|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:21 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: |
Truly. Though i do fear for the sovreignty of Djibouti |
Ahhh, haven't heard any KC and The Sunshine Band songs for years.
|
|
|
|
|
monk25
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jun 2002
Posts: 3922
Location: The Beautiful South Shore of L.I. NY
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:22 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | For those of you on that favor that side of the aisle, do you honestly think Kerry can beat Bush in November?
|
I do. I'm not positive it is going to happen, and I know it will be a tough fight, but I do think it is possible. Far more possible than most Repubs like to think.
| monk25 wrote: | His reason is that the Dem's do not have the stomach to do what has to be done regarding the War on Terror.
|
What is it that the Dems don't have the stomach to do? |
Randomly invade various nations by striking without definable provocation by using the doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike.
Whoops, did i say that out loud? |
I guess that kind of proves my point. 
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:23 Post subject:
| monk25 wrote: | | Pug wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | For those of you on that favor that side of the aisle, do you honestly think Kerry can beat Bush in November?
|
I do. I'm not positive it is going to happen, and I know it will be a tough fight, but I do think it is possible. Far more possible than most Repubs like to think.
| monk25 wrote: | His reason is that the Dem's do not have the stomach to do what has to be done regarding the War on Terror.
|
What is it that the Dems don't have the stomach to do? |
Randomly invade various nations by striking without definable provocation by using the doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike.
Whoops, did i say that out loud? |
I guess that kind of proves my point. |
There is a difference between recognizing when something is wrong and not having the guts to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:25 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | There is a difference between recognizing when something is wrong and not having the guts to do it. |
Are you quoting the press agent for the MTV half-time fiasco?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:27 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | There is a difference between recognizing when something is wrong and not having the guts to do it. |
Are you quoting the press agent for the MTV half-time fiasco? |
MTV had NO prior knowledge of what Janet Jackson had planned. The fact that they promoted "big surprises" is purely a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:30 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | purple hayes wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | There is a difference between recognizing when something is wrong and not having the guts to do it. |
Are you quoting the press agent for the MTV half-time fiasco? |
MTV had NO prior knowledge of what Janet Jackson had planned. The fact that they promoted "big surprises" is purely a coincidence. |
It couldn't have been planned! Justin Timberlake himself said it was unintentional that he reached across Janet's chest and ripped off part of her shirt and exposed her breast that was only partially obscured by a pastie that she would of course wear under a leather catsuit and a lacy bra.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:31 Post subject:
Honest question for you Pug - Do you think that the WMD never existed or that Sadaam destroyed them?
|
|
|
|
|
monk25
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jun 2002
Posts: 3922
Location: The Beautiful South Shore of L.I. NY
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:37 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | monk25 wrote: | | Pug wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | For those of you on that favor that side of the aisle, do you honestly think Kerry can beat Bush in November?
|
I do. I'm not positive it is going to happen, and I know it will be a tough fight, but I do think it is possible. Far more possible than most Repubs like to think.
| monk25 wrote: | His reason is that the Dem's do not have the stomach to do what has to be done regarding the War on Terror.
|
What is it that the Dems don't have the stomach to do? |
Randomly invade various nations by striking without definable provocation by using the doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike.
Whoops, did i say that out loud? |
I guess that kind of proves my point. |
There is a difference between recognizing when something is wrong and not having the guts to do it. |
Not true, the UN was hapless, and empty threats only embolden a madman. Is the world and even the Iraqi people better off without Saddam in power?
Do you believe that status quo a la history - 9/10/01 is the correct way to go about foreign realtions? I guess we could just bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best...
As I said before, the Dems do not have the stomach for doing what must be done in order to protect the US. Iraq has been a rough ride, but promoting a democracy in the Middle East is scaring the hell out of the dictatorships there. I sat next to an Iranian national at a wedding. He talked my ear off for the better part of two hours. The Iranian youth LOVE America, and are waiting for their chance to overthrow the viscious government there, and put a western style democracy in its place. Would the world be a better place then?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:45 Post subject:
I don't argue that Saddam wasn't a bad guy, but invading countries without provaction is wrong and sets a bad precedent, both for our country and others. Choosing not to do something you know is wrong doen't mean you don't have guts; it means you're smart.
|
|
|
|
|
monk25
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jun 2002
Posts: 3922
Location: The Beautiful South Shore of L.I. NY
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:50 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | I don't argue that Saddam wasn't a bad guy, but invading countries without provaction is wrong and sets a bad precedent, both for our country and others. Choosing not to do something you know is wrong doen't mean you don't have guts; it means you're smart. |
This is were we disagree, I know it was right.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 11:55 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Honest question for you Pug - Do you think that the WMD never existed or that Sadaam destroyed them? |
That Saddam got rid of them, either by destruction or by getting them out of the country.
Here's the thing: I did believe at the start of the war that there was WMD. It boggled me that we knew for a fact that he HAD the WMD (he used them againt his own people) but Iraq was unable to document the destruction that Saddam claimed. So, i thought they had WMD still. I do think that President Bush accelerated the timeline by invading Iraq when he did, and that invasion wasn't the last resort that it should have been.
What i don't like is some of the doublespeak going on. The war was initially about WMD, but when they didn't show up immediately the war was about freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator. I hate the doublespeak! Choose a story and stick with it. This would have been my statement regarding the war (though since i'm doing this on the fly, it won't be as classy as it should be):
"My fellow Americans, The United States of America entered into this war with Iraq because we believed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that they had the capablities to use the WMDs against the United States. We believed this because of intelligence reports and because we had verifiable proof that Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people in the late 1980's and the early 1990's. Saddam Hussein was unable to account for the WMDs that we believe he still has and that he claims to have destroyed. This was our basis for invasion. Thus far we have not found any WMDs, but we still feel that the cause for our war was justified and defensible.
Since the war has begun, we have deposed Saddam Hussein and have now captured him. We will bring him to justice. The Iraqi people will be given the opportunity to have a free and democratic society. This was not the initial intent of the war, but it is a very strong benefit and a positive thing that has come from the war.
My administration is going to launch an investigation into why our intelligence suggested that Iraq did have WMD and why we have been unable to find evidence of such. I would never enter into a war and put the lives of American soldiers at risk if i did not believe the cause was just, and that we had evidence to support our position."
If the case would be layed out something like that...i'd buy it.
Something else that is bugging me: Why Iraq. Who else has WMD that we are not invading? Pakistan. India. North Korea. China. Various states in the former Soviet Union. Why is North Korea less of a direct threat to the United States and why is invasion of Iraq an alternative while we are not considering invading North Korea?
|
|
|
|
|
thegman
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 3088
Location: 12 yards out.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 12:15 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Honest question for you Pug - Do you think that the WMD never existed or that Sadaam destroyed them? |
I think they exist, and were moved to Syria. Some were probably destroyed too.
Here's an excerpt from an article I read earlier this week:
Consider this: At one time Iraq claimed that it had 8,500 liters of anthrax. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? That would be 8.5 tons. In February Colin Powell said that it was possible that Hussein could have three times that much anthrax in liquid form. That would be 25 tons. How much space would it take to hide 25 tons of liquid anthrax? One 18-wheel tanker truck. That's all.
Remember, please, that Hussein had Russian MIG jet fighters buried in the Iraqi desert. How many places could you bury a tanker truck? Or maybe you would just reduce that liquid anthrax to powder form? How much space would that take? About 12 suitcases. Twelve suitcases could have been hidden in Saddam's spidey hole. Just something to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
BamBam
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 2974
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 12:24 Post subject:
| thegman wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | | Honest question for you Pug - Do you think that the WMD never existed or that Sadaam destroyed them? |
I think they exist, and were moved to Syria. Some were probably destroyed too.
Here's an excerpt from an article I read earlier this week:
Consider this: At one time Iraq claimed that it had 8,500 liters of anthrax. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? That would be 8.5 tons. In February Colin Powell said that it was possible that Hussein could have three times that much anthrax in liquid form. That would be 25 tons. How much space would it take to hide 25 tons of liquid anthrax? One 18-wheel tanker truck. That's all.
Remember, please, that Hussein had Russian MIG jet fighters buried in the Iraqi desert. How many places could you bury a tanker truck? Or maybe you would just reduce that liquid anthrax to powder form? How much space would that take? About 12 suitcases. Twelve suitcases could have been hidden in Saddam's spidey hole. Just something to think about. |
That would have taken a heck of a lot of KY jelly..... 
|
|
|
|
|
thegman
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 3088
Location: 12 yards out.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 12:27 Post subject:
| BamBam wrote: | | thegman wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | | Honest question for you Pug - Do you think that the WMD never existed or that Sadaam destroyed them? |
I think they exist, and were moved to Syria. Some were probably destroyed too.
Here's an excerpt from an article I read earlier this week:
Consider this: At one time Iraq claimed that it had 8,500 liters of anthrax. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? That would be 8.5 tons. In February Colin Powell said that it was possible that Hussein could have three times that much anthrax in liquid form. That would be 25 tons. How much space would it take to hide 25 tons of liquid anthrax? One 18-wheel tanker truck. That's all.
Remember, please, that Hussein had Russian MIG jet fighters buried in the Iraqi desert. How many places could you bury a tanker truck? Or maybe you would just reduce that liquid anthrax to powder form? How much space would that take? About 12 suitcases. Twelve suitcases could have been hidden in Saddam's spidey hole. Just something to think about. |
That would have taken a heck of a lot of KY jelly..... |
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 12:27 Post subject:
| thegman wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | | Honest question for you Pug - Do you think that the WMD never existed or that Sadaam destroyed them? |
I think they exist, and were moved to Syria. Some were probably destroyed too.
Here's an excerpt from an article I read earlier this week:
Consider this: At one time Iraq claimed that it had 8,500 liters of anthrax. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? That would be 8.5 tons. In February Colin Powell said that it was possible that Hussein could have three times that much anthrax in liquid form. That would be 25 tons. How much space would it take to hide 25 tons of liquid anthrax? One 18-wheel tanker truck. That's all.
Remember, please, that Hussein had Russian MIG jet fighters buried in the Iraqi desert. How many places could you bury a tanker truck? Or maybe you would just reduce that liquid anthrax to powder form? How much space would that take? About 12 suitcases. Twelve suitcases could have been hidden in Saddam's spidey hole. Just something to think about. |
See!?! That gets back to my whole dependence of cheap foreign sand theory. If we'd just dig up the entire country and ship it over here, think about how hard it would be bury stuff in the sand?
|
|
|
|
