| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73
Comments:
<0> we have to expand our usage and control of energy
<1> naw. by current estiamtes, the average person is around 8-9 dollars in various minerals
<1> Ipropose bigger SUVs
<0> we develop new energy sources faster when we have demand
<2> Vzz, to find WMD
<2> Vzz, bush needs to go in space to find WMD.. as mentioned by one international expert..
<3> to find pains au chocolats
<3> *on Mars
<0> pmo, I thought we had to go to iraq to remove a dictator and attempt to slowly turn them into a democracy
<3> and there were no pains au chocolat in Iraq
<4> Hansard - You might want to check back on what the administration said their primary focus was on the war
<5> did anyone see the released pentagon video?
<3> Player: a stated reason doesn't have to be, and in this case wasn't, the only or real reasons
<3> www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
<0> PlayerTwo, WMD was an excuse to get ignorant people to say 'yes'
<4> Timur - Is that why Rumsfeld continually stated that "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?"
<2> Hansard, yes, that is after the invasion, not before..
<3> I don't know. I'd say that was a tactical decision to drum up support. Not to be confused with the strategic decision to attack.
<0> pmo, no the WMD was an excuse BEFORE the invasion
<2> Hansard, yes this is what i meant..
<3> it wasn't even the only 'excuse' (read: reason)
<2> Hansard, turn into democracy was after the war in iraq..
<0> no there is a difference between reason and excuse, reason implies purpose
<0> there was no evidence of WMD and Bush new that and the reason they invaded was regime change
<6> well, we did find out after the invasion, that Iraq had illegally purchased ~500,000 kilograms of uranium..
<0> therefore WMD was an 'excuse'
<4> so.. you're saying that their stated reason, in every public address, was not their real reason.. and that their real reason was to depose him because he was a bad person?
<3> Hans: it was one among many *reasons*.
<3> Lup: say it ain't so. :)
<0> PlayerTwo, yes a 'bad person' that killed hundreds of thousands of people
<6> timur: including ~100tons from Niger :-)
<2> Hansard, he didn't want to destroy.. the supposed WMD..
<0> and an obstacle to trade
<4> Hansard - I think that's shortsighted. The administration clearly has no intention of deposing dictators.
<0> brb
<0> yes it does
<6> it was saddam's duty to comply with the UN, and not only destroy his WMD, but prove he destroyed it. He failed to do *HIS* obligation
<4> right.. that's why we're locked in a gruelling campaign in North Korea.
<4> <=/
<2> Hansard, but your comment make sense, i do agree.. but that was not notified at the time..the reason.; was.. saddam didn't want to apply international regulation..
<6> um, we are locked in a long quagmire in korea, since ~1950 in fact.
<6> i believe the 38th parallel is the longest occupied military zone in the world
<3> Lup: no way!
<4> and yet, no invasion forces.
<3> pmo: and he never did
<6> because NK could obliderate Souel in just a few hours, they have so much artillary am***ed
<3> and it was pretty much an inevitability, even if 9/11 hadn't happened, but of course that was a catalyst.
<2> Lupine, never heard that.. experts said they were NO WMD..
<4> and Iraq couldn't? after all, they had "weapons of m*** destruction"
<2> French Told CIA of Bogus Intelligence http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-niger11dec11,0,3678379.story?track=tothtml More than a year before President Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa, the French spy service began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation. However, the es
<2> sence of Chouet's account that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim, found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA was extensively corroborated by the former CIA official and a current French government official, who both spoke on condition of anonymity. The repeated warnings from France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure did not prevent the Bush administration from making the case aggressively tha
<2> t Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons materials. The French opposed U.S. policy on Iraq and refused to support the invasion. But whether or not that made top U.S. officials skeptical of the French report on Niger, intelligence officials from both countries said that they cooperated closely during the prewar period and continued to do so. And the French conclusions on Niger were supported by some in the CIA.
<2> Bush State of the Union speech 2003 - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
<6> pmo: your "experts" would be morons then. As obviously saddam has WMD, he killed iranians and kurds with it
<4> Lupine - um... those "moron experts" would be congressional agencies and white house employees.
<2> Lupine, well those were US one.. and they talked officialy they didn't find any...
<6> nice to "cherry pick" one report out of thousands if not millions, thanks to 20:20
<3> pmo: is it really necessary to flood paste all that
<3> gosh.
<7> im betting nobody read it
<6> Saddam had WMD. Much of it was documented and cataloged by the UN itself. The question is: what happend to it? we don't know.
<7> he destroyed it
<6> that's the honest answer is that: we don't KNOW what happened to it.
<6> td: but he offered no proof of it.
<7> and tried to provide proove to boosh that he destroyed it
<7> but boosh wasnt listening
<7> proof
<2> Lupine, oh yes.. but since then all destroyed.. you refer to the time of the war in koweit.. and the war with iran.. sometime ago.. UN sanctions..and investigations.. were after.. and most if not all have been destroyed.. either by US air plane and UN pressure..
<6> sorry, Hans Blix himself couldn't substantiate what happend to them
<5> again, did anyone see the pentagon tape?
<6> the official UN finding of fact is simply: there is no substantiated evidence as to what happend to the WMD.
<6> peopl elove to overlook that.
<4> that's a misstatement, actually.
<8> yes Hans Blix was skeptical of the claims that Iraq had WMD.
<6> but even China and Russia agreed
<4> the UN statement is "There is no substantial evidence that WMDs were under his posession"
<6> p2: citation for that exact sentence please. [ or admit you made it up ]
<8> So it's not like he was saying "WOW where did all these WMD go?!"
<8> It was not surprise to him there weren't any.
<4> It's not a fact that he had them in his posession and then destroyed them. That's the rationale, of course, when you base an effort on an ***umption that the weapons exist, and refuse to acknowledge these facts when they aren't found.
<3> I just saw the videos
<3> they don't reveal much of anything.
<4> Lupine - Read the 9/11 Commission Report. I'd give you a page number if I had it handy
<6> P2/Ajofi I know its unfair ot ***-rape you with actual facts, but you deserve it
<6> "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of m*** destruction and ballistic missiles"
<3> player2: except they weren't as important as either stated or as the numbnuts against the war seem to think.
<1> I wonder if UN troops, like the oens that rape little girls in Africa....might help the middle east situation
<6> UN security council resolution 1441: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement
<3> hence:
<3> www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
<5> Timur: i see a small thing approaching at 1:27 on the first tape, looks too small to be a 757 though
<5> and a puff of smoke in the 2nd
<4> Lup - Notice that nothing in what you just quotes is at all similar to "Saddam had weapons, but he destroyed them."
<2> Lupine, why do you think they didn't want the war in iraq.. because it didn't make sense.. at the time.. US authorities.. said they'll show some proof.. of WMD.. they didn't argue a long time.; and some time after the war, all found out. that the so precious document was more about a menu in a restaurant than anything else.
<6> P2: unlike you, I dont make up "quotes"
<4> Making up quotes and arbitrarily misquoting are just as bad, Lup. Please go read the report.
<9> hi PlayerTwo
<6> Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991),
<6> 9/11 commision? lol.. we're talking about Iraq you ****nut
<4> Ah.. I see you haven't read the report.
<4> No surprise then.
<8> because they didn't file their paperwork properly you ***ume they have WMD?
<8> that's poor logic
<6> Russia agreed, China agreed, France agreed that Saddam did not comply.
<8> as is demonstrated by the facts that they didn't have them
<9> who did not file paperwork?
<2> Lupine, no access
<6> ajofi: no, I ***ume nothing. I merely abide by the wisdom of Hans Blix.
<2> OMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, ../.. His Government did not subscribe to what might be the other objectives of a war, he said. As to a regime change in Baghdad, while no one underestimated the cruelty of that dictatorship, that was not the objective of resolution 1441. And force was certainly not the best way to bring about democracy. It would encourage dangerous instability, there and elsewhere.
<2> As for fighting terrorism, war would only increase it, and the world would then be faced with a new wave of violence. As for remolding the political landscape of the Middle East, doing so ran the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already marked by great instability. ../.. 07th march /2003 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.p2.doc.htm
<4> Lupine's just making his **** up again. <=/ He thinks the UN, by stating that Saddam did not comply with reasolution 687, by proxy is somehow stating that Saddam had WMDs and destroyed them.
<4> The two claims are of course completely unrelated.
<6> Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure
<10> You guys are forgetting one very important fact that made Iraq in violation of 1441. The fact that over 100 times they shot at US jets in the No-Fly Zones in north and southern Iraq. That show of hostility was in violation of 1441 many times over, and if you wanna be technical about it, could be called the reason for invading, WMD's totally aside
<4> He isn't admitting to this, though.
<8> lupine: the wisdom of Hans Blix?
<6> I agree fully wiht that statement. You may piss in teh wind.
<8> "We have not found any smoking guns." Hans Blix?
<11> <+pmo> As for fighting terrorism, war would only increase it, and the world would then be faced with a new wave of violence. <--- notice USA hasn't been attacked on its own soil since 9/11, while England, France, and others who subscribe to "Peace first" idealisms have?
<2> Lupine, yes at the time.. Saddam was asked to destroy skuds.. which could go 10 miles more than it should..
<8> "The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of m*** destruction ... whether from pre-1991 or later." Hans Blix
<6> ajofi: Saddam had to complete multiple requirements.
<4> ajofi - Ten bucks, Lupine won't acknowledge that quote.
<9> does it matter?
<10> Did Saddam order AA guns to fire at US war planes over 100 times in the 1990's? Yes or no? Was it in violation of the terms of 1441? Yes or no. Very simple
<11> ajofi, now, shall we look at the Duelfur report?
<2> Lupine, i think at the time. he knew.. whatever he would do.. his regime would collapse.. and if he really had any WMD.. i suppose that wouldn't have been to hide those, in time he would face the collapse of his regime...
<8> "The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it, ... And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery." Hans Blix
<9> its all a game
<9> lol
<6> Of course, we have since learned that Saddam has purchased hundreds of thousands of kilograms of uranium illegally.
<4> Red Barch - Did the US respond militarily to those actions in 1990? Yes or no?
<3> it's funny, because it's totally irrelevant
<10> PlayerTwo: Im talking specifically after we withdrew and Saddam agreed to the no fly zones
<12> red how about scoitt spiker he is still missing
<9> Timur, how did you do that?
<6> pmo: saddam hide hundreds of thousands of kilograms of uranium all 13 years from inspectors.
<4> Red_Barch - That wasn't in 1990
<8> "This does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might. There remain a long list of items unaccounted for, ... But it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it was unaccounted for." Hans Blix
<6> ajofi: it is irrelevent if it existed or not.
<8> Lupine (4:16:34 PM): ajofi: no, I ***ume nothing. I merely abide by the wisdom of Hans Blix.
<2> Lupine, i don't agree. never seen this mentioned..
<1> I have
<8> If you abide by the wisdom of Hans Blix, then you'd agree it is not justified to jump to conclusions that something exists just because it's unaccounted for.
<6> ajofi: right. saddam has to account for all the WMD. he failed. it is irrelevent if he did destroy them, or did not.
<8> It is relevent per Hans Blix.
<6> ajofi: i didn't claim they did exist anymore. It is irrelevent that they did or did not exist.
<8> And you said that you abide by his wisdom.
<11> Saddams primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#politics
girls in clogs
Flash htmlText +linebreak
I dont like guinness
#mirc
#goal
#politics
#politics
#nhl
#gentoo
|
|