Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Iraq.... What do you think?Follow

#52 Jan 13 2004 at 12:25 AM Rating: Good
Everything's bigger in Texas
*****
13,594 posts
Skeet, see, if your going to rip me a new one, do it in style like RPzip. Atleast he makes me laugh!
____________________________
"There is one quality that one must possess to win, and that is definiteness of purpose, the knowledge of what one wants, and a burning desire to possess it."

- Napoleon Hill


Stargate Worlds
#53 Jan 13 2004 at 1:19 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,070 posts
What is this, Comic View? "By a round of applause, how much of a moron is Katie?" -the crowds hands begin to bleed as they furiously pound their hands together-

I don't give a **** if I make you laugh. Rip you a new one? That brings so many horrible mental images to mind. As if your Brusband didn't have enough holes to fill already.

Notice I never said anything about your great feat of getting drug abusers in trouble, I'm hoping that the next drug fiend you **** off has a gun. Not to kill you though, I want him to shoot you in your uterus. Then you and your slack-jaw hubby can have all the **** you want, and there will be no fear of any Katie juniors running around.

Katie Bar the Door!

Skeet
____________________________
Muted
#54 Jan 13 2004 at 2:04 AM Rating: Decent
Everything's bigger in Texas
*****
13,594 posts
I'm sorry, did I hit a nerve? You are awfully defensive all of a sudden. I'm glad you think you could careless, but seeing as how you like to bring me into threads I havn't even participated in, and make jokes that get rounding silence... I know you truley just "dont care". I would almost think you have a thing for me, if I didnt already know you and Mr.Thundra have a thing going. Seeing as how its been declared SHE is a He and all, that would make me, and for that matter any female, off limits. Next time you wanna get your **** all in a wad, maybe you should take a step back, read the god awful **** you have spammed the board with, and then spin that babey up even further with the realization that you are the true "Queen of the board pussies, morons, and hemmoroids"! All hail Queen Skeet, shall he never quit liking to be ****
____________________________
"There is one quality that one must possess to win, and that is definiteness of purpose, the knowledge of what one wants, and a burning desire to possess it."

- Napoleon Hill


Stargate Worlds
#55 Jan 13 2004 at 4:45 AM Rating: Decent
10 posts
Warning: Hellah long post, if you want to flame go ahead, here are some great starting points: Where did you get that data? I've never heard that/I heard the opposite! Nice stuff that you pulled outta your **** here, but it's all crap.

I like how this thread has devolved. It's more about what the person is saying about another person than what they said about the topic. Nice. :)

As far as the WMD's are concerned. The whole point that Bush was supposed to push, is that there was a CLEAR and PRESENT danger. (Caps for emphasis) To put it lightly, at this point, the clear and present danger would have been found. Chemical weapons, are actually very inneffective(sp?). I mean they are really really inneffective. While if you hit right on your target with a mortar you are more likely to kill them, they aren't going to do much more damage than that. A clear and present danger in the forms of chemical weapons would require a huge stockpile. I'm not talking about something the size of your car. I'm talking about barrels filling the first couple floors of both the trade towers combined. Minimum. And those would all have to be in mortars, missiles, and other weapons with reach. Which would then fill up a couple more floors of the trade towers volume.

Well, of course there's also biological and nuclear concerns. Last I checked we had been doing a great job preventing nuclear fizzle material from reaching Iraq. Even then it requires quite a bit of technology to get a nuclear weapon up and running assuming it's Plutonium (Uranium is much simpler though). Then you have to develop a payload system to take it from Iraq to the United States. Maybe, maybe they could have done that if they bought some Russian ICBM's, but somehow I doubt Russia would have sold them any. N. Korea can't even reach the Continental United States (with an actual payload), so I don't see how Iraq could.

Biological weapons. This is probably the best bet at finding WMD's. Biological weapons are much more portable in terms of all the forms of WMD's. They, however, have a shelf life that is also the shortest of WMD's. Liquid Anthrax is good for about... 5 years. We had an inspection regime in there for about... 6 years? maybe 7? While I know the inspection regime was not perfect, it still created the chance that most of the Anthrax did not get a chance to be reproduced in a labratory. Making the clear and present danger for Anthrax being very limited, and not very clear. But still a danger.

Going off of these 3 paragraphs, most of the intelligence people said that there is a limited chance that Iraq has WMD's. Maybe a mortar round here or ther, maybe a couple vials of viable anthrax. But that's about all they'd vouch for. Some people went ahead and kissed **** to their bosses though, and said sure, there's plenty of WMD in Iraq, enough for a clear and present danger. Bush selected those documents to support his war on Iraq. Not really going to put too much blame on him here for that, because what President hasn't been selective in their supporting data.

Now, we move on to the war. Well, at this point, we are kinda screwed. First, the President should have made this a true coalition instead of **** off what seems like 90% of the world.

Second, the President should have put down an overwhelming number of troops (including a whole **** load more of the national guard/reserve units). This overwhelming number of troops first goal should have been to put down all resistance, and establish peace and order as soon as possible. This would have helped avoid the rampant looting that has set back a lot of reconstruction efforts.

Third, the President should have had a truely developed plan for what to do with Iraq after winning the war (was the result ever really in doubt?). Having Coalition forces on the ground a day after the tanks rumble through, would have probably done a lot to ease the populace's mind on whether or not there would be chaos. It also would defray costs. Then on top of that hiring Iraqi's to help rebuild Iraq, would give them something to do, and money to spend. Having selective contracting is not really going to help Iraq as much as having the Iraqi's rebuild Iraq.

Solutions for the mess in Modern day Iraq. Well not much is left to do except ride out the rough ride. Expect a lot more U.S. soldiers to die. Expect coalition forces to die, and expect terrorist groups from outside of Iraq to be doing their most inside Iraq because Iraq is a soft target. They can say that they killed X number of soldiers as a recruiting technique, so you can also expect terrorist organizations to grow in the Middle East as well. This will reach a climax at some point, and then we can begin thinking about pulling our troops out of Iraq, but that won't happen for a long time. (Think about how long the troops have been in Bosnia, that was only supposed to be 6 months, Clinton messed up there!)

As far as direct sources, I don't have them anymore. Some of the numbers have become crude guesses at what I remember, but I'm almost certain they are fairly accurate (except for ones involving time, because I can't measure/remember time very well for some reason). Most of the numbers come from people that have helped develop intelligence reports for President's in the past. 2 of the people are actually sought after for news programs for commentary from knowledgeable sources. And those 2 people are still quite tapped into intelligence resources (1 in the military, and one with the CIA/DIA).
#56 Jan 13 2004 at 11:11 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,070 posts
No, my dear Katie. You didn't hit a nerve. Those are the feelings I've always had about you. Something about you that makes it so fun to hate you. My S.O. reads these boards and with out me ever mentioning you asked "What is up with that Katie? Why is she such a moron?"

If anybody is defensive all of a sudden, it is you. I don't remember you ever letting what people say about you get to you. People would call you a moron and you'd post right after them like nothing had happened.

Maybe you have a new found confidence in yourself, perhaps fueled by your Brusband. Let me give you some hints of what is in store for you in the future. Sadly, you will have kids, probably around 5. Two girls: Katie-ann, and Susie-lee, and three boys: Kleedus, Billy, and Edgar. You will get fat(if you haven't already, go ahead, take a look at your gut, you see it comeing, I know you do) and your Brusband will cheat on you. Most likely with your cousin, Sue-ann or Betty-Sue.

Your Brusband will most likely start being abusive (assuming he isn't already) and really, who could blame him? Will you leave him though? No. He beats you because he loves you, really. Just keep telling yourself that as you wait in line for your food stamps while your dirty, snotty, slack-jaw, redneck, bucktoothed, inbred, white-trash kids play fun games like "guess what's up my nose" and "who's tooth is more yellow?"

Skeet



____________________________
Muted
#57 Jan 13 2004 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,277 posts
Ouch. Skeet. Ouch.

____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#58 Jan 13 2004 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
Fizzle material? You mean fizzle materizzle up in Irizzaq, dawg?

Fision or fusion, you pick, which, depending on the subject is the proper tizzerm. Just sayin'.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#59 Jan 13 2004 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
****
7,070 posts
Razzack that, Totem.

Post more often damnit, you're funny and I'm bored. Perfect match.

Skeet
____________________________
Muted
#60 Jan 13 2004 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
The part that I find difficult, Jophiel, is that the Iraqi government was almost obsessive-compulsive about the documentation of everything. There are warehouses even of documents on what prisoners were tortured, how they were tortured, etc. This was a police state which wrote down anything and everything so as to keeps tabs on everyone. So when something as important as chemical munitions were buried, it wouldn't be without the express orders of the leadership and the paperwork which accompanied it.

Now granted, in such a mountain of paperwork the documentation could conceivably be lost, but I can't imagine that Pvt. Abdullah just went out and dug a hole on his own and placed those shells there.

What is significant about those mortar shells is that if there are those, then it becomes all too possible other WMDs are buried as well, just like the nuclear components buried in the roses of that scientist and Saddam Hussein ultimately orderd them to be put there.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#61 Jan 13 2004 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
Are you kidding, Skeeter? Tacosid was just complaining of our overabundance of posts and here you're sayin' I need to post more often.

I'm conflicted!

;)

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#62 Jan 13 2004 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Put it this way: to myself, and I imagine many others, it is possible to conceive a situation where in the chaos of war, a dozen and a half shells might be misplaced or lost. As I pointed out, the United States can't keep track of all its potential bioweapons and radioactive waste materials and whatnot in peacetime so I'm not about to stress out over imagining that a handful of shells might be misplaced during a war.

If this is a totally impossible scenario, then it's up to the United States to prove that this is concrete evidence of something deeper. As I pointed out in my previous posts, I'm not only willing to withhold judgement one way or the other, but also noted a potential lead that there may be more to it. Certainly if the guy who claims to have been involved can point out a cache of four hundred additional shells, I'm not going to insist that Pvt. Abdullah was hiding and losing chemical mortar rounds all over Iraq like some deranged squirrel. But, currently, that remains to be seen.

No doubt there are people who would remain unimpressed if we uncovered a 120' tall mech robot with nuclear missles and a giant anthrax cannon coming out of its chest. I'm trying not to be one of those people, but right now I can't see this as being more than it appears at face value (abandoned and damaged munitions from a war twenty years ago) until I'm shown further evidence.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Jan 13 2004 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,245 posts
Well, damn. She's kinda funny when she takes the stick out of her **** and stops bumbling around in the dark looking for the Southern Conservative Guide to Social Issues manual. Katie, if you can confine yourself to personal attacks on others, and never, ever, say anything else about morality or the rightness/wrongness of anything, you may yet turn in to something more than a waste of disk space on the DB server.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#64 Jan 13 2004 at 12:18 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,070 posts
TaurusWD, if Bush used WMD's to kill people here in USA, wouldn't you think of that as pretty clear and present danger?

Everybody knows that Saddam *had* WMD's, I think everybody agrees with that. I'm not surprised that troops didn't find any though, because he used them up on his own people.

As for the points you are making with tactics of War, it wouldn't be smart for Bush to send massive amounts of ground troops in at first. If you are President, and you are trying to make everybody believe that Iraq has WMD's, it would take a lot of balls to send massive amounts of troops into a place with WMD's. That's why I think he had that fireworks show, I sure wouldn't send troops in first if I thought there was a chance of WMD's being used.

Now whether he really believes there are/were WMD's, or if he did the fireworks to make people think that there must be WMD's is unknown to me. Maybe it's just me, but I can't think a man that uses words like "agreeance" could be the type to be a mastermind behind false accusations of WMD's.

Getting Saddam out of there is good to me, how it was done I don't like so much. I don't think we should have attacked, but he had to after making that ultimatum(another thing I would have done differently). I believe he should have focused on, oh, Bin Laden maybe?

Attacks were made on Bin Laden, and if Bush hadn't started this whole Saddam thing, I think terrorists would have seen that we mean business and we will go after terrorists groups. Bush has spread us too thin, and inspired hatred in people who don't mind dying for their cause.

As for people saying "the world hates us".. Bull **** I love America, and thousands of aliens coming into America must at least like America better than where they are coming from. It's all business with countries. As long as we have rich folk that like to travel and spend tons of money in other countries, we will be liked by countries with "tourist attractions" and disliked by poor, jealous countries, whom if we weren't the most powerful nation, wouldn't pay us any attention.

Skeet
____________________________
Muted
#65 Jan 13 2004 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,070 posts
Quote:
Are you kidding, Skeeter? Tacosid was just complaining of our overabundance of posts and here you're sayin' I need to post more often.

I'm conflicted!

;)

Totem


Well, who are you going to listen to? Your Queen, or your ****

;)

Skeet
____________________________
Muted
#66 Jan 13 2004 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
Quote:
I like how this thread has devolved. It's more about what the person is saying about another person than what they said about the topic. Nice. :)


That's a standard around here, we post in threads as a pretense to flame.

As for Iraq and their documentation, didn't they give us about 50,000 reams of paper, half in Arabic, as documentation of their weapons programs and munitions? Iraq has been playing cat-and-mouse, bait-and-switch for so long there was no clear way to tell what's what over there.
#67 Jan 14 2004 at 1:17 AM Rating: Decent
10 posts
Fizzle material is the stuff in the nuclear bombs that go boom. Most uranium is actually unuseable for Nuclear weapons. I thought WTF do they mean fizzle the first time I heard it, but it's apparently a very common term. If Iraq got a shipment of Uranium, and it had no fizzle material, it would mean that it's pretty much useless unless you have a nuclear reactor. (Then you can process it to the point where it becomes a great weapon)

The massive ground troops, well, yeah, I'd still have them be coming in as the mop up. You don't want to underscore your troop strength either if you're invading a country with potential WMD's. It'd be bad to lose your fighting ability because you had too few soldiers. But the massive amounts of troops would have been mainly for the mop up, and securing.

As far as the example of Bush using WMD's on his own people, you should put that in context of, they were resistance fighters. That'd be like the North using WMD's on the South during the civil war. Sometimes a lot of civilians were taken out also, but the US has used that tactic before. Even though he used the weapons on neighbors, and resistance fighters, he still had no capability for striking the US. Probably the only ally that Saddam could reach is Israel. Even then just barely, and only with the rockets he was destroying towards the end.

If Bush comes up with proof that there actually was a clear and present danger to Americans, then I'll say the war was perfectly justified. Otherwise, it sets a very dangerous precedent. I like that Saddam is gone, that was the biggest bonus out of the war. Bush would have me won on the war if it was for that reason (even though that's a dangerous precedent as well). I just don't like Bush's tactics for the most part. He's a pretty OK person, he just see's things in too much of a black and white for me to completely like him though.
#68 Jan 14 2004 at 1:18 AM Rating: Good
Everything's bigger in Texas
*****
13,594 posts
Point proven. Your so full of yourself. I swear, if your head could get any bigger your **** would burst! New found confidence? Pfft! I think its just the stench of this **** that brings out the best in all of us. Go get ****
____________________________
"There is one quality that one must possess to win, and that is definiteness of purpose, the knowledge of what one wants, and a burning desire to possess it."

- Napoleon Hill


Stargate Worlds
#69 Jan 14 2004 at 5:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:

No doubt there are people who would remain unimpressed if we uncovered a 120' tall mech robot with nuclear missles and a giant anthrax cannon coming out of its chest.


Alright, **** it, who talked???? I want names! That was supposed to be secret! Now I'm going to have to take over switzerland some other way.

Oh well, the best laid evil plans sometimes don't work!

Personally, I think there is definitly something to the reports that certain items were relocated to Syria shortly before the war. Nothing nuclear, but they had ample opertunity and motive to get things out of Iraq beforehand, and we already know some of the "missing" money ended up there. That, or it could be buried somewhere in the desert exactly like that cache and we wouldn't ever find it.

I dunno. if the U.S. does ever go for the "plant evidence" route, I think it makes sense for them to wait a long time to find it. If they located it too early, people would scream "planted evidence" but if they don't find it for a year or two, well, maybe it was just really well hidden right? because the US would have planted it earlier if they could have?

I don't think they are going to need to plant anything in the long run, but I could be wrong.
#70 Jan 14 2004 at 9:14 AM Rating: Decent
*
150 posts
Now THAT is funny
____________________________
Remind me again why I'm doing this?
#71 Jan 14 2004 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Quote:
New found confidence? Pfft! I think its just the stench of this sh*t that brings out the best in all of us.

Two possible scenarios could emerge from this:
1. The stench of your own **** the forum's, if you prefer) would have activated you full potential, turning you into a genius, and you would be well on your way to both curing cancer and managing to figure out the difference between a contraction and a possesive pronoun.*
2. This is the 'best' you can do, which is still pretty lame, so all continues to be right with the world.

I'm going with scenario #2.



*Or you could just be a lazy whore, as previously stated.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#72 Jan 14 2004 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
**
815 posts
Quote:
Katie, if you can confine yourself to personal attacks on others, and never, ever, say anything else about morality or the rightness/wrongness of anything, you may yet turn in to something more than a waste of disk space on the DB server.


Doubtful since her personal flames consist of variations on "I hope you die" and "get ****
#73 Jan 14 2004 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
Everything's bigger in Texas
*****
13,594 posts
Speaking of people who have "new found confidence".... Our, meek,kind, considerate, skeet/thundra lap dog wants to mingle her 2 cents. You, my **** licking fiend, are one of the many "Thundra Cronies" I was speaking of..



P.S.

It would not hurt my feelings in the least if Skeet were to suddenly fall off the face of the Earth.

Edited, Wed Jan 14 19:08:11 2004 by Cherrabwyn
____________________________
"There is one quality that one must possess to win, and that is definiteness of purpose, the knowledge of what one wants, and a burning desire to possess it."

- Napoleon Hill


Stargate Worlds
#74 Jan 14 2004 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
TaurusWD wrote:
Fizzle material is the stuff in the nuclear bombs that go boom. Most uranium is actually unuseable for Nuclear weapons. I thought WTF do they mean fizzle the first time I heard it, but it's apparently a very common term. If Iraq got a shipment of Uranium, and it had no fizzle material, it would mean that it's pretty much useless unless you have a nuclear reactor. (Then you can process it to the point where it becomes a great weapon)


I could be wrong, since I hardly read "Nuclear Weapons Weekly" or anything, but I could have sworn the term was "fissionable", as in "material that can undergo fission".

Fission is when heavy elements break appart into smaller elements. An example of fission is when a pound of Uranium or Plutonium that fits into a breadbox sized warhead converts into a cloud of hydrogen that quickly expands (with much heat and light) to fill a very large volume. That's also called a nuclear explosion.

Fusion is when lighter elements are "fused" into a heavier one. It's usually a byproduct of nuclear reactions. Yes folks. Modern "alchemy" really can turn lead into gold. It's just vastly more expensive then just digging gold out of the ground and will likely leave the most of the gold in a radioactive state.

Quote:
The massive ground troops, well, yeah, I'd still have them be coming in as the mop up. You don't want to underscore your troop strength either if you're invading a country with potential WMD's. It'd be bad to lose your fighting ability because you had too few soldiers. But the massive amounts of troops would have been mainly for the mop up, and securing.


Eh? Hard to say. You're playing a delicate diplomatic balancing act here. Too few troops and you are vulnerable to the inevitable agitators and rebels. Too many, and you look too much like an occupation force rather then a liberating force. There's a time element to that as well, but I'll get to that later.

Quote:
As far as the example of Bush using WMD's on his own people, you should put that in context of, they were resistance fighters. That'd be like the North using WMD's on the South during the civil war. Sometimes a lot of civilians were taken out also, but the US has used that tactic before. Even though he used the weapons on neighbors, and resistance fighters, he still had no capability for striking the US. Probably the only ally that Saddam could reach is Israel. Even then just barely, and only with the rockets he was destroying towards the end.


I'm extremely confused by this paragraph. When did Bush using WMD on his own people come into the discussion? Wasn't that Saddam who did that? I had to read the bit about Israel about 3 times to realize you meant "ally of the US". It sounded like you were implying that Israel was an ally of the Iraqis.

In any case though. The difference is that certain types of weapons are "illegal" to use (geneva conventions, UN resolutions, and such). Using bio/chem weapons on civilian populations is a biggie. Using them in war is also a biggie. He did both.

The Kurds are "resistance fighters" in about the same way that seasonal Mexican crop laborers here in the US are. A marginalized, "foreign" group that the regime doesn't like and wouldn't mind just disappearing. The difference again is that while the US may attempt to make things unpleasant for illegals in the US, to my knowledge, there has never been an incident of the US government using poison gas to kill off shantytowns full of those darn, border-crossing, sneaky folks who just want to earn a living.

Quote:
If Bush comes up with proof that there actually was a clear and present danger to Americans, then I'll say the war was perfectly justified. Otherwise, it sets a very dangerous precedent. I like that Saddam is gone, that was the biggest bonus out of the war. Bush would have me won on the war if it was for that reason (even though that's a dangerous precedent as well). I just don't like Bush's tactics for the most part. He's a pretty OK person, he just see's things in too much of a black and white for me to completely like him though.


I've asked this before. I'll ask again. What exactly would you consider "proof" of this? A "Clear and Present Danger" scenario isn't always easy to prove. At least not until after the fact. Actually, it's kinda funny that we use that term, but in the modern world, there's nothing "clear" about it at all. The only "Clear" danger would be a military force, with stated intention to attack, posted just across our border. Given the geographical, political, and military position of the US, that's just not likely to happen anytime soon.

Everything else that presents a "Danger" to the US is by neccessity going to be vague and unclear. You can't have a "Clear" proof of someone attacking with a suitcase bomb until the bomb goes off. The point was that we knew these things:

1. Iraq had an active WMD program prior to the first gulf war. This is an absolute fact.

2. Iraq did not destroy nearly as many weapons under UN inspections as they *should* have had. Note, that we can never know for sure how many they produced, only estimate them based on the amount of infrastructure they've got, resources, etc.

3. Iraq made great pains to conceal/destroy all evidence of the WMD programs that they had. We've got virtuall no actual documentation of where they build their WMD, how many they built, where they were stored, or what became of them.


Fast forward. This state is going on for 10 years. At what point does this go from oddity to "clear and present danger"? At what point do you conclude that if they can hide the weapons they did have, and are going to obvious and great efforts to retain as much ability to continue building more WMD once the santions are lifted and the inspectors leave as possible, that they obviously intend to build more weapons? If we can make that conclusion, then how much of a stretch is it to conclude that the weapons they do make will largely be aimed at us?


Iraq does not need to have missile capable of reaching the continental US. They just need to give the material to any of a number of terrorist groups (not even Al-queda), and let them be the delivery platform. It's just that when you add up the increase in terrorist activity towards us and the great potential for Iraq to supply really deadly warheads to those terrorists, and the imminent removal of UN sanctions and inspections which were arguably the only thing preventing Iraq from building those weapons and Saddams stated hatred for us and intention to hurt us if he could, I think you can arguably state that allowing Saddam's regime to continue in power in Iraq did represent a "Clear and present danger" to the US.


I don't need "proof" to know that handing a gun to a man with a record of armed robbery means that he'll likely use it to rob someone. That's exactly what was about to happen. The UN was about to lift the sanctions and inspections in Iraq. Every bit of intel screamed that if that happened, Iraq would go right back (very quickly) to building bio/chem weapons, and resuming attempts to build a nuclear program. Heck. Common sense tells you that would have happened. Whether the "terrorist as delivery system" method would have been utilized is the only unknown in the equation. Can you honestly state, with no doubt in your mind that Saddam wouldn't have done that? Would you, if you were the president, have made the choice to do nothing? We had the ability to remove Saddam's regime (clearly). Thus, we had the ability to prevent those future weapons from being built in the first place. We did not and do not have any ability to prevent bio/chem weapons from moving from a country that builds them into the hands of a terrorist organization. We did not and do not have any really effective way of finding and preventing said terrorists from using those weapons against US citizens. Given all the options available, toppling Saddam's regime was the choice that granted the highest probability of preventing the loss of US citizens lives in the long run.


Now. Having said that, there are a number of things that must be done to follow up on it (or it's possibly a wasted effort). Toppling Saddam bought us some time. We need to use it to get more reliable intel in the area. We need to finally start taking terrorist groups seriously. I think we're doing that now, but there's no way for us as average citizens to know how effectively. We can hope though...


Also, the occupation needs to be ended as quickly as possible. We've been dragging our feet a bit on this. I would assume it's because we hadn't gotten Saddam yet. The transition from provisional government to permanent one is a vulnerable time. Leaving Saddam as a potential player would have been disasterous. I think the best choice at this point is to help the Iraqi's build a new government for themselve. I also think we need to let them make all the choices about it. Insist on initial representation from the whole country, put them in a room to hammer out the rules of their new government, and then let them do it from there on their own.

I also think we should let them try Saddam. However, I'd make a condition that they must try him with whatever legal system they come up with (ie: It's done after their permanent government is in place). They will need to live with whatever system they use. I think that most people, when given the power and responsibility will tend to act responsibly. We can't sit in their country forever. The sooner we hand control back to the Iraqi's, the better. Even if whatever government they come up with isn't one we particularly like, we'll have better relations with them and the entire region if we let them choose it, instead of forcing our desires on them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Jan 14 2004 at 9:32 PM Rating: Decent
10 posts
Doh, sorry about the confusion in my post, was too lazy to quote what I was responding to. If you look at skeet's reply to my original post he makes a comment about Bush using WMD's on us would that be a clear and present danger. Oops on the lack of clarification too. My thoughts going through my head are usually a lot more complex than what I type. Those that end up reading what I type might end up missing out on what I was thinking, so that it would make sense to them.

Gbaji, I agree with your post almost entirely hehe. You make some good points. I think the situation in Iraq is just too muddled for any one right answer to be right, and I like some of your thoughts on it too. Kudo's for the critical thinking!

The Fizzle thing, I guess it's just slang, not neccessarily common lingo, it might even be the same as pop/soda/soda pop for all I know. I just know that the fizzle material is the stuff that can actually combine in a fusion reaction to create the explosion that we think of when we see nuclear bombs go off.

In the case of Uranium 2% of naturally occuring Uranium is "fizzle" material. That means if you pick up a hunk of Uranium only 2% of it is useuable for bombs. To give you an idea, that 2% is not enough to make a nuclear bomb, it's not even enough for a nuclear reactor. It takes 10-15% of the Uranium isotope "fizzle" material for a nuclear reaction to produce energy. I'm pretty sure the IAEA clearly specifies how much of that material can be used in commercial nuclear reactors. Because in the case of weapons grade nuclear bombs, you need around 80% of the material to be "fizzle" material. But I don't think we're disagreeing on this really. I think I just use the term fizzle, and you use the term fissionable. Not hard to make a leap to see fizzle as the slang term of fissionable. I just know this paragraph was confusing hehe.

The last thing I wanted to mention. Is I think the only reason why we won't be able to pull out quick, is because we don't really, really want a democracy there. We say we do, but an outright democracy would have a Shiite leader, and I think that's the last thing the current U.S. Administration wants. So we're trying to make sure that we don't get another Iran set up before we leave. Of course I don't know how to avoid that, there would have to be someway to split the power and have the Iraqi people to be happy, but I'm not going to think of it any time soon.

Maybe Gbaji will. He/She seems smart enough to come up with ingenuitive(sp?) ideas. (not sarcasm)
#76 Jan 14 2004 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,277 posts
The Glorious Cherrabwyn wrote:
You, my **** licking fiend, are one of the many "Thundra Cronies" I was speaking of..


I hardly think that anyone needs inspiration to take a shot at you. You are the biggest, fishiest **** on this board. No wonder you get so much attention.

Good to know that Skeet is getting to you though.Smiley: laugh
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#77 Jan 14 2004 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
Everything's bigger in Texas
*****
13,594 posts
Oh! That tickled! Listen up light weight gonna give you, your first lesson in flaming.

Lesson 1. Grow some balls! If you have something to say, put it out there. Your lacking in the "HEAT" department. Wonder why they keep at it? Besides that I love to annoy the **** out of 'em! It's because of this nifty flame retardent suit I wear, and my self-righting stance.


____________________________
"There is one quality that one must possess to win, and that is definiteness of purpose, the knowledge of what one wants, and a burning desire to possess it."

- Napoleon Hill


Stargate Worlds
#78 Jan 14 2004 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,277 posts
LOL...YOU are going to give a lesson in flaming?? Now, this should be good.

The Glorious Cherrabwyn wrote:
Listen up light weight gonna give you, your first lesson in flaming.


Listen up, Troglodyte, I'm going to give you your first lesson in grammar. Now, get your fishy **** over here!



Edited, Wed Jan 14 22:09:11 2004 by taredoru
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#79 Jan 14 2004 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
Everything's bigger in Texas
*****
13,594 posts
No way man! You're going to have way too much fun! Keep your hands to yourself. This is my grammar. BAD TAREDU! MUAHH!!
____________________________
"There is one quality that one must possess to win, and that is definiteness of purpose, the knowledge of what one wants, and a burning desire to possess it."

- Napoleon Hill


Stargate Worlds
#80 Jan 14 2004 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,245 posts
Quote:
Oh! That tickled!


Playing with the man in the canoe while reading your newly received flames is a sure sign of a "bottom". Masochism is a good thing though.

Quote:
Listen up light weight gonna give you, your first lesson in flaming.


Nice one. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that. The very idea of someone being bad enough at flaming that you would be able to provide a lesson. The head smims in giddiness.

Quote:
Lesson 1. Grow some balls!


Not really necessary. There are plenty of people posting here who lack outdoor plumbing that can and have singed the unibrow off your forehead.

Quote:
Your lacking in the "HEAT" department.


Yeah, cause it's not like you have purchased land in the Northwest Territory or anything. "HEAT" from Katielynn is generally measured on the Kelvin scale. numbers that small wouldn't thaw ice on Ferenheit.

Quote:
Wonder why they keep at it? Besides that I love to annoy the **** out of 'em!


No, that'd pretty much be it, right there.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#81 Jan 14 2004 at 10:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Quote:
Wonder why they keep at it?

Well, I for one, loved to pick on children an retards back when I was in school, and it seems that old habits die hard. Thanks for asking, though. Your interest in me would be flattering, except that you're probably the most unimpressive person alive.



By the way, your longing to be Thundra is showing. Your gratuitous use of the word "twat"= trying too hard. Don't hurt yourself.

Edited, Wed Jan 14 22:20:15 2004 by Atomicflea
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#82 Jan 14 2004 at 10:20 PM Rating: Good
Everything's bigger in Texas
*****
13,594 posts
Oy Mobeious! The laughter is returned. Quite made me chuckle, even. Thats a first on these boards in quite a while. Do it again!
____________________________
"There is one quality that one must possess to win, and that is definiteness of purpose, the knowledge of what one wants, and a burning desire to possess it."

- Napoleon Hill


Stargate Worlds
#83 Jan 15 2004 at 12:01 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,070 posts
Quote:
Listen up light weight gonna give you, your first lesson in flaming.


Inner thoughts of Katie: "I see smart people use commas all the time, I can use them too!"

Commas actually have a purpose, dear Katie. It's sort of, a pause, so to say.

Example: "So the other day I, went to the store" = bad.

"So, the other day I went to the store" = good.

Quote:
flame retardent suit I wear


Sorry folks, let me clear that up for you. She meant "flaming retarded suit".

Quote:
and my self-righting stance.


Um... Sorry. I can't help you there. I have no idea what the **** you are trying to say with that. Self-righting stance?
/boggle

Don't let all this confuse the truth though, Katie and I are good friends. I stopped by Wal-mart to check out your gift registry for your wedding. To everybody bringing gifts: I already picked up the Vagisil, so don't worry about picking that up.

On second thought, she needs as much of that as she can get. Go ahead and get it, I'll be sure to pick up a few more tubes.

Queen Skeet Smiley: king
____________________________
Muted
#84 Jan 15 2004 at 12:16 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,070 posts
Quote:
You, my **** licking fiend


That was a very pitiful remark from a even more pitiful person. Obviously somebody that has been beat down profusely and is lashing out in a feeble attempt to save face.

Very sad Katie, even for you. You should stick with "Get **** it's close to working, really. A+ material, all the way.

Ok, this is getting boring. Kind of like listening to an Asian man say Fried Rice, funny the first 100 times or so, but even that eventually gets old.

To sum up what we all learned from "The Katie Experiment"

Katie is a moron, an idiot, a **** whore, a lazy whore, and has no idea of when to call it quits and 'quit while she is ahead'.

Ok, so she never was ahead, you get what I'm sayin' though.

Queen Skeet Smiley: king
____________________________
Muted
#85 Jan 15 2004 at 1:18 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,245 posts
Quote:
Um... Sorry. I can't help you there. I have no idea what the **** you are trying to say with that. Self-righting stance?
/boggle


One has to give the benifit of the doubt at times, so I would have to assume it is referring to the verb "to right", as in to set one's self "right side up". Webters defines it as "To put in, or restore to, an upright or proper position". Dash cunning of her to use words in a manner which would indicate a level of intelligence somewhere between coco the gorilla and my retarded 8 year old cousin.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#86 Jan 15 2004 at 5:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,371 posts
Quote:
Oh! That tickled! Listen up light weight gonna give you, your first lesson in flaming.

Lesson 1. Grow some balls! If you have something to say, put it out there. Your lacking in the "HEAT" department. Wonder why they keep at it? Besides that I love to annoy the **** out of 'em! It's because of this nifty flame retardent suit I wear, and my self-righting stance.


I wish I could hear Katie's thought process in Dolby surround sound. She is bonkers.
____________________________
Crosscontinuum Copulation Diety of The Great Enigma
#87 Jan 15 2004 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Quote:
Sorry folks, let me clear that up for you. She meant "flaming retarded suit".

**** you, Skeet! I wasted perfectly good coffee by spewing it all over my desk.Smiley: cry

I can quit drinking coffee any time I want.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#88 Jan 15 2004 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
**
815 posts
Quote:
Speaking of people who have "new found confidence".... Our, meek,kind, considerate, skeet/thundra lap dog wants to mingle her 2 cents. You, my **** licking fiend, are one of the many "Thundra Cronies" I was speaking of..


Oh, I feel so special! Katie noticed me! /swoon

Where the **** have you been? I haven't been meek, kind, or considerate in weeks.

And no, I don't have to be a "lap dog" to think you're an idiot. You make it clear every time you post. =)

Have a nice day, sweetie!
#89 Jan 15 2004 at 11:41 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,070 posts
My bad.

Good thing I'm not a multi-tasker. When I need a drink, I grab my cup, drink some, set it down, then go back to what I was doing.

Queen Skeet Smiley: king
____________________________
Muted
#90 Jan 15 2004 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
**
321 posts
You're right Skeet. that was one **** of an **** raping.

Sorry Katie I don't have and pillows for you to sit on to ease the pain.


Edit: You can count on Skeet to give out a ravenous beast Sodomy.

Edited, Thu Jan 15 11:50:16 2004 by SpenceDMann
____________________________
- Spence D'Mann
#91 Jan 15 2004 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,277 posts
SpenceDMann wrote:
You're right Skeet. that was one **** of an **** raping.


Skeet, did you sodomize Katie??? Oh dear.

____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#92 Jan 15 2004 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,437 posts
ewwwwwwwwwwww
#93 Jan 15 2004 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Time to lighten up this thread.

Note the backup dancers. Don't they look like they are tweaking boobies like a 14 year old would? In case you didn't guess this already, you should turn the volume down. Not obscene, though.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#94 Jan 15 2004 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,277 posts
Flea! How the **** do you find this stuff? And what's with that guy getting b*tch-slapped with a fish? Ha ha ha...
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#95 Jan 15 2004 at 12:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
8,619 posts
that was funny Flea Smiley: lol
____________________________
[wowsig]2213854[/wowsig]
Jarkeld Hammerhiem Lvl 36 Paladin/Lvl 30 Armourer
Lestril Hammerhiem Lvl 40 Monk/Lvl 28 Provisioner Blackburrow server
Iaedian Tailchaser lvl 60 Fury/36 Jeweler. Proud member of <Bane> Crushbone server

Your mind is like a Parachute, it only works if it's open.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Debalic, Demea, ElneClare, Anonymous Guests (40)