Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

it's funny


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 former marine

former marine

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1000 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:19 PM

it is so funny to see the same people who backed france, germany, and russia when they were calling for more time for weapons inspectors to do their job. some called for another 30 days some called for 4 months it was even said that it might take a year. many of you on here backed that belief. i saw many post stating "weapons inspectors havent had enough time"

but now that the us is in there the same countries and the same posters on pravda are expecting the US to find the weapons in 30 minutes..

come on you have to be consistant with your beliefs....if you believed it would take the weapons inspectors 30 days or more to find the WMD's then you have to give the US the same time limit or maybe a little bit more seeing how Saddam was supposed to be helping the UN weapons inspectors.

oh yeah dont count the time the war was going on. its a little hard to search when you are under fire..
  • 0

#2 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:34 PM

This does nothing to mitigate the fact that the Bush League was pretty much alone in swearing that these WMD were such a threat as to call for an immediate invasion/occupation of Iraq.

They (the Bush League) were assuring the press that not only did Iraq have WMD in it's possession, but that these weapons posed a clear threat that justified invasion.

They were talking about tons and tons of anthrax, hidden scud missiles with bio-chem payloads, remote control planes lying in wait for the signal to deliver their evil (albeit so small as to be useless) payloads.

Mushroom clouds!
Dirty bombs!
Pestilence!

...

now that we're in...

Nothing.

First Iraq couldn't prove a negative (we have no more WMD), and now the Bush League can't prove a positive (yes you do).

You are right about one thing: It sure is funny.
  • 0

#3 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:36 PM

Hey Sarge......you make a good factual point and observation,yet most of these children spam posters(booger-eaters) will just say the sadman's WMD, when found, where just planted by the US!

They really are so lame as to omit that the sadman has and would have used them again if not removed.
  • 0

#4 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:40 PM

Trying to plant WMD is a low percentage play.

Their production process is as good as a fingerprint, especially considering the scrutiny Iraq's WMD program has undergone since the sanctions after their failed adventure into Kuwait.

:rolleyes:

There too many scientists that know intimately what Iraqi WMD would look like, a fake would be exposed.
  • 0

#5 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 04:52 PM

If find it telling that today's two most frequently e-mailed
articles (Krugman and Kristof) at the NYT are all about WsMD,
or rather, the lack thereof, in Iraq.

Why is that?

http://www.nytimes.c...st/pop_top.html
  • 0

#6 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:09 PM

Tabloid news style vig!

Vig U know the NYuckTimes loves to sell a political conspiracy theory when ever they can!

slow news day????

BTW....where is the Russian media story of the sar's outbreak being a Chinese bio-weapon gone bad article????
  • 0

#7 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:11 PM

Atossa is our resident specialist in conspiracy matters.
  • 0

#8 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2003 - 05:27 PM

I would not conjure up that source for Lucifer!

or my worst enemy!
  • 0

#9 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 09:27 PM

Krugman's column was what I've come to expect from him, that is to say a sober asessing of the Bush League's latest antics.

http://www.nytimes.c...ion/06KRUG.html

I really liked this quote from Kristof too:

"Let's fervently hope that tomorrow we find an Iraqi superdome filled with 500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax, and proof of close ties with Al Qaeda. Those are the things that President Bush or his aides suggested Iraq might have, and I don't want to believe that top administration officials tried to win support for the war with a campaign of wholesale deceit."

http://www.nytimes.c...ion/06KRIS.html
  • 0

#10 racegal

racegal

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 06 May 2003 - 09:42 PM

Damned if you do...............Damned if you dont!
If the UN is handling it, it is ok, if the US is handling it, we are pissing on it.:rolleyes:
  • 0

#11 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2003 - 12:44 AM

plays.......one week runs..LOL

Sorry kowt....no more free Cliton dem cash for your lazy arise!

Get over your loss........
  • 0

#12 BWII

BWII

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1913 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 12:58 AM

In a nation and world of lies, one must simply sell enough bullshit to convince the public that ecen grand conspiracies are impossible.

Remember, the US was communist BEFORE Russia. The public just didn't believe anything anymore, so they couldn't tell truth from fact... and false from lies.
  • 0

#13 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 01:09 AM

Did you drink your supper again Genie?

Clinton cash?

For me?

Jeez dude, you seem to have fabricated a complete fantasy world around me...

Betcha I paid more in taxes during the Clinton stain than you grossed.
;)

The last time I profited from my government, I was drawing a paycheck from it; since then it's been pretty frigging one sided...

You're becoming a booger-eater, making mean spirited guesses about other posters to suit your own twisted purposes. I used to think better of you...
  • 0

#14 BWII

BWII

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1913 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 01:13 AM

Communist in principal, not openly marxist. Give me a little time to formulate my angle and I will do the best I can to promote my OPINION. I wasn't clear, but I truly feel that the US was forced into that system before the USSR was.
  • 0

#15 BWII

BWII

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1913 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 02:49 AM

A lie is a lie.

No matter what you call it.
  • 0

#16 former marine

former marine

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1000 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 06:21 PM

most of you have career's in politics, what i though would happen with this thread did happen, most people put their spin to work and injected their point but failed to answer the question.

so let me restate the question for those of you who missed it the first time.

WHY WERE YOU SO EAGER TO GIVE THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS SO MUCH TIME TO FIND THE WMD'S BUT ONLY GIVE THE UNITED STATES 5 MINUTES TO FIND THEM????
  • 0

#17 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 06:52 PM

The inspectors weren`t trying to prove WMD existed.

The role of the inspectors was to verify that Iraq had complied with UN resolutions, destroyed it`s WMD and refrained from reinitiating it`s WMD program. The inspectors needed time to do this, though the US govt. maintained the Iraqi regime was hindering the process.

The Iraqi regime is gone. The process is now unhindered. Scientists and officials are free to talk.

The US govt. insisted that Iraq hadn`t complied and that Iraq posed a "grave threat" to US security and world peace. The US govt. also insisted it had credible field intelligence that supported the allegations of existence of WMD. Therefore it stands to reason the US govt. would exploit these sources and support it`s claims ASAP.

The difference is one was there to verify nothing existed, the other is there to prove something exists. Which is easier?
  • 0

#18 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 07:06 PM

Who are you talking to?

I, for one, never argued that the UN should have more time, I said the Bush League had no right to invade/occupy a sovereign nation that isn't (to this day) a demonstratable threat to anyone except it's own citizenry.

I think that maybe you've created an fantasy amalgam character to carry the anti-war banner; a character that has all the trappings of being anti-war, but with several convienient (to you anyhow) flaws in their policy stands, so that you can then feel free to ridicule all anti-war folks as bearing the same fundemental flaws as your amalgam character.

I'll repeat what I said before:
First Iraq couldn't prove a negative (we have no more WMD), and now the Bush League can't prove a positive (yes you do).

To this citizen, it's like watching a macabre diplomatic revival of the Keystone Kops.
  • 0

#19 former marine

former marine

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1000 posts

Posted 08 May 2003 - 05:48 PM

first of all i am talking to the people who had post's prior to the war that said " give un more time" then had post after the war started saying "were are the WMD's"

second you stated that "iraq could not prove a negative" sure they could have they could have produced complete and acurate documents proving they had destroyed all of the WMD's that the UN knew they had. you cant tell me they didint know where all of the documents were that is about as beliveable as hilary clintons whitewater papers missing for so long turning up on a nightstand in the white house weeks after they were required by the courts. they could have also gave unlimited access to the inspectors and forced the sientist to go out of the country unacompanied to be questioned

third most countries had no doubt that iraq had WMD's it was a question of how to handle them (iraq) that is why there is a resistance to lifting the un sanctions against iraq now

"Reuters -
Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said Russia wants the sanctions imposed in Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait lifted as soon as possible but that it must be done in accordance with existing Security Council resolutions, meaning that the world must be certain Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.
  • 0

#20 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 08 May 2003 - 06:25 PM

So, in your world, it simply isn't possible for Iraq to have destroyed these weapons without generating paperwork?

Do you document your garbage before you leave it on the curb or burn it, just in case the government wants to know if you are recycling your beer cans?

Do you always take what diplomats say at face value?

I think that what that diplomat you quoted was really conveying, in diplomatic-speak, is that the sanctions won't be lifted until the UN inspectors are back in country and confirm that there are no WMD.

You know, what the original UN resolution for sanctions on Iraq called for.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru