tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 iain said: tomcat said: Just because you have been led to think Saddam's regime had nothing to do with 9/11, that doesn't mean you're right. Yes, best to shoot first I say. The rational foundation for any analysis, and indeed, for every government interested in global stability! I don't think you're giving enough credit to US intelligence. By saying what you're saying, you're really stating that you know as much as the US gov't does .. and you and I both know, that's not the case. You said yourself that when we find WMDs, you'll eat your words. Prepare to eat well my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Necronomicon said: tomcat, Do you ever get tired of revealing yourself to be a barely articulate sub-moron? I sure don't. It's fun to observe how remarkable dense some people are. And I'm far from flustered, BTW. When did I lose a right to express my opinion? Barely articulate? Way to cloud the issue chief. I can tell you're not flustered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 tomcat said: iain said: tomcat said: You said yourself that when we find WMDs, you'll eat your words. Prepare to eat well my friend. Prepare see your buds come home in their sleepnig bags after we get gassed on the outskirts of Baghdad. Instead of disarming Iraq of chemical weapons, we're pushing them to use them. Which is worse, using them, or forcing them to use them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 tomcat said: Yes, best to shoot first I say. The rational foundation for any analysis, and indeed, for every government interested in global stability! I don't think you're giving enough credit to US intelligence. By saying what you're saying, you're really stating that you know as much as the US gov't does .. and you and I both know, that's not the case. You said yourself that when we find WMDs, you'll eat your words. Prepare to eat well my friend. Well that last sentence reads like a line from a Segal movie, but I guess I'll respond. I don't really see it as "eating my words", more a sigh of relief that our f'ing government hasn't completely lost its marbles. Which up until now, seems to be the case. I'm not suggesting at all I know more than the CIA, but what I am suggesting is why not produce the evidence? Is it a matter of national security? I don't really think so. Do you? Please don't respond with any more syrupy shit about eating well anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Necronomicon said: tomcat said: iain said: tomcat said: You said yourself that when we find WMDs, you'll eat your words. Prepare to eat well my friend. Prepare see your buds come home in their sleepnig bags after we get gassed on the outskirts of Baghdad. Instead of disarming Iraq of chemical weapons, we're pushing them to use them. Which is worse, using them, or forcing them to use them? Hey chief, if you're going to accuse others of not being articulate, you could at least use your spell checker and act like you are. 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, Do you ever get tired of revealing yourself to be a barely articulate sub-moron? I sure don't. It's fun to observe how remarkable dense some people are. And I'm far from flustered, BTW. When did I lose a right to express my opinion? Barely articulate? Way to cloud the issue chief. I can tell you're not flustered. pulse: 70 bmp body temp: 98.6F skin tone: normal Nope, not flustered yet. You're kind of like the goober with a dump in his pants that's too dense to realize he should be embarassed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 Well that last sentence reads like a line from a Segal movie ...admitted you saw one...-5 points, Iain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 this would be the same Us intelligence that believed the simple forgeries about iraqi nukes? maybe they get paid in monopoly money (got a dollar sign right on it so it must be legal!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialed Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Well one way to look at it is that the US wins (politically) if Iraq does use chemical weapons And we win if they don't too. ...but I hope they don't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 okay, dru, next we're gonna start cracking on the Canadian navy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 RobBob said: ...admitted you saw one...-5 points, Iain. hmm may have seen a few minutes of Hard to Kill on USA or something whilst a barman was flipping through the channels looking for the game...er..yes 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: Yes, best to shoot first I say. The rational foundation for any analysis, and indeed, for every government interested in global stability! I don't think you're giving enough credit to US intelligence. By saying what you're saying, you're really stating that you know as much as the US gov't does .. and you and I both know, that's not the case. You said yourself that when we find WMDs, you'll eat your words. Prepare to eat well my friend. Well that last sentence reads like a line from a Segal movie, but I guess I'll respond. I don't really see it as "eating my words", more a sigh of relief that our f'ing government hasn't completely lost its marbles. Which up until now, seems to be the case. I'm not suggesting at all I know more than the CIA, but what I am suggesting is why not produce the evidence? Is it a matter of national security? I don't really think so. Do you? Please don't respond with any more syrupy shit about eating well anymore. What kind of evidence would you like, Iain? The actual WMDs? Come on bud, you and I both know it's not that easy. Saddam's WMDs aren't going to be sitting in the Baghdad town square, and there are no treasure maps with an X that marks the spot. Just because we have evidence that they have WMDs, that doesn't mean that we know where they are. And lastly, what evidence could they possibly provide (other than the WMDs themselves) to prove to you that they exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Yeah, but US INTELLIGENCE should know EXACTLY where they are, don't you think, because they are ALL KNOWING and OMNIPOTENT, with their ubiquitous Eyes in the Sky and Spys and cool shit like that. They know when Sodom's taking a crap so they can drop a JDAM down the chimney, so they DEFINITELY know wher3e the WMDs are. Right tomcat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 RobBob said: Jane Fonda Regrets ‘Hanoi Jane’ Moment The Associated Press New York, June 21 — It epitomized her reputation as “Hanoi Jane,” and Jane Fonda now says she feels awful about posing for a photo with North Vietnamese soldiers in 1972. “I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes,” Fonda told O, The Oprah Magazine. “It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.” Best bumper sticker ever: 'Jane Fonda - Commie Bitch Die' Seen on a beat up Ford pickup near Fort Polk, Louisiana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Necronomicon said: Yeah, but US INTELLIGENCE should know EXACTLY where they are, don't you think, because they are ALL KNOWING and OMNIPOTENT, with their ubiquitous Eyes in the Sky and Spys and cool shit like that. They know when Sodom's taking a crap so they can drop a JDAM down the chimney, so they DEFINITELY know wher3e the WMDs are. Right tomcat? Well Necronomicon, it took 12 long years to finally gain enough intelligence to find Saddam (for a couple of hours). I suspect if they knew when and where he was taking a crap they would have had him much sooner -- don't you agree? The US finding Saddam early on in this campaign is unprecedented, and the only way we were able to achieve this was by severe intimidation -- by bringing in the US armed forces. I suspect finding something inanimate (such as WMDs) which don't use the telephone, which don't take a crap, which don't tell people where they're sleeping, and which could be buried in the sand in a desert the size of the state of Idaho, would be quite difficult. US intelligence may be the best there is, but there are certain limits. 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? 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: 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. 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: 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Again, does pushing a regime to use it's weapons of mass destruction make one complicit to the crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialed Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Necronomicon said: Again, does pushing a regime to use it's weapons of mass destruction make one complicit to the crime? This is where you display your true liberal colors. No one can "push" another regime to do anything. That regime makes that CHOICE on their own. They also have a CHOICE to surrender or continue battle with conventional weapons. Should I feel sorry for the thief who is shot by a shop owner in a robbery attempt? It was his CHOICE to commit his crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialed Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Billygoat said: specialed said: Billygoat said: I can't believe that the $750 billion tax cut might go thru on top of that. As soon as this war is over, the economy will want to start crankin' up but the interest rates will skyrocket due to the huge deficit we are currently running and the amount we are willing to raise it to. Any recovery will effectively be choked off Its no doubt Bush Administration is inept at running our nation's economy and just about everything except reading polls and PR. And even though Bush might be invading Iraq to appease his oil buddies and avenge the attempted assasination of his dad, its in the long-term interest of America and the world as a whole to get rid of Sadam's regime and proliferate organized and connected society and culture. Yeah but, if we want to promote that kind of world, we shouldn't seek PAX Americana Roman style. However, I like the way those guys party Only need to promote it Roman style, by force, with regimes like Sadam's. Otherwise we've got Coca-Cola and McDonald's to do it for us. 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.