Big News this AM

[thornc]

To start go
here... confirmed here also!!

I certain that if you search well enough you will find others....

A flame war is what this full thread is!

It's not my fault you are easily duped by the liberals who dominate the media.

I don't to whom you are refering to with the "you", in fact I don't even know what you call liberals! But it isn't certainly me... I have a brain and I tend to use it! (Except when I'm writting in a foreign language and I'm in hurry )

Why would Blair say something so outlandish, when there has been numerous instances of WMD found? I suspect the media is lying or taking some quote out of text or doing some creative editing.

Maybe because the British people can tell a difference beetween usuable material and residue. And before you go on with the media issue, I saw Blair saying this live on EuroNEWS!!

As for the proof on the Iraq invading Iran on a US of A request, I have to grant it to you... no proof! But since I still have a brain and I still can do simple deductions.... Let me see if can make clearer:
Uprising in Iran that gets rid of US controlled government... US oil companies assets nationalized in Iran... US citizens made hostage in US embassy in IRAN... failed rescue attempt by to US to rescue those hostages....
When things start to get calm, Iraq
attacks Iran [note that Iraq had Soviet based weapons and Iran had US based
weapons from the old regime] the war is long but the Iraquis had enough weapons to keep it going while the Iranians don't even have spare parts for the weapons, but by the force of pure numbers the war starts favouring Iran! Mr.Hussein gets some "agricultural" components from the US and uses them on Iran.... balance turns again! Only problem was that the guy than uses the same stuff on its one people and the Us realizes the mistake they made and sells weapons to Iran!
The war ends in a tie!!

My chemistry comment is simple, he could not have chemical weapons in 2004, because the lifetime of components that he had was gone!!

About Israel, yes they will! This is the same democracy that replies with Tanks , helis, fighters and buldozers to lower level attacks! The same democracy that
is building a wall around part of "its"population (remember the Guethos in Poland!)! The same democracy that attacks a foreign country with air strikes whennever they feel like it! The same democracy that has some friends in high places in the UN that precent any action from being taken.....


Let me make myself clear!
I'm not against the US of A, not anti-war, not pro-terrorism, not for the
liberals or the conservatives or whatever!
I am a person that feels that this politic of an eye for an eye is going to get all us (and I mean world level all of us) killed!

 

[Babarlish]

The Iraqi people are going to execute Saddam, not put him back in power.

We'll see...

Bab

 

[Brad]

Bit late today cuz my server was down, oh well ...

Wow, Cleo, you have outdone yourself in your posts. They took a lot of effort, and are beautifully presented. Thanks for showing me how it's done!

One small problem ... I think the content is weak. And I don't see a need to use hockey or health care or boasting about who is number one etc. to deflect attention from weaknesses. We can also leave Goebbels out of it now since that was obviously done in jest, though it was you who brought him into the discussion first. As far as providing proof goes, which you challenged me to, I don't want to do that. There are many much more qualified people who can and have done so already. The beauty of the net is the info is out there, just gotta look for it, admittedly one has to sift through much garbage first. Now remember, mine are strictly questions and opinions.

So let's start by saying that Saddam was (is) not a nice guy and deserved to be neutralized to say the least. No argument there, that is not really at issue here though. I thought the discussion was about why US beat him down and at what cost (I don't mean $$), and the way he was selectively picked over many other brutal dictators who were simply overlooked because they're growing turnips instead of pumping oil (you call this moral courage, I see it as greed or dislike of turnips) .... blah blah blah ... we've been there done that.
Why won't the Hawks come clean on this supposed liberation and admit to what I see as their greedy-political/strategic-thinly-disguised-as-humanitarian-and/or-preemptive-motives? (wow, I just made up a long word, ha-ha). Why did they feel they must mask their real reasons in order to gain acceptance from the US public and the rest of the world? Why did they make the WMDs in Iraq one of their focal reason in the first place? (I think Bush has read the WMD phrase so many times now he may actually be able to repeat it from memory) ... and so on.
To support their reasons you provide many 'facts' ... and please note you're the one who called them "probable" whereas I put them in ' ...' , indicating they are either irrelevant or come from questionable sources (a minor point?).

However, did you actually read past the headlines in the info you posted links to? Now I don't want to spend (waste) as much time on this as you did so lets just look at a few of your links from the top, O.K?

1. Positive link : "... The rounds were tested and showed positive for Sarin gas. It has been determined that the rounds were left over from the Iran-Iraq war.
Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces.
The source led Soldiers to 16 more 122mm rockets over a period from June 23 - 26, 2004. Those 16 rounds were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals."

This makes Bush look good in your opinion? I say it would make him look desperate and feeble when grasping at empty old shells. Could also ask Donald Rumsfeld if he still has the receipts for selling gas to his former pal Saddy (thornc eluded to this as well) ... too bad the US instigated/supported war did not go as planned, eh? Coulda had both Iran and Iraq in tow today ... tsk, tsk ...

2. Sarin link (and mustard gas): " ... "It's not out of the ordinary or unusual that you would find something [like these weapons] in a haphazard fashion" in Iraq, Edward Turzanski, a political and national security analyst, told Fox News on Tuesday.

Testing done by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S.-organized group of weapons inspectors who have been searching for weapons of mass destruction (search) since the ouster of Saddam Hussein — concluded that the mustard gas was "stored improperly" and was thus "ineffective."

Clearly, if we're gonna find one or two of these every so often — used as an IED or some other way — the threat is not all that high, but it does confirm suspicion that he [Saddam] did have this stuff," said Ret. U.S. Army Col. Robert Maginnis.

Other experts said the individual shells themselves don't pose a threat to the masses."

"Improperly stored" ... "Ineffective" ... "no threat to the masses". Is it likely that small quantities of these old shells survived whereas tens of thousands of Kurds didn't? Why did the US not defy the UN back then, and go in when that atrocity was taking place?? Seems as good a humanitarian reason as any to put a stop to genocide, no?

3. Syria link: "... "Week after week after week after week," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., about President Bush's rationale for going to war with Iraq, "we were told lie after lie after lie after lie." Were we?

Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seems curiously incurious about whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq.

John Loftus: There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace."

Those 20 tons of chemicals could have been mostly Javex bleach used in laundering Arab dress for all we know from this article, with trace amounts of VX, Sarin ... and what were the 70 others?? Conclusive evidence? I don't think so ... Loftus is speculating at best using key words like "might".
Don't you think that if there was any substance to this obscure article that the Hawks would exploit it to the fullest, plastering it over every possible headline they could find?? It's not even worth a spin!
No wonder the major networks won't even touch this stuff, be they left or right leaning.

Hmmm ... looking at only the first three links you provided and I see three strikeouts ... Yikes!!! ...

I could go on pointing out flaws in your other linked articles that show a really weak effort at proving your case ( I read a few more which were just as poor ). But I can't force you to see it my way and agree with me, I wouldn't dream of doing that.
Neither will you succeed in browbeating me into submission however. All I can ask of you is to open your mind to other views, credible and untwisted reports, knowledgeable sources etc.
But I am tired of your game so your homework, should you chose to accept it, is to see if you can locate them by yourself. If I can do it you should have no problems.

So let's just agree to disagree for now and see what happens in the near future. I think the whole affair is gonna blow wide open despite the massive efforts of Hawks trying to hush this monumental screwup, and we may actually find out lot more than we both know or think we know at present ... and then it will be the Hawks looking for a hole to crawl into, IMHO.

Two more things before I end this snoozer :

You didn't answer my very first question whether you've seen the constantly sold out Fahrenheit 9/11 "crockumentary". I hear hundreds of thousands (probably millions by now) of people from all walks of life usually give it a standing ovation, and many if not most say it helped them re-evaluate their position .... hmmm ... can't wait to see it. Unfortunately it did not open in as many theatres as Spidy so it'll be a while before it comes to my small town (may have to wait for the video, LOL).

Here's the link again if you'd like to purchase advanced tickets http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php .


And lastly, I am Brad, not Peter to whom you erroneously addressed one of your previous post (does this go towards a tendency to misread?).

I'm done


P.S. You Want Proof??!! You Can't Handle the Proof!!!! ....who said that? (I'm slightly paraphrasing of course).

 

[shirazbai]

Re: Bit late today cuz my server was down, oh well ...

P.S. You Want Proof??!! You Can't Handle the Proof!!!! ....who said that? (I'm slightly paraphrasing of course).

Ah, who needs proof. After all... "I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven." - Jean Chretien



Back to the topic at hand. Moore's flick is a bit skewed, I agree. I wish The Whole Truth About The Iraq War was playing at theatres instead. It's only an hour long and covers all the bases. (you can stream it or save it)

 

[thornc]

Re: Bit late today cuz my server was down, oh well ...

P.S. You Want Proof??!! You Can't Handle the Proof!!!! ....who said that? (I'm slightly paraphrasing of course).

Something like:
I want the truth. - Tom Cruise as "Lt. Daniel Kaffee"
You can't handle the truth! - Jack Nicholson as "Col. Nathan R. Jessup"

"A few good men", 1992 - imdb here ; script here

Search and you will find!

 

[Karnac]

Re: Re: Bit late today cuz my server was down, oh well ...

Ah, who needs proof. After all... "I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven." - Jean Chretien



Back to the topic at hand. Moore's flick is a bit skewed, I agree. I wish The Whole Truth About The Iraq War was playing at theatres instead. It's only an hour long and covers all the bases. (you can stream it or save it)

Fine link ....thank you

 

[Brad]

Now for the lighter side ...

Letterman's Top Ten List: Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

 

[peter]

Some great comments here guys.
And Brad , I was going to correct Cleopatra, when she addressed me instead of you, but I thought why bother, but I'm glad you did.

 

[shirazbai]

Re: Re: Bit late today cuz my server was down, oh well ...

Search and you will find!

Very true, thornc. My post (Chretien quote) was not a solution to brad's puzzle, it was merely an add-on, since the talk was of "proofs".

Brad, David Letterman's list was hillarious. I watch the Daily Show every night and Jon Stewart always has me in stitches in his opening 5-10 minutes.

 

[Brad]

Originally posted by shirazbai >>> Back to the topic at hand. Moore's flick is a bit skewed, I agree. I wish The Whole Truth About The Iraq War was playing at theatres instead. It's only an hour long and covers all the bases. (you can stream it or save it)

That's an excellent link Shirazbai, very factual and has all the proof anyone could possibly need, I highly recommend it and not just to the likes of Cleopatra.

One potential draw back this film has is that it's too 'dry' for mass consumption, I think a lot of people would not sit through the whole thing for that reason ... even tho they should. I found it engrossing and may watch it again.

That's where Moore fits in well with his docu-comedydrama. Again I must say I haven't seen it yet but it is apparent that it is the medium that the masses are flocking to.
Sure it's hyped and Moore puts his own slant on it but unfortunately that's the way 'selling it' is done these days in the Western society ... come to think of it aren't the Hawks the masters of hype themselves? There is a big difference between hyping facts and hyping lies tho

Here's to The Whole Truth

 

[Brad]

Here's more PROOF ... the kind you can drink!!

180 proof to be exact ...... Spiritus Rectificatus

90 parts, by volume, of ethyl hydroxide (C2H5OH) and 10 parts, by volume, of water

If that doesn't cross your eyes I don't know what will

 

[jbiff]

There is a big difference between hyping facts and hyping lies tho

Really? ... Please explain the difference
A lot of people would say I'm a Hawk (I disagree though)
However, I believe the Whitehouse is guilty of "hyping facts".
What I'm trying to say is, if it ain't the cold hard truth and you know it, question all of it. And try to understand the motivation behind that hype.
For Moore it's easy...money and lots of it for him alone.
As for the Whitehouse... well several players to blame. some being altruistic and some being quiet fiendish (oops... didn't mean to say RUMSFELD that loud)

 

[Brad]

Pull up an armchair

Hey Jbiff, how's it going? I was kinda wondering when you'd drop in

OK this is what I meant. You may or may not agree with this statement but let's say it is true: Saddam has no WMDs. So for the Hawks to say he does and then, repeat it over and over again in a dramatic fashion, in my mind they'd be hyping a lie.

Let's say George is not very smart and does stupid things (again, assume this is a true statement). Mike says George is stupid. If he said it once he'd be stating a fact. But by driving the point home repeatedly he'd be hyping it, especially if he put it to music .

But I do see your point and am thinking now that saying 'distorting the truth' may have been another way, although that seems hard to quantify ... like at which point does a distortion become a lie?

Cheers

P.S. Moore says 'Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth' and is offering $10K to anyone that can prove otherwise. Guess we could say what's 10K when he's making millions, eh?

 

[jbiff]

Hey Brad,
If George was smart a lot of comedians would have to come up with a lot of new material.
My personal view is this war should have happened/been finished back in 91/92.
Truth is History + Sodamn = WMD
And try to remember the dodging and failure to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors…was there something to hide… My personal view is yes but that truly only my gut feeling…and my best friend says he won’t go to war on that cause he knows how much beer I drink.
Just remember…know the difference between fact and feeling, politicians and yellow journalist like to make that line fuzzy (they can win votes and or lots of money that way).
And never get caught in herd mentality…unless you don’t mind being told what to think.
The right will always be just as far from center/honest as the left.
Your (meaning Sodamn here) reputation is a direct result of your history…( some people never change ).
Blah blah blah
I will now step off the drunkards soap box.

 

[Brad]

You're right Jbiff in saying that it's hard to know who's telling the truth these days. But as thornc said we all have a brain and if used a little bit we're capable of making our own conlusions (though somedays occluded by Bud) ...

And the only herd I'd like to get caught in woud be made up of $$$$

Don't get me wrong, I didn't intend to go this far with it (even though it may seem that way), and neither am I hung up on Moore's flick (even though it may seem that way) ... I haven't seen it yet!!

Sheesh, one post leads to another and ....

 

[jbiff]

Just tryin to stir the pot on this thread and make a few think a little less or more.
I’m tired, been drinkin beer and got to go to work in the morn.
So my hawkish statement for the day is I can’t stand frivolous hair splitting law suits.
Right is right and it needed to be done.

 

[shirazbai]

Truth is History + Sodamn = WMD
And try to remember the dodging and failure to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors…was there something to hide…

Jbiff, the bigger truth here is:

History + U.S. = WMD ^ infinity (wmd to the power of infinity)
History + Russia = WMD ^ infinity

Immitation is the best form of flattery, right? Can you remember the last time you heard of UN inspectors being allowed to roam freely among the stockpiles of WMD in the US, Russia, China, anywhere?

Since the beginning of the Iraq invasion (that's right, it's not a war by any definition), we have gone from being recited that long list of WMDs that Saddam was storing in the tunnels under Babylon to being told that "We may yet find them". Yet I still hear the cries of the right wing eagles trying to justify their actions that caused unnecessary death and destruction, all under the flag of freedom.

Since there are no WMD to be found anywhere in Iraq (duh), the eagles now cry that they did it for the benefit of the Iraqi people, to free them of that ruthless dictator. If that's the real reason, I have one question. Why aren't the eagles rushing in to free the people of Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, where real genocide is flourishing? No national resources there? But those huge diamond mines! Ah yes, I see, diamonds may be a girl's best friend, but you can't exactly run your SUV on diamonds, nor can the eagles run their energy companies on diamonds. Thank you eagles for not invading China either - I couldn't possibly survive without my weekly Walmart fix.

 

[jbiff]

Jbiff, the bigger truth here is:

Since the beginning of the Iraq invasion (that's right, it's not a war by any definition)

Beg to differ shirazbai but it is a war by several definitions. It is a confirmed hostility with invasion being only one aspect of the war. If you speak of the normandy invasion most people know you are speaking about WW2 not "The Great War Of Normandy". You can refer to it as "the Iraq invasion" and still be correct but by no means is it not a war.

 

[jbiff]

I think I should make my feelings on the matter more clear.

This war this time was carried out as a preemptive war.
History shows little if any positive results from preemptive war. I doubt this one will prove any different. It was a bad decision...why it was done this way I don't know nor do I think the reason will ever be crystal clear.
What has happened in Iraq should have happened a long time ago.

 

[shirazbai]

What has happened in Iraq should have happened a long time ago.

That's the part I don't get, Jbiff. If you don't agree with the current invasion of Iraq, how could you possibly justify one some time in the past. Sure Iraq had all sorts of WMDs - they were provided by the US, this is a proven fact. That is not the point though. The point is that the US was never in any imminent danger of attack from Iraq at any point in its history, by any kind of weapons.

You see, my friend, that condition is the most critical and internationally (and morally) recognized one that has to be met in order to justify pre-emptive military action.

That was in response to your "pre-emptive" attack argument. Let's touch briefly on the argument of the attack "in response to 9/11". All claims of connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda have been proven false - the two hated each other. There were terrorist camps up in norther Iraq, on the border (and probably funded in part by) Iran, but likewise there are terrorist, extremist and supremacist camps all over the US that the government cannot/will not do anything about.

What the US government should have done a long time ago was give both Iraq and Iran an ultimatum - shut down the terrorist camps. They were already engaged in "covert" bombing runs in that area anyway, this way they could just step it up a notch by going all out public. If they wanted to eradicate the terrorist cells and camps in Iraq, they could have and should have done it long ago, you are right on that point. Where you are wrong is ...

why it was done this way I don't know nor do I think the reason will ever be crystal clear

The reason is crystal clear - they (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz) didn't want the terrorist camps based in Iraq, they wanted the whole country. Bush was just the right puppet in the right place at the right time.