|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 8, 2004 19:25:06 GMT -5
You mean the guy who invite people to go in the Super Sex club with free passes?!? ;D Yes, the one with the moustaches. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 8, 2004 20:34:21 GMT -5
Hey BC, isn't all that the same thing as I'd said in like, 2 lines ?  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Mar 14, 2004 4:38:01 GMT -5
A press release by Osama bin Laden has just been translated by Al Jazera. They said the actions of the satanic dog, Todd Bertuzzi have no place in a civilized Muslim world.  Aristide said if he had ten men like Bertuzzi, the rebels would never have made it to Port au Prince. George "W" Bush said, "Heh, heh, heh, I'm inviting Mr. Bertuzzi to debate the Democrats. ;D US Major General quote, "I would rather face the a German Army division in front of me than hab Todd Bertuzzi behind me!"  If there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war, there sure are some there now! What difference does it make. We got the bad guy and we're getting his henchmen. Will we ever find good guys there? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 15, 2004 0:47:18 GMT -5
But that’s not what we were told, now is it? We weren’t told, or led to believe, that there are one or two small bombs hidden in the vast oceans of sand in Iraq, now were we? No. What we were told was that there were huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That Iraq had the ability to strike with chemical, biological, perhaps even nuclear weapons, with barely 45 minutes advance warning. That they were a threat to the world. That kind of striking ability isn’t confined to one or two small bombs carefully stashed away, their whereabouts closely guarded secrets that only a select few know about. That kind of striking ability requires a vast network of people, supplies, knowledge. An infrastructure. You need dozens of scientists in state-of-the-art facilities, researching, and designing these kinds of weapons. You need spies, negotiators and thieves, willing to beg, borrow and steal the ingredients, and get them across borders. You need manufacturing plants, workers, cafeteria employees, truck drivers to build the weapons. You need warehouses to store them. Remember, we were told their hundreds of thousands of tones of this stuff lying around. You need officers who know where they are, how to get them, and when they should be used. And finally, you need soldiers who know how to use them (i.e. don’t fire them into the wind). Actually, the answer to that question depends more on who you ask at what time. Roughly speaking the US Government has said that the Iraqi government had access to weapons of mass destruction. Different degrees at different times of course - sometimes it was played up a bit - but that's the gist of it. As for your statement "you require dozens of scientist...." and what not, that's not terribly accurate. I mean, a couple years ago a kid in Chicago built a Nuclear Reactor in his back yard. Or his shed. Something like that. Anyways, the point is that he built one with minimal equipment and zero of his high-tech infrastructure you talk about. Not to mention the fact that having them does not require production facilities at all. The kind of infrastructure we were led to believe exists in Iraq requires thousands of people, plants, warehouses, trucks, trains. We know where the Iraqi’s built their fighter planes, because while you can hide a plane, you can’t really hide the process it takes to build one. Wouldn’t you think at least one of the thousands of people that are involved in this sort of thing would have stepped forward by now? Cooperated with coalition forces? Wouldn’t some soldier, a private or something, have stepped forward and said “I drove a truck full of stuff I wasn’t allowed to look at, to this spot in the desert?” Yeah, his fighters were built in Russia. So much for the infrastructure theory. You just don't need it in this day and age. You just need to have a friend to have access to it. And while there is a limited number of states in the US with the technology to produce nuclear weaponry, biological and chemical weaponry is (relitively) easy to produce. And share. As for the soldiers who might have stepped forward... how does the saying go? Dead men tell no tales? And we know Saddam and his cronies have never had any problem with killing people just because they know something. Never mind finding actual weapons, the fact that they can’t find even a hint of an infrastructure that is more recent than 1993 speaks volumes. So pre-1993 infrastructure is acceptable? Discounting the fact that you don't need the infrastructure, what exactly do you mean? That it would be okay for Saddam to weild WMD's produced at the level of technology available in 1993? Or that we just happened to know about the infrastructure, so it's okay? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 17, 2004 14:57:26 GMT -5
You and Tony Blair are perhaps the only two people left on the planet who actually believe WMD are going to be found in Iraq. This is a bad war. I have felt so since Day 1. Why? Because I do not believe, for a second, that the world is a safer place now. Not for a second. For all the blustering that went on pre-war, and continues to this day, the Iraqis were not a violently anti-American people. They were too busy hating Saddam Hussein, to be bothered with hating America. Personally, that was fine by me. Forget about this noble idea of “freeing the Iraqi people” – that wasn’t, nor was it ever, the reason for going to war. If freeing an oppressed people was really the goal, then American and coalition tanks would have rolled through Saudi Arabia long before they rolled through Iraq. Try being a woman in Riyadh, if you want to know what real oppression is like. So, quite frankly, I don’t care about the Iraqi people. And neither do 99% of the people who supported the war. Oh sure, they’ll cluck-cluck and “tis-a-shame” but really, nobody cares. There are a lot of countries whose people are in much worse shape than Iraq’s. What I do care about, and which I have always stated, is what affect this has on us. Americans, Canadians, British. Westerners. Because now WE are the enemy. Not Saddam Hussein, he doesn’t exist anymore. WE are the causes of all problems in Iraq now. Rightly or wrongly, that is the perception. IRAQI citizens planted car bombs that kill hundreds of fellow IRAQIS, and yet, it is AMERICAN troops that are pelted with rocks by infuriated crowds. A recent poll found that the majority of the people is supposedly “friendly” Muslim countries – Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and Morocco – do not trust the US, have a favorable view of Osama Bin Laden, and think that suicide attacks on US and Israeli targets are justified. Apparently most of the Muslim world thinks the US is just trying to grab Iraqi oil. With friends like these…<br> www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/17/terror.poll.ap/index.htmlNo matter how much we politely debate the merits of the war, or what our perceptions of it are, in the end our opinion does not matter. What matters is the opinion of those people in the poll above, and those opinions aren’t favorable. Sadly, this is precisely what we predicted. I would love nothing more than tha to see a “tsunami of freedom and democracy spreading across the Middle East.” Not for a second do I believe this is the beginning of said wave. Estimates say that somewhere around 10,000 Iraqis have died since the war began, in the anarchy, civil strife, war and terrorism that is the brave new Iraq. 10,000. That’s a lot of grieving Iraqis. Consider a present day, 8 year old Iraqi boy. What will he remember, in 10 years? Will he remember the oppressive nature of the Husseins? Or, will he remember that: * his dad, a conscripted private in the army, was killed defending his country from invasion. * his uncle, aunt, and 3 cousins, were killed when an errant cruise missile hit their house * his brother was killed when a car bomb exploded outside the heavily fortified American compound * his other brother was killed when American troops fired into a crowd of protestors * his mother was frisked – handled – by heavily armed troops at a checkpoint on the way to the market, as he watched. Is he going to sit there and say “well, it was all necessary, to get rid of Saddam Hussein?” Or, will he blame America for all his ills? I said it before, and I will say it again – the seeds of the terrorist strikes we will see in 5-10 years are being planted now. That 8 year old is going to grow up to be a very angry 18 year old, with a very personal grudge against America, Americans, and their allies. And its that 18 year old that scares me. Because who knows what he is going to do. American troops stationed themselves in Saudi Arabia following Gulf War I. 10 years later, 15 Saudis flew hijacked airplanes into the Twin Towers, killing over 2500 Americans, and dozens of Canadians, in part because they were protesting against the US “occupation” of Saudi Arabia. What will happen 10 years from now, by people protesting the US “occupation” of Iraq? Heck, forget 10 years from now, it may have already happened in Madrid. Whether it was intentional or not – even if it wasn’t them – Al Quaeda just orchestrated a regime change in Spain. Don’t think they didn’t notice that. I did not oppose this war because I had any great love of Saddam Hussein, or because I am a peace-loving, make-love-not-war, hell-no-we-shouldn’t-go kind of guy. I opposed this war because I see no good coming of it for us. Cowardly, perhaps, but realistic. If “freeing” the Iraqi people means my family might get slaughtered in a terrorist attack… well, I guess I just don’t care enough about the Iraqi’s to make that sacrifice. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 17, 2004 15:24:24 GMT -5
Something I posted just about a year ago. Not a happy anniversary in this case. ----- Yes, I know guys, the Forces for JustWar just were far too powerful against the poor Doves. We enjoined the battle only to see the opposition melt away like Iraqi armour. Yup, since the opposition could not withstand the debilitating onslaught of our "justness and goodness" debate so I switched sides to challenge you young ones and keep you sharp and in fighting trim.  Had I known, I could have saved you a fair amount of typing. To wit: Here is a compilation of my posts re the Iraq fiasco. I haven't bothered posting since, because nothing has happened to change either my original perspective or prediction. I did however somehow disregard Syria's integration into the mess. My bad. ***** « Reply #8 on: Mar 21st, 2003, 9:29pm » To build something takes time, to blow something up takes no time at all. The aftermath is bound to be infinitely more difficult, and could quite possibly plunge the entire region into crisis. Old claims will be brought up. Scores will be settled. Ambitions will be tested. I shudder to imagine the possible magnitude of all this. Especially if the Infidel occupies a Muslim country on whatever pretext. The restructuring of Iraq is best left to the UN. The Americans are a useful tool with their technology in the first stage of the process, but their Coca Cola foreign policy should be kept on this side of the Atlantic after that. « Reply #16 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:38am » Increasingly lost in the hysteria and testosterone rush of wanting and seeing big explosions is the fact that very few have advocated keeping Saddam in power. His removal has been called for by almost all. It is the question of methods and motives (or M&Ms as I'm sure the Cheerleader News Network would quickly get around to calling it) that is eyed with suspicion. The Americans are far from holier than thou: In fact, employing rhetoric slung about in recent years, this can be described as a battle between The Great Satan and The Axis of Evil (there's a working title for a Sunday morning cartoon show for some enterprising young American). This mortal coil is, after all, the domain that was granted to the Fallen One. As for the Shocking and Aweful photos: so what? Such photos can be dredged up daily from the four corners of the world. Might as well show photos of homeless people dead on heating grates and in alley ways, subway suicide victims; and make the claim that a nation that can't guarantee the safety and well-being of its own population has no business policing the world. It is ironic to see the Americans using the two things that they have more of than anyone else in the world to destroy one of their own creations. What remains to be seen is what the embryo they will seek to nourish with their money and weapons will look like as it grows. Recent past history has not been flattering in this regard. « Reply #18 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 1:48pm » What really sucks is that the American government created and sustained Saddam in the first place. Reality doesn't suck. It just is. The American government (especially its foreign policy) is what sucks. The Americans are not the only ones who could remove Saddam. They are the ones who have chosen to do it in their own unpopular fashion. Though in a sense it's fitting that they clean up the mess they created in the first place. Of course, that they leave a greater mess behind them due to their shortsightedness won't be surprising, given their lack of understanding of the greater reality beyond their insular boundaries. - habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=display&n=1&thread=12089*** « Reply #21 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 09:39am »Actually the point I made was contained in my summary paragraph, and is as follows: "I stand by my original assertion that the war won't be the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest." As for the assertion that I have ignored the present or past: that is laughable. The articles themselves are a synopsis of past and present conditions in the area. I used them as a basis for making my prediction that the region will be far more unstable once Saddam is gone, thanks to the Bush Power Vacuum. Yugoslavia - Tito = Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Muslim, Christian. Iraq - Saddam = Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Baath party supporters, religious fundamentalists, clans, and possibly outsiders (Turks and Iranians). Rebuilding will be a long, painful process. « Reply #23 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 12:13pm »Saddam is a strong man, not a good man. Perversely he is a better short term guarantor of regional stability than the vacuum his absence would create will be. Long term, one hopes that Iraq will be better off without him, of course. It would be absurd of me to say that there is no possibility that American intervention could bring good. I just think that, given the numerous volatile factors and factions in the area, the probability is low. That plus the flair for diplomatic ham-fistedness American administration are prone to displaying abroad, makes for an explosive roostertail, IMO. The US's strengths are guns and money, not bringing people together. Iraq is a balkanized state, cobbled out of disparate demographic elements by a colonial administration. Heterogenous states have historically been far more prone to internal instability than homogenous states. Sad but true. - habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&thread=1048382316&action=display&start=15 |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 17, 2004 20:35:31 GMT -5
Soon on my way to the hotbed of Yankee nationalism, where I -- a Canadian -- will be forced to defend my country's unwillingness to join "our good neighbours to the south" in this fight against terrorism.
And I, as I do every year, will not defend my country, because the issue is not neighbourliness, nor fighting terror, nor Osama, nor Suddam, nor any of the other ideas that will be thrown at me raised as defense for what has happened leading up to and since 9-11.
The question I ask is this: why does a so-called Christian nation amass weaponry and use it to destroy people, innocent or not?
The history of Christianity and war is interesting. The early Christian church was staunchly anti-military and rejected military violence. From the third to the fith centuries Christians were forbidden to join the army. However, compromise was struck with the emporer to allow Christians to fight "in a time of war", which then became "so that the nation/people can be protected", which then came to mean "when we need to defend ourselves", which then came to mean "to help others defend themselves" (hence the Crusades, which was just an excuse for land and money grabs), which then came to be interpreted as "we need to make sure that we have the capability of first strike just in case", which lead to "oh-oh -- Saddam has WMD so we'd better get him first". Where is the Christian thought in all of this? Hidden in nationalism: "God gave us this country so we have to protect ourselves". Sounds to me like the Palestinians and the Israelies and every other group (oops, there is another thread on that already).
I am not liked at these gatherings. The "why didn't you" becomes "how dare you?" . . . and I wind up eating a lot of my meals alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 18, 2004 13:55:54 GMT -5
The question I ask is this: why does a so-called Christian nation amass weaponry and use it to destroy people, innocent or not? Cold comfort, if any, but why does any nation do so? How easy it has been to pervert "I bring not peace, but a sword" from a metaphor for the agony of internal individual spiritual struggle to be an exhortation to worldly/physical conquest and subjugation. And how profitable. Satan is indeed a gentleman. Only his minions execute evil in the name of sanctity. Which of course makes the refutation and rejection of true Christianity so much more palatable to the masses. Nothing succeeds more than giving the people what they want rather than what they need (too much hard work and self-sacrifice). In a sense the Islamic fundamentalists have got it bang on (no pun intended). And as Stevie Wonder sang in one of his halcyon early '70s songs: I don't have to do nothing to you / You cause your own country to fallBrother, I will break bread with you wherever you are. But I certainly do not consider myself a religious man in the conventional sense, though baptized. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 18, 2004 17:24:38 GMT -5
Cold comfort, if any, but why does any nation do so? My concern is not other nations, but specifically this (that?) nation that claims to be blessed by God, following God, and acting in the name of God – and I don’t mean their real god the Almighty Dollar. How easy it has been to pervert "I bring not peace, but a sword" from a metaphor for the agony of internal individual spiritual struggle to be an exhortation to worldly/physical conquest and subjugation. Names for Christ include The Prince of Peace . . . the One who was led as a lamb to the slaughter and who told his protecting disciple to put the sword away . . . the One who said turn the other cheek . . . ah, I could continue to quote the Christian Scripture and will to those with whom I’ll talk next week, but nationalism covers / overshadows intelligence and references to their Canons. And there you’ve hit it . . . and the blinded masses believe the necessity of military deployment because the North American Christian Church has accommodated to comfortable materialism (oops, sounds like I’m preaching here). Satan is indeed a gentleman. Only his minions execute evil in the name of sanctity. Which of course makes the refutation and rejection of true Christianity so much more palatable to the masses. Nothing succeeds more than giving the people what they want rather than what they need (too much hard work and self-sacrifice). In a sense the Islamic fundamentalists have got it bang on (no pun intended). And as Stevie Wonder sang in one of his halcyon early '70s songs: I don't have to do nothing to you / You cause your own country to fallThe masses are too busy singing their own song to hear that one: I’d like to give the world a Coke . . . . Behind the cute lyrics, the hidden meaning: I’d like to make the world like us (and you can read that both ways: please like us and become like us. True Christianity is indeed unpalatable, for it based on service to others and on selflessness. Who wants that? We want a God who looks after us and gives us what we want . . . and so North American Christianity gives just that: a health-and-wealth, God-answers-my-prayers mentality that makes a mockery of the intent. Brother, I will break bread with you wherever you are. But I certainly do not consider myself a religious man in the conventional sense, though baptized. Nor am I religious, though I am an actively engaged person of faith. And I would gladly join you, heathen that you may be. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 18, 2004 18:36:28 GMT -5
www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-357311,0.html Ouch. The Polish Governement is essentially saying they feel they were lied to and misled by Bush.... and Poland was part of the so-called "coalition"....
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 18, 2004 18:56:00 GMT -5
www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-357311,0.html Ouch. The Polish Governement is essentially saying they feel they were lied to and misled by Bush.... and Poland was part of the so-called "coalition".... The Poles have been around long enough, (they predate the Americans by many centuries). They initially sided with rhe strongboy, but now that the diplomatic immaturity has been plainly revealed, draw back and cluck their tongues at a safe distance. What sane nation wouldn't? The Bush administration media show is reminiscent of...but no that is just too ghastly to be funny... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 19, 2004 9:16:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Mar 22, 2004 12:22:48 GMT -5
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts sayBlix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDsWASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.
"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.--the full article--R.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 22, 2004 15:56:03 GMT -5
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts sayBlix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDsWASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.
"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.--the full article--R. I originally supported the war and Canada's participation and like many others, I feel I've been lied to. However, I've always maintained I didn't like the way the war was engaged. The USA basically bullied everyone who shared a differing opinion. And now its been proven that Bush had a plan in place to invade Iraq well before he took office. One positive that came from this thread is that I'm facilitating a guided discussion on Groupthink tomorrow night at the local college; thanks for the intro BC. I'm using the Bay of Pigs scenario, but there are countless other examples I could use including this war. The new president, whoever it will be, has some major international damage control to do and they can thank junior for that. This will be a hard one for the Bush administration to fix. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by patate on Mar 28, 2004 19:38:32 GMT -5
|
|
