tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Necronomicon said: tomcat said: iain said: tomcat said: What kind of evidence would you like, Iain? The actual WMDs? ..snipping some other stuff here... And lastly, what evidence could they possibly provide (other than the WMDs themselves) to prove to you that they exist? Your posts would be more effective if they did not repeat themselves, as I demonstrate above. As for evidence, I would go by the same evidence the expert weapons inspectors would want to see. You can't make nuclear weapons in a meth lab. There seems to be a fairly sophisticated system for detecting chemical warfare agents as well. Perhaps we could use those? This has been thoroughly hashed out before, btw, so perhaps a brief search is in order... Did you take a course on discovering WMDs? What's the recipe to finding WMDs? What is the sophisticated system you speak of? I'm no Biochemist (so bear with me here), but I'd say it would be pretty easy to hide a biological agent in a desert the size of Idaho. I'm pretty sure the elaborate WMD location methods you speak of couldn't possibly find biological agents beyond a certain distance. Otherwise I suspect the bio detectors that the military is using right now would be going crazy from all the bio agents thousands of miles away in the US research labs (as an extreme example). So at what distance are these "bio-locators" (for lack of a better term) effective? Perhaps with your knowledge on these devices, you could offer valuable insight to US intelligence. At the risk of repeating myself, all this discussion will make you look pretty silly when they find them .. don't you think? Did he use the bio- prefix in his post? Do you know the difference between the bio- and the chem- prefixes? We're running from the issue here captain. Bio is a prefix for biological. Chem is a prefix for chemical. Any questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 tomcat said: Did you take a course on discovering WMDs? No, that is why I said I would think the weapons inspectors would have a good idea about this process. I'm no Biochemist...blahdiddyblah... I'm not either, see above. I'd rather avoid a pointless internet tiff between to ignorant PNW climbers about how to inspect Iraq for chemical weapons. Perhaps with your knowledge on these devices, you could offer valuable insight to US intelligence. Christ almighty see above. At the risk of repeating myself, all this discussion will make you look pretty silly when they find them .. don't you think? I don't see why. All I'm asking of my goverment is to lay out to me the rational explanation for why we are there. Proof of said weapons and intent to distribute and use them would be good. Also, post-invasion discoveries considered to be "egg-in-the-face" would seem to make you look pretty silly...don't you think? Also that would be "ends justifying the means" logic, which periodically works, but many times, does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 the economy trails gov't's actions. I said before the votes were counted that whoever became Prez was inheriting a future bad economy, and was destined to be a one-termer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 A few miles from the bridge to the south lie the ruins of the ancient city of Ur, founded 8,000 years ago, the birth place of Abraham and a flourishing metropolis at a time when the inhabitants of north-west Europe were still walking round in animal skins. Sgt Sprague, from White Sulphur Springs in West Virginia, passed it on his way north, but he never knew it was there. "I've been all the way through this desert from Basra to here and I ain't seen one shopping mall or fast food restaurant," he said. "These people got nothing. Even in a little town like ours of twenty five hundred people you got a McDonald's at one end and a Hardee's at the other." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Bio(logical warfare agents): gangrene anthrax wheat smut butilinum rotavirus Chem(ical warfare agents): sarin tabun VX CS ricin alphatoxin trichothecenes cyclosarin BTW, where did Iraq get all of the seed cultures for their BIO weapons program? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 specialed said: Greg_W said: specialed said: Its no doubt Bush Administration is inept at running our nation's economy ... This really is a misconception about the economy and government involvement. A current administration does not "run" the economy; at best the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve chase the economy with their false manipulations of interest rates. They do more harm than good; whether there is a Democrat or Republican in office. Since it began, government involvement in the economy has been a DESTABILIZING factor instead of a stabilizing one. Bullshit. An administration has all sorts of control over an economy. The biggest factor being the BUDGET. A balanced budget and move towards reducing the defecit = faith in economy which drives investment and propels the economy. Cutting taxes and overspending, the hallmark of Reagan's and Bush's economic plan, result in bloated defecit, inflation, and sluggish market. Last time I checked, Congress held the purse strings to this nation. The Congress was led by the Democrats during Reagan/Bush. Reagan got the tax cut he promised America in 1980, but to get it he had to agree to increased spending that the Dems wanted. History bears out other examples, too. My point, Pete, is that government involvement, period in the economy is a problematic, destabilizing force. Specifically, here, I am talking about the actions of the Federal Reserve in manipulating lending rates to try and fiddle with inflation, deflation, etc. I agree with you that budget status does affect faith in the economy, to a certain degree. A massive reduction in porkbarrel spending would reduce this influence, I think. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 tomcat said: Necronomicon said: tomcat said: Necronomicon said: I suspect in order to find the WMDs we're going to have to find the 2 people who know where they're at and do a little wall-to-wall interrogation session. Israel's intelligence is said to be comparable to US intelligence .. do you think Israel knows where we hide our nukes? Pretty tough to find out nukes. Get online, pay some coin for some sattelite phots of Nebraska, and look for the blast doors above the silos. Or look for an Air Force base. Your first comment, though, reveals yourself to be a savage. Good thing we're fighting to keep Americans free so that douche bags like you can endore torturing people. How enlightened! I'm sure you could get a job with Iraqi "security forces" with a humanitarian attitude like yours. It's 'endure' chief (I know, it's confusing spelling something that isn't spelled how you pronounce it). And what part of my first comment makes me a savage? Perhaps you could rebuke my initial comment to provide an example? "Wall-to-Wall Interogation", correct me if I'm wrong, means "torture". Additionally, I'm too lazy today to give fuck one about my spelling. I'm more concerned with content. I'll let my future biographers do the editing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 iain said: tomcat said: Did you take a course on discovering WMDs? No, that is why I said I would think the weapons inspectors would have a good idea about this process. I'm no Biochemist...blahdiddyblah... I'm not either, see above. I'd rather avoid a pointless internet tiff between to ignorant PNW climbers about how to inspect Iraq for chemical weapons. Perhaps with your knowledge on these devices, you could offer valuable insight to US intelligence. Christ almighty see above. At the risk of repeating myself, all this discussion will make you look pretty silly when they find them .. don't you think? I don't see why. All I'm asking of my goverment is to lay out to me the rational explanation for why we are there. Proof of said weapons and intent to distribute and use them would be good. Also, post-invasion discoveries considered to be "egg-in-the-face" would seem to make you look pretty silly...don't you think? Also that would be "ends justifying the means" logic, which periodically works, but many times, does not. Whoa, hold on there chief. That is quite a convoluted, irrational argument you made there, so let me see if I can dissect it... The proof issue has been hashed to death in our previous discourse, and I have yet to see your answer to my question when I asked what possible proof could you want aside from the WMDs themselves (a question which you conveniently sidestepped by saying I repeated myself). Intent to use them? I've got news for you ... they already have used them (I'm sure with a quick google search you could find evidence of this lickety-split). I'm really not sure what to make of your last "argument" about the ends justifying the means. How will I look silly if they find WMDs in the end? A majority of my argument rests on uncovering Saddam's WMDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Dru said: "I've been all the way through this desert from Basra to here and I ain't seen one shopping mall or fast food restaurant," he said. "These people got nothing. Even in a little town like ours of twenty five hundred people you got a McDonald's at one end and a Hardee's at the other." That quote's way too good to be true, what's your source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Necronomicon said: Bio(logical warfare agents): gangrene anthrax wheat smut butilinum rotavirus Chem(ical warfare agents): sarin tabun VX CS ricin alphatoxin trichothecenes cyclosarin BTW, where did Iraq get all of the seed cultures for their BIO weapons program? Are we arguing the same point? You keep on attempting to demonize the US .. but the argument here is how the US could possibly provide proof about Saddam's WMDs. However, you offer no arguments to that effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 don't you think West Virginians have been stereotyped enough, Dru?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 don't you think West Virginians have been stereotyped enough, Dru?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Dru said: A few miles from the bridge to the south lie the ruins of the ancient city of Ur, founded 8,000 years ago, the birth place of Abraham and a flourishing metropolis at a time when the inhabitants of north-west Europe were still walking round in animal skins. Sgt Sprague, from White Sulphur Springs in West Virginia, passed it on his way north, but he never knew it was there. "I've been all the way through this desert from Basra to here and I ain't seen one shopping mall or fast food restaurant," he said. "These people got nothing. Even in a little town like ours of twenty five hundred people you got a McDonald's at one end and a Hardee's at the other." 1) We're fighting to bring McDonald's to the cradle of civilization. 2) The average solider/marine is of below average intelligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 Necro, we are gonna make sure mikeadam sees yur last post when he gets back!! (and your spelling of 'soldier' makes the post even funnier) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 tomcat said: Whoa, hold on there chief. That is quite a convoluted, irrational argument you made there I have yet to see your answer to my question when I asked what possibly proof could you want I would ask the expert weapons that question. Obviously the weapons themselves would be nice, but production facilities would be reasonable, I assume. How about when they are used against my friends overseas? Again, I don't have Anthrax production inspection on my resume and I don't have my Vx merit badge yet either. I'm really not sure what to make of your last "argument" about the ends justifying the means. We entered a conflict supposedly to rid the country of so-called wmd's. Since we have no evidence of these yet, we may or may not happen upon some during the conflict, and will use this evidence to say, "see? we told you so." This is what I mean by "ends justifying the means". How will I look silly if they find WMDs in the end? I meant you look silly right now. Boiling this down to "I'm a dumbass" if we find wmd's in Iraq is pretty silly, that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 note, I'm going to lunch for awhile, so you won't get any pithy comebacks for at least an hour. maybe someone else wants to pick this up? I'm done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 iain said: tomcat said: Whoa, hold on there chief. That is quite a convoluted, irrational argument you made there I have yet to see your answer to my question when I asked what possibly proof could you want I would ask the expert weapons that question. Obviously the weapons themselves would be nice, but production facilities would be reasonable, I assume. How about when they are used against my friends overseas? Again, I don't have Anthrax production inspection on my resume and I don't have my Vx merit badge yet either. I'm really not sure what to make of your last "argument" about the ends justifying the means. We entered a conflict supposedly to rid the country of so-called wmd's. Since we have no evidence of these yet, we may or may not happen upon some during the conflict, and will use this evidence to say, "see? we told you so." This is what I mean by "ends justifying the means". How will I look silly if they find WMDs in the end? I meant you look silly right now. Boiling this down to "I'm a dumbass" if we find wmd's in Iraq is pretty silly, that's all. Weapons inspections didn't work. That's why we're at the point we're at now. The weapons inspectors couldn't tell their elbows from their pieholes and even if they could, Iraq is a very large country when you consider the amount of UN personnel performing the inspections. It's very very easy to hide WMDs (which aren't large and bulky to begin with) in a desert the size of Idaho (I just love that comparison). Last time I checked, the UN inspectors weren't digging pits in the desert looking for WMDs .. instead, they were going to conventional weapons facilities and factories (and even then, they didn't hit each and every factory). It would be pretty easy to manufacture little batches of biological agents in underground bunkers in a hillside cave in Northern Iraq, or even a residential home with a hidden, underground manufacturing facility. It would also be easy to create these types of things in a trailer on a semi truck .. a mobile Iraqi meth lab of sorts (if you will). I know .. too Seagal-like right? That kind of stuff only happens in movies right? Saddam is pretty crafty .. I'm sure he wouldn't be cooking these things up on the top of the presidential palace in downtown Iraq in blatant view of UN weapons inspectors. Instead, I presume he would be finding secret places to manufacture .. perhaps in residential areas, underground. UN weapons inspectors weren't going home to home inspecting the Abdullah residence on 123 Baghdad St looking for underground manufacturing facilities. So this all brings me back to my original question .. what possible evidence could US intelligence provide that would offer unwavering proof that Saddam's regime has WMDs? We've hashed out the UN inspections, so let's hear another argument (unless you can dispute what I just wrote). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 "BTW, where did Iraq get all of the seed cultures for their BIO weapons program?" From suppliers who keep such cultures on hand for bio research. This is the problem with "dual use" materials. Iraq has a large agricultural population, and livestock diseases are a legitimate concern for folks actually interested in agricultural research. Many countries with pharmaceutical industries do research on diseases because you can't develop chemicals and cures without the diseases themselves. Lest we forget, anthrax is a livestock disease. The other point is that for any disease still extant in the natural world, there is no actual method of controlling who gets the materials for seeding cultures. It's common to assume anthrax only comes from seed stock if you've been reading too many articles from the Nation or some other such outfit. The fact is, anthrax can be found anywhere there are livestock in the proper conditions. All that's needed is to find an outbreak and go get a carcass, a live specimen with the desired disease, or a soil sample, depending on the disease of course. Making "where did they get the anthrax" an argument for some kind of complicity, ignores the normal practices of researchers all over the world, who do *not* weaponize what they get but actually use it for legitimate research. As well as the fact that anyone who wants it bad enough merely need find an outbreak to get some anyway and begin doing their own seed cultures and weaponized mutations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 MtnGoat said: "BTW, where did Iraq get all of the seed cultures for their BIO weapons program?" From suppliers who keep such cultures on hand for bio research. This is the problem with "dual use" materials. Iraq has a large agricultural population, and livestock diseases are a legitimate concern for folks actually interested in agricultural research. Many countries with pharmaceutical industries do research on diseases because you can't develop chemicals and cures without the diseases themselves. Lest we forget, anthrax is a livestock disease. The other point is that for any disease still extant in the natural world, there is no actual method of controlling who gets the materials for seeding cultures. It's common to assume anthrax only comes from seed stock if you've been reading too many articles from the Nation or some other such outfit. The fact is, anthrax can be found anywhere there are livestock in the proper conditions. All that's needed is to find an outbreak and go get a carcass, a live specimen with the desired disease, or a soil sample, depending on the disease of course. Making "where did they get the anthrax" an argument for some kind of complicity, ignores the normal practices of researchers all over the world, who do *not* weaponize what they get but actually use it for legitimate research. As well as the fact that anyone who wants it bad enough merely need find an outbreak to get some anyway and begin doing their own seed cultures and weaponized mutations. Very good argument .. one which I was preparing to make myself. But as we can see, logical arguments are futile here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 the idea there's no proof is pretty funny. I'm not sure what would constitute proof for many save lots of dead people in NY or London, at which point the propents of said "proof" go gee, why didn't you take action? Connect the dots in advance given clear evidence, there's not enough "proof" for them, wait too long, it's why didn't you know? Can't win. The proof needed already exists. Iraq was known by UN inspectors to have stockpiles of thousands of tons at the time the UN was ejected in 98. Iraq itself admitted possession of weaponized anthrax around that time. This constitutes proof of the existense of these weapons. The second fact is physical items do not just vanish. If they are known to exist, two options and two options only then exist. One, the weapons are destroyed, two, they still exist. If there are destroyed, it's easily proven by providing access to the places and people who destroyed them, since all these things leave verifiable chemical residues. But no, no evidence of destruction has been provided. That leaves us at the other option, they still exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 While some of your points are valid regarding the needle in the haystack, it's the wrong question. A little history can be enlightening. The CIA help put Saddam in place and provided a list of about 800 opposition members who were rounded up and shot. We knew he was manic, but he was our manic in the cold war atmosphere. We provided him with biological and chemical weapons in his battle with Iran, with intelligence support. Saddam's big mistake was pulling on the leash too hard and invading Kuwait. Bad dog, bad!! Now we've set a new trend in world relations - invading a country on what they've done, but what they might do. Terrorism is the new communism. A facade to conduct unilateral operations, with little other justification, to secure "national interest". Yea, yea, Saddam is a brutal dictator. So are a number of other countries around the world. Do we plan to spend $200 billion per country removing regimes we disagree with? Algeria, with a horrendous human rights record, was recently praised by the Assistance Secretary of State for Mid-East Affairs say "... we could learn a few things from how they handle unrest". Like lopping of their hands I guess. Most of the arguments for the war are contrived, without any acknowledgement of our previous support for Saddam, and hyporcricy of our previous and current actions around the world. If Iraqs major export was coffee do you think we would be in there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 See all you spray babies at the anti war demonstration at the Seattle Fedral Building this afternoon. I am going down there after work. As to the soldiers, it's the sound of freedom, if they can't deal with it, tough shit. I will not hold back from expressing my views because they might offend someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 You fucks have a right to protest but don't get outta hand and violent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Dave_Schuldt said: See all you spray babies at the anti war demonstration at the Seattle Fedral Building this afternoon. I am going down there after work. As to the soldiers, it's the sound of freedom, if they can't deal with it, tough shit. I will not hold back from expressing my views because they might offend someone. I would risk (and have risked) my own life to defend this right, Dave. Have fun at the rally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.