proclaimed WMDs after more than 6 month of occupying a country would make me very curious as to what my countrymen are dying for. I'd call saying that one has definitive knowledge of WND, then going in to show the world one is right and not finding any a liar. How many more soldiers life are you willing to sacrifice and how much more time will you grant until some are found? But asking that question in public in the US seems to be unpatriotic, thus politically incorrect and not worth of media attention. It tastes like self-afflicted cencorship to me. How open must a mind be to question anything a politician says, instead of calling it an open mind not to? Questioning it and finding it to be true based on evidence allows for believing that person. Unforged evidence, that is...The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #166 April 10, 2004 And the winner of the Non Sequitur Award of the Month goes to . . . QuoteBut asking that question in public in the US seems to be unpatriotic, thus politically incorrect and not worth of media attention. It tastes like self-afflicted cencorship to me. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #167 April 10, 2004 I don't have a problem with the questions. I was merely pointing out that even you were pretty much fully dismissive of not just Bush, but also whether or not he's President. I happen to believe him. Not only because he said so, but because there are over 250,000 Iraqi corpses in the desert and an untold number of Iranians (est over 10,000) that met the same fate. Many say that he's since used or got rid of them. I contend though that you don't get rid of the very weapon that save your hyde twice. If anything, you make more of it, and find ways to make designs that make it easier to stockpile, store, deploy and disperse. Meanwhile, Biological and Chemical agents in question can exist in extremely small quantities that can cause massive damage to human life. I could hide a small vial of VX nerve agent in my 650 sq. ft. apartment, capable of killing a couple thousand and I bet it would take you more than a couple days to find it, if at all. Now, take a few (even several thousand) vials, disperse them in a desert, in a country the size of California (which I think is about 2/3 the size of BC Canada). How long would it take you to find the first one? If a friend of yours tells you they have a gun, and their family shows you that they've used it, but you've never seen it, do you think your friend has a gun? QuoteBut asking that question in public in the US seems to be unpatriotic, thus politically incorrect and not worth of media attention. It tastes like self-afflicted cencorship to me. The media is giving plenty of coverage to the question, it gets mentioned in nearly every article related to the subject. That's one reason why it's still a "hot" topic here.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #168 April 10, 2004 Well, i'm dismissive of GWB being president, because of the way he became it and his statements in front of the UN that if you are not with the US, you are against them. This is outright stupidity, as it does show no willingness to understand complex issues faced by many countries (Pakistan i.e.; large islamistic factions, big internal problems since they took a stand on US side). It seems, though, that US troops in iraq have applied that same principle, making many of those who were not really proUS, but not really contra, their dedicated enemies now. But that is just my opinion, and i'm not even a US citizen. Even though your logic on why to make more WMD is straightfoward, you ignore two important facts. First, Saddam used chemical weapons against kurds and in the first gulf war (Iraq-Iran), not ever since. During the embargo, while UN inspectors were doing their job (and yes, before he threw em out), large quantities if not all, were destroyed. I don't think it would have been all that easy to create more WMDs under the sanctions and investigations that applied since '91. These two points do not rule out the possibility of your arguments, they just lower the likelyhood, imho, a lot. Even though biochem agents can exist in small quantities, the question must be answered why US intelligence had precise info on them until the US gained control of the counrty. Contradictory i say.. They also cannot be stored as easily as you say in a desert country like iraq, as they need certain environmental conditions to remain stable/useable. Recollecting all the intelligence provided, the fact that nothing was found yet and statements made by former members of the Bush administration, that getting rid of SH was among the top priorities of GWB after becoming president (before 9/11) makes me believe that it's just a big "blinder". Instilling fear is the best way to get people to do what you want... QuoteIf a friend of yours tells you they have a gun, and their family shows you that they've used it, but you've never seen it, do you think your friend has a gun? Simplyfied, but i'll step in... Sure i do. But if i knew he only had five shots and used two (from what i see on his evidence having used it), and someone already took two from him, telling me he couldn't find the third, what should make me sure that he has one left? The possibility is there, but not the certainty (he could have missed once...). Did the UN inspectors not state sometime in the late 90s that most if not all weapons programs were demolished? (Not sure on this one, so it is a serious question) Good to hear that it's become a media topic, i don't have too much time to watch TV and no cable. It just wasn't a topic at all when i still had that time. And, btw i didn't write get an open mind... i wrote, keep itThe mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #169 April 10, 2004 Yea, i must admit... Sometimes it just takes me away... But i got an answer that showed me better, so it was worth it!The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #170 April 10, 2004 QuoteFirst, Saddam used chemical weapons against kurds and in the first gulf war (Iraq-Iran), not ever since. The US used nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945 and not ever since. QuoteDuring the embargo, while UN inspectors were doing their job (and yes, before he threw em out), large quantities if not all, were destroyed. I don't think it would have been all that easy to create more WMDs under the sanctions and investigations that applied since '91. It has already been revealed that Iraq was side-stepping the UN. The oil-for-food program was riddled with holes and corruption. QuoteEven though biochem agents can exist in small quantities, the question must be answered why US intelligence had precise info on them until the US gained control of the counrty. Not just the US, but the UN, UK, France...et al. UNMOVIC published a report, March 2003. Link here. It's 175 pages, but page 8/9 says "Iraq has acknowledged that, in the biological field, its approach to ending the programme was different to that in chemical, missiles and nuclear. It has been stated that, although Iraq’s BW weapons and agents were unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991, a decision was taken to conceal other aspects of its BW programme from UNSCOM. Thus its main BW production facility was converted to a civilian plant to disguise its true nature." This is immediately followed by: "Lieutenant-General Hussein Kamal’s defection also precipitated new disclosures by Iraq concerning its WMD programmes, particularly in the biological field. Subsequently, in 1996 and 1997, Iraq provided new biological, chemical and missile declarations describing its proscribed programmes. UNSCOM continued its attempts to verify these new declarations, until the end of inspections in December 1998. Its conclusion, at that time, was that there remained many significant outstanding issues, and these were described in a report to the Security Council, S/1999/94 of 29 January 1999, and in the report of the Amorim Panel of 30 March 1999 (S/1999/356)." Pages 67 on begin the discrepancies of what was declared, and could not be accounted for. QuoteQuoteIf a friend of yours tells you they have a gun, and their family shows you that they've used it, but you've never seen it, do you think your friend has a gun? Simplyfied, but i'll step in... Sure i do. But if i knew he only had five shots and used two (from what i see on his evidence having used it), and someone already took two from him, telling me he couldn't find the third, what should make me sure that he has one left? The possibility is there, but not the certainty (he could have missed once...). But...maybe you don't know what kind of gun I have. And you sure don't know how many bullets I have either. Simplistic yes, but the premise of the "what ifs" that can be generated from it mirror the issues and questions that are still being uncovered in Iraq. QuoteDid the UN inspectors not state sometime in the late 90s that most if not all weapons programs were demolished? (Not sure on this one, so it is a serious question) See my reply above. I put a link available from FAS.org. The answer is no. The UN did not declare Iraq free and clear.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 0 #171 April 10, 2004 QuoteUNMOVIC published a report, March 2003. ... It has been stated that, although Iraq’s BW weapons and agents were unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991, ... Thus its main BW production facility was converted to a civilian plant to disguise its true nature. Does this prove he has WMD? No. Does it prove he might have the possibility to produce? Yes. Is this a significant issue? Yes. Does it require a full-scale invasion? Well... The question remains, why after 9 month these significant issues could not be resolved yet? Here's what the report says right after the end of your qoute...QuoteBy early 1995, however, UNSCOM had gathered overwhelming evidence of an Iraqi BW programme and, on 1 July 1995 the Iraqi side acknowledged that it had had such a programme and had produced BW agents on a large scale, but claimed that it had not produced any BW weapons. In the years following the adoption of Security Council resolution 687 (1991), UNSCOM and the IAEA supervised the destruction of those elements of Iraq’s proscribed weapon programmes that were presented by Iraq or that could otherwise be identified. Intensive investigations of WMD and missile programmes were also conducted in an attempt to verify Iraq’s declarations. These investigations were made more difficult by the lack of documentation, most of which, according to Iraq, had been destroyed. One of the major problems experienced by UNSCOM, was quantifying what may have been unilaterally destroyed by Iraq in the summer of 1991, particularly in respect of quantities of biological and chemical agents, precursor chemicals and missile fuel, and in determining when such items may have been destroyed. The only question was, what did iraq do between '98 and '02. To clarify that, new inspectors were sent in, but the US decided on war, disregarding the UN. Who's laboratories do the bioware stems come from, by the way? There are only so many around, and their origins are all accounted for (Like the anthrax that came up in the US came one of the US labs...). On the what ifs, i made the analogy to the ammo with respect to the findings of the UN inspections... The correct application now would be: "i can't be sure if you can't make new ammo in your toaster..."The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #172 April 10, 2004 Quote"cau dy ffwcin ceg,uffar gwirion! owain glyndwr" Shut your f##king mouth, silly b@stard!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #173 April 10, 2004 QuoteAhhhh, come on......why cant we beat the N Ireland question to death(whine whine)And as far as judging current world affairs just on the basis of the current administration,that's rather short-sighted isn't it.After all they are having to deal with policies and fall out from several previous administrations.I will grant you though,they have come up with a few real "gems" all on their own. Just for you, here's the Welsh perspective: icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/page.cfm?objectid=14135048&method=full&siteid=50082... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #174 April 10, 2004 da iawn, da iawn........amser guinness ? diolch yn vawrMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #175 April 10, 2004 Quoteda iawn, da iawn........amser guinness ? diolch yn vawr yr oen yn dysgu i'r d dafad bori!!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)