Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Zero Signal Zero Signal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: /dev/null
Zero Signal is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 12:27 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how forthcoming you are with your sincere apologies once very real WMDs start to be unearthed. I'll be sure to check back over here when that day comes.


What apologies are there to be had? If WMDs are found 6 months from now, or even 6 years from now, it does not mean I owe ANYONE an apology for ANYTHING.

You and Vinth are so blatantly missing a CRITICAL POINT. One that has been statement numerous times in this thread alone.

BUSH SAID HE HAD PROOF THAT IRAQ HAD WMDs AND SAID HE PRETTY MUCH KNEW WHERE THEY WERE BEING HIDDEN, BEFORE THE INVASION EVEN STARTED.

Is that a little more clear to you now?

With the prerequisite killing is done, NOW he is looking for the WMDs. I thought he already knew that they had them and where they were?

Unless he lied.
__________________
I-Mockery Forums: Turn-based stupidity in a real-time world
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 12:42 PM       
Vince, do us all a favour and go away. Go to a land far far away from here where idiots are considered sacred and never harmed you will like it there and we will like you there and not here.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Mockery Mockery is offline
Pickled Patriarch
Mockery's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Mockery is probably a real personMockery is probably a real person
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 01:00 PM       
And then we'll bomb that land too because by then we'll be 100% absolutely without a doubt in our minds positive that we know exactly where the WMD's are.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 01:02 PM       
"May retain stockpile of chemical weapon..."

"may retain related components and software. "

"May retain stockpile of biological weapon "

"May retain biological weapon sprayers for Mirage F-1 aircraft. "

"May retain mobile production facility with capacity to produce "dry" biological agents "

"May possess smallpox virus..."

"Believed to possess sufficient precursor chemicals..."

"May retain several al-Hussein (modified Scud-B) missiles..."

"May retain components for dozens of Scud-B and al-Hussein missiles..."

"May possess several hundred tons of propellant for Scud missiles."

"could resume production of al-Hussein missiles"

"could develop 3,000km-range missiles... "

"could develop ICBM within 15 years."

"Reportedly converting L-29 jet trainers to unmanned aerial vehicles "

"May possess spraying equipment for BW dissemination by helicopter"



I'm not arguing the existancce of WMD, but are the words "May" "Could" "Believed to" and "Reportedly" strong enough to justify thousands of deaths? They don't sound very definate to me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 01:07 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero Signal
...HE PRETTY MUCH KNEW WHERE THEY WERE BEING HIDDEN, BEFORE THE INVASION EVEN STARTED.
Pretty much? Yep. There are and were in Iraq. That "pretty much" narrows it down. Are you saying you would have supported the war IF Bush would have drawn you a map to the exact locations of some WMDs and shown you some pictures of Saddam Hussein posing next to a bunch of barrels clearly marked "VX" and "Anthrax Spores?" How long do you think might be a sufficient amount of time to find the "smoking gun" now that no one is actively moving them around and actively deceiving those that would look for clues?

As for not owing anyone any apologies... are you not one of those people bitching about any American activity in Iraq on the basis that Bush knowingly LIED to the world? You are telling me that we should all just ignore you? That once you are proven wrong on this, you'll be perfectly fine just moving on to the next thing you wish to raise hell about? We shouldn't even consider your opinion as possibly truthful or even well-considered?

I don't know you, as I am new here. That's why I'm asking these questions. If you have established a reputation as a partisan that will say ANYTHING to serve some anti-this or that agenda, then I'm sorry for engaging you at all. Generally speaking, failing to make accurate predictions, especially one as risky as predicting that the President of the US blatantly LIED to the world just so he could get his rocks off playing General, just because you can't see through the walls of your own colon would count against your credibility. If you have none anyway, I guess no apology would be necessary after all...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 01:10 PM       
Regarding spy technology:

What happened to those satellites that can apparently take a picture of a license plate? They can't find someone digging a 750 acre hole in the desert?

The centrifuge that they found is a load of shit for evidence, and probably just left over from years and years and years ago. And the plans! Oh ho! Well, since when are plans considered WMD themselves? In that case, you better bomb my house, because I drew up some plans to make a spaceship that can blow up the Earth.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Spasmolytic Spasmolytic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Spasmolytic is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 01:31 PM       
fine he didn't lie... he grossly MISLEAD (lied)

we have sattelites that can track people and see what time it says on their watch yet we can't keep an eye on some WMD that we "know" Iraq has?

perhaps that's why Colin Powell said "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit" when he was presented w/ some questionable evidence

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...968581,00.html

lolzers certainly George W. Bush couldn't... LIE?!
__________________
Whatever I finds I keeps
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 01:32 PM       
I have similar plans. Is your space ship purple? Mine is...

Don't get me wrong. I wish they'd get a move on myself. I personally don't believe that Saddam Hussein spent Billions of Dollars and employed thousands of people over decades to research and develop banned weapons systems without ever producing anything.

Oh wait... he did... and he has used them. Then the UN told him to stop, and to prove that he'd destroyed any remaining capability that he might still have to develop and use these things again, and he refused to do that for a long, long time...

Y'know... there are a lot of credible ways to decry the Bush plan for Iraq... simply calling the man a liar is not one of them... though it is quite cute. You guys should go pull his hair, too. Tell Condi he has cooties while your at it...

Here's a good theory: Maybe Saddam truly believed world opinion would hold the US back. Maybe he really destroyed his weapons, but was scared to say so for fear of what Iran might do with that information. His stubborn evasiveness could have been strategic, as we know Iran is developing its own WMDs.

You might make that boat float, where jumping up and down hollering "He Lied! He Lied!" just seems like juvenile Bush-hate.

As for satellites, Chimp, I guess we all know there has to be classified imagery, just like Saddam was well aware we had that capability. If you see a truck come out of a building, drive across the desert into another building, can you tell me what was in it? Satellites are only useful when those you are watching don't know about them.

Sure, you could spot a huge hole in the desert, or some sort of maze being constructed in the foundation of a new "palace," but Saddam wasn't just building weapons facilities, and we had no way to verify the purpose of whatever projects he had going on at any time. Surely you can see that a determined Saddam could do pretty much whatever he wished, as long as he was careful?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 01:47 PM       
Quote:
If you see a truck come out of a building, drive across the desert into another building, can you tell me what was in it? Satellites are only useful when those you are watching don't know about them.
So then why did we get to watch Rumsfeld and Powell get up in front of reporters and start pointing out fuzzy gray shapes on the satellite photos and say, "This here is a chemical plant" and, "This truck has missile parts, and this is what it looks like after we blew it up" and so on?

Can they see inside the building? Can they see inside the truck? According to your own admission, no they can't, so why were they drawing conclusions so quickly? There are many examples of where they discovered that the trucks weren't carrying what they thought when they surveyed the wreakage.

So then what was the purpose of making all these claims about the satellite photos? I just know Vinth is going to come in here and say, "Well, they were knowing what they thought at the time in was the trucks! So lying they weren't! Jew!"

If they weren't lying, then they were grossly ignorant or trying to mislead the public. Surely you can see that a determined Bush could do pretty much whatever he wished, as long as his staff was clever?

Except they're not nearly as clever as Saddam if a) we still haven't found him and b) all these inconsistencies are emerging now.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 01:48 PM       
Quote:
As for satellites, Chimp, I guess we all know there has to be classified imagery, just like Saddam was well aware we had that capability. If you see a truck come out of a building, drive across the desert into another building, can you tell me what was in it? Satellites are only useful when those you are watching don't know about them.
They could tell when the Russians were making nukes. Apparantly enriching uranium and what not gives off an enourmous amount of heat, and the satellites had heat vision or something... I don't know, I am just remembering things here.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 02:15 PM       
even if he didn't have them he still refused the UN sanction(i sound so smart, but i prolly spelled that wrong) to search for them.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #37  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 02:25 PM        Strange....
It's a strange thing to ponder really. Since no WMD have been found, it would appear to be a safe assumption that they don't exist. But it doesn't make sense.

Saddam has spent decades struggling to retain his stranglehold on power. He clearly demonstrated that he didn't care who he had to kill to maintain his grip. Perhaps I could rationalize that in 1998 he didn't believe that Clinton was committed enough to seriously jeopardize his regime so he felt comfortable in pushing the envelope.

But under the Bush administration, particularly in the face of obvious military mobilization, surely Saddam didn't intend to call Bush's bluff did he? If there are not now and never were any WMDs, why would he do this? Why would he risk what would certainly been the end of his reign, and quite possibly his life in an effort to continue to thumb his nose at the U.N.?

I guess that will always sort of baffle me. I suppose one could try to make the case that HE did try, and that the U.N. and U.S. stiffled him, placing him in a no win stituation, but I don't think that's the case. He played the hide and seek shells game for over a decade. Why would he do all that if he truly had nothing to hide? It's so irrational.

I'm certainly not saying that this is proof that weapons DO exist, or did. Just that it seems like a curious move on Saddams part for the last half a decade at least to play this suicidal game if there was nothing to hide in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 03:07 PM       
Maybe Saddam felt that the danger of letting his next door neighbor (who would LOVE to kill him) know he was now effectively defenseless was greater than the danger posed by American and UN pressure to do just that. Iran could have exerted pressure to that end during the US troop deployment, just to further muddy the waters, or maybe Saddam just dropped the ball at crunch time. Maybe he should have come clean with Bush & Co... had he actually destroyed the weapons...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 03:11 PM       
Sometimes I think he did it all on purpose so America would invade and fuck shit up, find no WMD's and be seen as tyranical. It would be a nice blow in it's own form. He is on the end of his life, and he's obviously not the stupidest creature out there.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 04:23 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
So then why did we get to watch Rumsfeld and Powell get up in front of reporters and start pointing out fuzzy gray shapes on the satellite photos and say, "This here is a chemical plant" and, "This truck has missile parts, and this is what it looks like after we blew it up" and so on?

Can they see inside the building? Can they see inside the truck? According to your own admission, no they can't, so why were they drawing conclusions so quickly? There are many examples of where they discovered that the trucks weren't carrying what they thought when they surveyed the wreakage.
They have a system. Of course they wouldn't start blowing shit up without some sort of verification. If other sources placed a big barrel of Nerve Agent in a particular warehouse at a particular time, then a satellite photo showed a Saddam twin struggling to load a barrel marked "VX" onto a truck, they'd blow up the truck... possibly even without the labeling...

Satellite imagery is not our only tool for spying. It's just one of the sexier ones we use. Most of our information still comes from old-fashioned, on-the-ground bribing people. Most of the middle east is pretty much immune to our efforts to do that. Americans will typically NOT live like even Iraqis do for the time it takes to successfully breach them. To be fully trusted in an Arab theocratic society, you have to be vouched for since birth or even longer. You can't fake that, and we don't have the will to imbed agents that deeply.

That's one of the many reasons that we are such good friends with Israel, BTW. That have that kind of motivation.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 06:56 PM       
Riddle me this, Vince...if Saddam had WMDs, why in the FUCK didn't he use them on us when we invaded his country? Seems highly illogical to me. Sure, it's possible he could have been that stupid, but damn, when you move away to your idiot utopia and we come and bomb you because we think you have WMDs, aren't you at least going to use whatever you have available to defend yourself?

Oh, and just to reiterate for Vince's benefit:

Bush said he knew where the weapons are, and it's painfully obvious that he didn't. He said somehing that was not true. That is the definition of a lie.
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #42  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 07:23 PM       
Can a satellite really identify a license plate from a top-down view, or was that just a figure of speech?

Cute post, Vince. I like how Boortz doesn't really bother to explain exactly why Bush's words aren't a lie, but instead focuses on a nice "look over there" tactic with references to Clinton.

Bush and most of his administration told the American people and the world that they were sure of the existence of WMD in Iraq and the imminent danger of them. They knew that they were not sure of this. Ergo, they lied. Simple as that. Nuff said. Bar none.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 07:50 PM        ...
Proto,
I totally see where you're coming from and I think it's a valid argument. But again, if he DIDN'T have them, isn't just as absurd to think that he would have played his cards the way he has all these years? It just doesn't make sense and I don't care how crazy a person tries to protray Saddam, he has historically shown that his hold on power in Iraq has always been his utmost concern.

It just doesn't make any sense to me why he would play the game if he had nothing to hide in the first place. Why try so hard to stifle inspections early on. Why kick inspectors out and blatantly irk the international community in 1998. Why continue to play hard to get if all along there was nothing to hide anyway?

It just doesn't add up. Regardless I don't suppose either point of view (he didn't give in so he must have been hiding something or he didn't use them so he must not have ever had them) is anything more than speculative, but it makes for interesting discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 08:08 PM       
That's true. For someone who comes across as calculating as Hussein, you'd think there's hidden motives to his behavior if he really didn't have WMD anymore. Perhaps it was a matter of megalomania, Saddam believing himself king of the world because he'd been able to get away with his behavior for so long. Believing the public outrage with the war on Iraq would help, or even save him.

Or, perhaps he really did have WMDs and was moving/selling them. Perhaps things didn't work out as he planned, he waited too long with allowing inspectors back in and decided to let things just run its course.

The thing that irks me though, is that the Bush administration was far from sure of the threat of Iraq - rather the opposite. Even finding WMDs now can't change that.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 08:10 PM       
Every politician lies and takes part in shady deals: It's just some are smart (or lucky) enough not to get caught!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 08:22 PM       
Not to butt in for Vince, but I think we've been dancing all over your answer, Proto... This wouldn't be the first place it has been suggested that the weapons, if they are still in Iraq, were hidden very well. Coalition psy-ops prior to the actual fighting began were very explicit in that use of those weapons by Iraqi forces would constitute war crimes. I think it's pretty obvious that the majority opinion among the Iraqi military set was that defeat was inevitable, so i htink had Saddam wanted to use WMD capabilities, he would've had to go dig them up himself.

And yes, FS. The satellites aren't right over their target. With enough viewpoints, it's possible to see all sides of any event. It is actually possible to see into a building as well, but the limitations are still easily exploited.

As for: "They knew that they were not sure of this." what makes you so sure? Why would Saddam have spent so much money, time and resources for a bluff? I'm 99% sure that WMDs will eventually be found... and not just more of this cheap ass aluminum tube/blueprint crap. One thing is for sure: at the end of the Gulf War, he definitely had them and was required by the UN to prove that he was eliminating his stocks and destroying his capability to produce more. He never did that.

There are very good arguments, however, against that alone being cause for war. The disarmament/sanctions game is not new. Hitler built a world-class military under similar restrictions, and the argument can be made that the game made him stronger and more determined to start WWII. Rather than turn a simple situation into a philosphical argument that is essentially unwinnable, the Bush team opted to go for the WMD angle and capitalize on the enduring 9/11 sentiment.

I say they played their part well, and the results are proving that. Sure, your feelings a hurt a bit... but I'm thinking there's not anything short of abysmal failure by whatever effort America had put forth that would have pleased you guys.

Go ahead and admit it. When the "He Lied! He Lied!" tactic fails you, either for lack of public interest or, more likely, the eventual unearthing of that smoking gun, you will Move On to the next tactic, completely ignoring that you have once again lost your credibility, just like you did when the Iraqi people didn't smash America on the gates of Bagdhad or when America didn't bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age.

It's Ok to be partisan. God loves you all just as much as any of the rest of us. Go ahead and focus on getting John Kerry or Howard Dean into the White House next year. A bit of advice, though... if things keep going as they are right now, you might want to start looking for a non-Iraqi tactic to exploit relentlessly. This ceaseless Bush-bashing is just making ya'll look childish as hell...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 08:24 PM       
Proto, he could have held back from using them because that would only make our fight just and cause and no one could deny it. I mean, what would get him more support in the long run: Using WMD and offing 10,000 of our troops, or putting the seeds of doubt into anti-bush hungry folks like yourself?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 10:01 PM        Entertianing....
I find it ironic that you like to throw around terms like "partisan" to everyone who is not fond of the current administration. I'll have to double check my dictionary because perhaps I'm a little unclear as to the meaning of the word. If you are using "partisan" as a deragautory term, wouldn't one who incessantly defends the administration be just as guilty of that very same partisanship?

And I also suppose that anyone who thinks perhaps military intervention in Iraq was unjust must also obviously be completely anti-Bush. I suppose it makes your fantasy a little more entertaining. That way you can blow off any rational arguments they make as some kind of blind, irrational hate. Those silly partisans.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 10:15 PM       
You don't know whether I would criticize Bush on any other issue because I've not really addressed any other topics. I didn't vote for the guy last time, and I won't next time... though that's beside the point.

I'm telling you that because you obviously don't know it, and I'm wanting to put your fears to rest... I'd also like to point out that my use of the word partisan twice may be redundant, but it's accurate. I'd challenge you to make the same kind of distinction I just did.

The highlight of the Bush administration so far has been the handling of Iraq. His response to 9/11 won't be remembered, as it was sorta irrelevant. Attempts to steal his thunder in Iraq will continue to be more and more fruitless, and the latest futile, pathetic attacks ("He Lied!") are a sure sign of an anti-Bush zealot. I stand by my characterization.

...and do look up "partisan." It's a great word to throw around at parties.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 10:27 PM        Thanks.
Yeah thanks for easing my fears about you because I was really internet worried. I guess.

So let me ask you this. Do you also so easily dismiss those within the intelligence community who have said in essence the same thing, although perhaps in a slightly less slanderous way? It's one thing to blow off a message board regular who just doens't like the "man". But what about those within the administration who have made the very same assertions?

Are the just childish partisan blowhards too? Do you suppose Dubya's assessment of the situation is more accurate than that of uber geeks and spooks, many of whom have spent their entire lives studying the region?

There are an awful lot of folks at State and the intel agencies begging to differ with the presidents assessment. I would venture to assert that many of these folks are educated, expereinced people who have much more at stake than does the average message boarder. Why would they risk their entire careers to suggest that perhaps the administrations handling of the situation is less than ideal?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.