Political: US and WMD's??

[Laughing Cow]

Hi.

I am posting this to help Joedoe liven up this forum.
;)

Why does the US now say it will take month or even years to find the WMD? When not too long ago the criticised the weapons inspectors for saying the very same thing. and said that they had better and more reliable info than said Inspectors.

That should get responses from a few people I could name right now, plus I could quote exactly what their replies would be.

:D :D

So guys fire away and make joedoe a happy puppy/koala or platypus.

[Merryprankster]

LC,

Although I think that's a darn good question, I think you'll also find that from day 1 Donald Rumsfeld has advertised that it will take a good long while.

I also think you have misinterpreted or read into those statements. Rumsfeld has been the point man on this in the U.S. and I don't recall him ever once blaming the inspectors. In fact, he kept comparing South Africa's WMD disarm to Iraq's as the difference between what is supposed to happen and what was happenning. He has made the point repeatedly that the inspectors aren't detectives--they're inspectors. They are supposed to verify that Iraq's WMD's have been destroyed and can only do that with Iraq's acquiesence. He has made the point repeatedly that the inspectors were never really equipped for ferreting out things--only to verify what they have been told.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong on the above, but the administration message on that has been quite clear and in lockstep for the past several months. It's possible that I've forgotten open admin criticism that the inspectors weren't doing their job; vice that the Iraqi government wasn't doing its part of the bargain. I see so much reporting on so many different things in my job that it all kind of blends together until I can only survive by identifying trends and volume. But seeing as the focus of my job is strategic and not tactical, that's a good thing :D

Rumsfeld has certainly slammed the UN Security Council repeatedly, but not the inspectors per se, to my knowledge.

Perhaps you are referring to the idea that the admin used the Blix report as part of their argument to go in?

Basically I guess I'm saying I either don't understand your point, or think you're mistaken as to the emphasis.

[David]

Politicians are full of **** and the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were so transparently false. How much respect do governments have for us that they come out with bare-faced lies? It's an insult.

I'd never hire an American to find anything: -
1. They have no attention span.
2. They mostly can't even see their shoes.
3. An American abroad is only able to find McDonald's.
4. Most Americans can't ask questions; it's always "let me tell ya this" and "let me tell ya that".
5. Whomever I hired would probably find a way to sue me.

-David

[Merryprankster]

I'd never hire an American to find anything: -
1. They have no attention span.
2. They mostly can't even see their shoes.
3. An American abroad is only able to find McDonald's.
4. Most Americans can't ask questions; it's always "let me tell ya this" and "let me tell ya that".
5. Whomever I hired would probably find a way to sue me.


I'll see you in court.

[MasterKiller]

I'd never hire an American to find anything: -
1. They have no attention span.
2. They mostly can't even see their shoes.
3. An American abroad is only able to find McDonald's.
4. Most Americans can't ask questions; it's always "let me tell ya this" and "let me tell ya that".
5. Whomever I hired would probably find a way to sue me.


And yet, we managed to fend off hordes of bad-teethed Brits twice.

And, oh yeah, then turn around and save your azz twice from the krauts.

Must be our bad attention span....

[Suntzu]

3. An American abroad is only able to find McDonald's. people eat weird sh!t in other countries… like sheep liver wrapped in horse intestines… and goat balls lightly sauteed in sewer water… and than attach a fancy name to it that I cant pronounce… fu(k all that… I rather get the runs from a Big Mac than the revenge from some sh!t call Hagas... sounds like someone tryin to hock a lugee...
:D

[MasterKiller]

And just what the hell is blood pudding?

[David]

So, y'all got your reasons :D I wasn't putting you down :)

World domination for all!

-David

[Suntzu]

World domination for all! YES… together we… the US/UK… will rule all under heaven… have total control of the worlds oil… rid the earth of all heathen religions… and place a Starbucks and Micky D's on every corner… HAHAHAHAHA…

Jeeeezz… is it Friday yet…

[bodhitree]

Bush is a shameful, war monger Texan who will fight every war he can find and let Americans suffer in a horrible job market. As long as the executives at Haliburton are OK right, Yeah!

[MasterKiller]

Bush is a shameful, war monger Texan who will fight every war he can find and let Americans suffer in a horrible job market. As long as the executives at Haliburton are OK right, Yeah!

:rolleyes:
Get with the program.

Everyone knows Cheney is running the show. Bush is just Cheney's little beyotch.

FYI--Halliburton's government contracts went up 91% after BUsh took office.

[Suntzu]

OH jeez… it's now officially a political thread…

where the he\\ is Di(k anyway? And Bush is the greatest man since Ceaser(pick one)… ****** he will go down in history as the founding father of the new American Way… and every man on earth will bow to his feelt and worship his greatness or fell the wrath of Rumsey's 'mini-nukes...

d@mn do I have any vaction time…

[bodhitree]

Master Killer: Not Cheney, Big Oil! Haliburton, Enron, Isreal, money! That what runs the USA. Not political parties or elected officials, just the money that backs them!!

[MasterKiller]

Cheney was the President of Halliburton from 1995 until 2000. He IS big oil.

[bodhitree]

Master Killer
Guess your right. It's sad isn't it.

[shaolin kungfu]

It's more than sad.

[@PLUGO]

Just cause we've all been getting along so well lately...

Tidbits:
Sen. Robert C. Byrd says:
"Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject," (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030521-110725-1294r.htm)

"Moreover, most know that, after nearly four months of renewed weapons inspections by the United Nations and the most intensive effort in the history of the U.S. intelligence community, American analysts and war planners are far from certain that chemical and biological weapons even exist in Iraq's arsenal today.

Incredible as it may seem, given all the talk by the administration -- including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's discourse last week about continuing Iraqi deception -- there is simply no hard intelligence of any such Iraqi weapons.

There is not a single confirmed biological or chemical target on their lists, Air Force officers working on the war plan say." (http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_iraq_goodman041503.htm)

Rumsfeld's recent remark that the United States has "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Hussein struck many in the intelligence community as an exaggerated assessment of the available evidence. (http://www.latimes.com/la-na-cia11oct11,0,2360915.story)

& for fun:
“A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said [March 6] in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.”

“Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.” (http://www.latimes.com/la-na-cia11oct11,0,2360915.story)

There, that should start a proper flame war before this thred gets merged with the others.... :p

[rogue]

Byrd is ready for the old KKK retirement home.

[Suntzu]

b b b but they found the truck...

[MasterKiller]

WMD, no.

WAD (http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a67), hell ya!

[ZIM]

Bush is a shameful, war monger Texan who will fight every war he can find Thats because he's avoiding his father's mistakes! Daddyo lost the election because he ENDED his war... This Bush will just keep it going and the poll results will just keep on climbing... approvals from the only ppl that matter- BIG OIL! and small oil, too!

[Wait, wasn't it slick willie that pandered to the approval polls?]


ok, yeah yeah, I don't mean any of that...
1. They have no attention span. What the heck was your point???? :confused:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Why does the US now say it will take month or even years to find the WMD? When not too long ago the criticised the weapons inspectors for saying the very same thing. and said that they had better and more reliable info than said Inspectors.

You have to be an extremist left-wing nutjob to not realize the Iraq had WMD, so this entire thing is a moot point you're being made to obsess over by the media.

Other than that, what Merryprankster said.


Originally posted by David
Politicians are full of **** and the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were so transparently false. How much respect do governments have for us that they come out with bare-faced lies?

You're confusing "there were a number of different reasons, and different contexts called for different reasons to be emphasized" with "the reasons are bare-faced lies." A prominent example of this is that the WMD issue was the reason by which the war could be run within the context of the UN; while opposition to Baathism is the primary reason in terms of American foreign policy proper. The presence of one of these doesn't make the other a lie. Different contexts, different "kinds" of reasons.


Originally posted by bodhitree
Bush is a shameful, war monger Texan who will fight every war he can

Then why did he make Wolfowitz back down on Syria? Reality seems to contradict you here.


Master Killer: Not Cheney, Big Oil!

There's no such thing as "Big Oil." Big American Oil is an entirely different thing than say, Big Iraqi Oil. It's in Big American Oil's best interests to have Iraq's oil not flowing and/or very costly (ie. pre-war) because that makes their own oil more competitive on the markets. In other words, if they're calling the shots, they've just screwed their market competitiveness. I posit as an alternative that you're wrong.

[MasterKiller]

Then why did he make Wolfowitz back down on Syria? Reality seems to contradict you here.

Because he knows he can't very well justify another invasion without proof that the first one was valid. Which he can't prove yet.

Invading Syria right away would have sparked fears that GW was indeed crusading against Islam.

[ZIM]

LC may very well BE an extremist left-wing nutjob! (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html) [not that theres anything wrong with that. ahem] Take the test and let us know what we're dealing with.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Because he knows he can't very well justify another invasion without proof that the first one was valid. Which he can't prove yet.

Even if this is the case (which I contend it's not, following the logic in my previous post), that still means that the statement "Bush will fight every war he can" is inaccurate, as he can fight this war but he chooses not to. I mean, that you can think of a reason why he'd choose not to doesn't change that.


Invading Syria right away would have sparked fears that GW was indeed crusading against Islam.

Wasn't Saddam in Iraq our ally against [fundamentalist] Islam? Doesn't this create problems for your argument here?

[MasterKiller]

I don't think GW considered Saddam an ally. We're talking about the policies of the current administration, not previous ones.

[rogue]

IMO, as a right wing wacko, the main reason we went into Iraq besides WMD, is to be a force to influence the politics of the region and neutralize any threats to US interests at their origin. Iraq is a much more convienient staging area to influence Iran, Syria and Lebanon than is Saudi Arabia. Oil and anything else are secondary to that.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
I don't think GW considered Saddam an ally.

I don't think he did either. And that's not what I said; I was commenting on the issue of wars against Islam.

[Christopher M]

ZIM - I'm Left (-1.00) and Libertarian (-4.72) apparently.

I didn't think the quiz was very accurate, and would have disagreed with the results from many of the questions. Fun though. :p

[MasterKiller]

I don't think he did either. And that's not what I said; I was commenting on the issue of wars against Islam.

I'm not following you. We used an Islamic state against another Islamic state 20 years ago.

The current administration spouts Christain propaganda like it's going out of style. Do you not see how invading several Islamic countires RIGHT NOW could be perceived as a was against Islam, especially with Bush's public opinions on religion?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
We used an Islamic state against another Islamic state 20 years ago.

No we didn't. Iraq wasn't an Islamic state. It was a Baathist state, which is fundamentally opposed to strong religion. That's what the appeal was.

[MasterKiller]

OK...

But what does that have to with GW's current crusade?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
OK...which would seem to further indicate a disdain for Islam...

Right: then. But recall that we just deposed this Baathist state, our friend in "disdain for Islam," which was my original point.

[norther practitioner]

I don't like the way some of those questions were worded.

[rogue]

Syria is also Baathist state. AQ has plans for them too.

[MasterKiller]

Baathist or not. What is the religous affiliation of the majority of the people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria? Are the majority of these people not Muslim?

[Christopher M]

If you're trying to argue that we should consider Baathism and Islam to be fundamentally the same, you're showing gross ignorance.

[MasterKiller]

What I'm saying is, regardless of the political party in power, what is the religous affiliation of the majority of those people in those countries?

[rogue]

Muslim. What is the religion of the majority of terrorists in the world today?

[Christopher M]

What I am saying is that you may be confident in conceiving every Arab state in the world to be part of a ****genous mass, however you can be rest assured that they do not have that luxury.

The distinction between an Islamic state and a Baathist state may seem trivial to you, but to the people who live in them, it's both extraordinarily obvious and extraordinarily pertinent.

Because of this, from your point of view there is no difference between attacking a Baathist state and attacking an Islamic state, so you're quite confident seeing a "crusade" here.

What I am saying is that they don't share your point of view; the difference you fail to see is integral to them; and thus we can readily conclude they will similarly not make your conclusion.

[ZIM]

ZIM - I'm Left (-1.00) and Libertarian (-4.72) apparently. OHHHH, so who's the left-wing nutjob NOW, HUH? :D :p boy i'm glad its near quitting time... Actually, I scored right near to nelson mandela, too... :D Free my PPL!
IMO, as a right wing wacko, the main reason we went into Iraq besides WMD, is to be a force to influence the politics of the region and neutralize any threats to US interests at their origin. Iraq is a much more convienient staging area to influence Iran, Syria and Lebanon than is Saudi Arabia. Oil and anything else are secondary to that. Agreed. ;) Aren't the majority of terrorists in Central America??

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
OHHHH, so who's the left-wing nutjob NOW, HUH?

Pssshhh. I'm a left-wing moderate at worst! :p

[Christopher M]

The main problem with that quiz is that it fell to the popular misconception that leftism is about caring for people and rightism is about wanting people to suffer. It's really quite absurd.

Both perspectives believe, for example, society's main obligation is promoting the well-being of it's citizens. Where they differ is in how they believe this should be done.

Also, there were alot of questions on things like abortion and gay rights which actually have nothing to do with rightist nor leftist philosophy.

[ZIM]

The main problem with that quiz is that it fell to the popular misconception that leftism is about caring for people and rightism is about wanting people to suffer. It's really quite absurd. I'll find a better test! :mad: :p Yes, actually I agree, for the most part- the phrasing was pretty bad. Not bad tho for showing their point: politics is not 2 dimensional, but at least 4 dimensional. Nutjob ->wacko, right ->left.

[Laughing Cow]

FWIW.

Here are my stats:

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.41

Hmm, seems to be that I am close to Gandhi.

:cool: ;) :p

[Christopher M]

Yeah, left-right is getting more and more silly as a descriptive scale; though I suspect it always was fairly silly.

The sad part is that misconceptions about political ideology (as well as everything else) become self-fulfilling prophecies.

[Radhnoti]

I agree, that political test was poorly worded. Nevertheless, my scores:
Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -0.92
The only guy close to me was Milton Friedman.

I MUCH prefer this political quiz, billed as "The World's Smallest Political Quiz". Hope I'm not steppin' on Zim's toes here, and I'd like to know what others on this board think of this quiz and it's impartiality.:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

BTW, I'm WAY in the libertarian section. 90% for both personal and economic.

Some reviews of said quiz:
"The Quiz has gained respect as a valid measure of a person's political leanings."
- The Washington Post

"The World's Smallest Political Quiz is savvy and willing to tell you the truth."
- YAHOO! Magazine

The World's Smallest Political Quiz stands ready to help you determine your political identity. Quick and relatively painless.
- USA Today

[Marky]

On the World's Smallest Political Quiz I was a centrist, and at the exact middle of the chart. Creepy...

[shaolin kungfu]

I was on the border of left-liberal and libertarian for the worlds smallest political quiz.

[Laughing Cow]

left-liberal here.

[Serpent]

Ahem! (http://mindprod.com/bush911.html)

:)

[ZIM]

Radh- no toes to step on, here! Interesting test- i still came up left-liberal, libertarian...;)

serpent- I've seen that before- it strikes me as more of the same conspiratorial stuff... Occam's razor would just state that Shrub is kinda dumb, was kinda shocked at the report of what was going on [when eading the kid's book]. Further, all the connections are just business as usual for the world-rulin' elites... they tend to go to same schools, bank at the same places, etc.

[Christopher M]

Deeply libertarian on that quiz.

[Radhnoti]

I thought that the questions being so short...with no/little ambiguity, might make it more valid.
Anyone disagree with the results? Anyone think it's an unfair test in some way? I'm a big fan, but that's just because I couldn't think of anything wrong with it. To be honest when I stumbled on that quiz a few years back I didn't have any idea there was a "classification" for my own personal political philosophy (libertarian). I just thought they were the fringe potheads looking to legalize marijuana.
:D

[@PLUGO]

Found that on several of those questions I would truthfully anwser indifferent...

that's my one gripe on it...

[Radhnoti]

Hmmm...ok.

Did you come out deeply liberal with a libertarian streak, as I suspect?

:)

[Shaolin-Do]

Thats what I am.
:)

[@PLUGO]

Did you come out deeply liberal with a libertarian streak, as I suspect?

It was like 4.5 over 5 leaning towards Libraritaran...

:D

Hanging with Nelson Mandala's not so bad... so long as it's outside of prison eh!