Take the war on Iraq IQ test
-
Can I imply that you're accepting the other 34 items? Here are some sources. Undoubtedly, you'll refute them all as conspiracy theory quacks. Just read them. I did a quick Google search and found these. Some are highly reputable, and have nothing to do with politics or conspiracy. Just concerned organizations noting the dramatic increase of cancer rates in Iraqi people since Gulf War I. Depleted Uraniam shells[^] Rise in Iraqi cancer rates since Gulf War I[^] Economic sanctions and public health: the case of Iraq[^] Faulty Justifications for War with Iraq[^] Iraqi cancers offer clues to Gulf War Syndrome[^] Delegation to end all sanctions against Iraq[^] Depleted Uranium information in the Lancet[^] Here are some related to the war crimes during Gulf War I: More facts out on U.S. slaughter in Gulf[^] What the U.S. Bombs Have Done to the People of Iraq[^] Ty
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Albert Einstein
TyMatthews wrote: Can I imply that you're accepting the other 34 items? Not necessarily. I do not doubt that there would be lingering affects if 40 tons of uranium were left lying around Iraq. However, thats 80,000 lbs. and that would take a lot of shells. If we say a shell weighs 50 lbs, thats 1600 shells (not unreasonable), but it says 40 tons of uranium, not shells. I don't know if this is true or not, so I won't comment further. What is the effect of 600+ oil wells being set afire and spewing toxic fumes for months? Or was the our fault too? BTW, I tend not to trust socialist/communist web sites. You surely don't believe socialism/communism actually works do you?
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Another beauty of the system is, I think, that a man is innocent before being convicted :) Doug Goulden wrote: I'm not very PC An apple zeolot on CP ?! :wtf::-D;)
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
KaЯl wrote: An apple zeolot on CP That was really mean. KaЯl wrote: nother beauty of the system is, I think, that a man is innocent before being convicted I'm not ready to mach the guy in front of a firing squad, I just don't think that someone should be able to quote him as an authoritative expert, without questioning his motives. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
KaЯl wrote: An apple zeolot on CP That was really mean. KaЯl wrote: nother beauty of the system is, I think, that a man is innocent before being convicted I'm not ready to mach the guy in front of a firing squad, I just don't think that someone should be able to quote him as an authoritative expert, without questioning his motives. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: That was really mean Sorry, I apologize :rolleyes: Doug Goulden wrote: just don't think that someone should be able to quote him as an authoritative expert, without questioning his motives. I understand that. I think his arguments have to be more attentively confirmed, but not to be rejected without examination.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
Doug Goulden wrote: That was really mean Sorry, I apologize :rolleyes: Doug Goulden wrote: just don't think that someone should be able to quote him as an authoritative expert, without questioning his motives. I understand that. I think his arguments have to be more attentively confirmed, but not to be rejected without examination.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
KaЯl wrote: I think his arguments have to be more attentively confirmed, but not to be rejected without examination I would agree with that, to bad we had to send 255,000 armed Americans to the Gulf to get him (SH) to let us even visit to check......:) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
KaЯl wrote: I think his arguments have to be more attentively confirmed, but not to be rejected without examination I would agree with that, to bad we had to send 255,000 armed Americans to the Gulf to get him (SH) to let us even visit to check......:) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
And it worked ! :-D
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
TyMatthews wrote: Can I imply that you're accepting the other 34 items? Not necessarily. I do not doubt that there would be lingering affects if 40 tons of uranium were left lying around Iraq. However, thats 80,000 lbs. and that would take a lot of shells. If we say a shell weighs 50 lbs, thats 1600 shells (not unreasonable), but it says 40 tons of uranium, not shells. I don't know if this is true or not, so I won't comment further. What is the effect of 600+ oil wells being set afire and spewing toxic fumes for months? Or was the our fault too? BTW, I tend not to trust socialist/communist web sites. You surely don't believe socialism/communism actually works do you?
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: You surely don't believe socialism/communism actually works do you? Who knows? Nobody tried. ;P
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
And it worked ! :-D
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
Yeah, and how long do you think it will work after we leave? :omg: Lets just agree war sucks and that nobody really wants one, but sometimes you have to just hold your nose and commit. (At least until tommorrow when someone else will post another thread like this and we can disagree all over again my Marxist friend;P) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Jason Henderson wrote: You surely don't believe socialism/communism actually works do you? Who knows? Nobody tried. ;P
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
Yeah they did, read how it turned out. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0226_030226_antnepotism.html Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Now there's a reliable source. The man was arrested for trying to pick up young girls over the internet. non-sequiter, b.t.w. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Nice Chris! I always point out non-sequiter fallacies, but I've never seen anyone else use it. Very good! 10 points for you. :)
any idiot can write haiku you just stop at seventeenth syl -ThinkGeek Fortunes
-
Yeah, and how long do you think it will work after we leave? :omg: Lets just agree war sucks and that nobody really wants one, but sometimes you have to just hold your nose and commit. (At least until tommorrow when someone else will post another thread like this and we can disagree all over again my Marxist friend;P) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: it will work after we leave Dump Turkey, recognize an independant Kurdistan, and give a military support to the Kurds. Or eliminate SH discretly. I suppose it's not that easy, or the Mossad would have already done it. Doug Goulden wrote: Lets just agree war sucks and that nobody really wants one, but sometimes you have to just hold your nose and commit Agreed on this. Till the next thread ;) Doug Goulden wrote: my Marxist friend You should introduce him to me, I'm sure I'm able to convince him to forget his false theories :-D
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
My contributions for the day: Take the war on Iraq IQ test[^] House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called Democratic opponents of war in Iraq "reckless." [^] U.S. threatens to eliminate independent war journalists during upcoming war on Iraq[^] Ty
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Albert Einstein
Some more stats for you, http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html[^] Michael He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious - Sun Tzu (The Art of War)
-
TyMatthews wrote: Can I imply that you're accepting the other 34 items? Not necessarily. I do not doubt that there would be lingering affects if 40 tons of uranium were left lying around Iraq. However, thats 80,000 lbs. and that would take a lot of shells. If we say a shell weighs 50 lbs, thats 1600 shells (not unreasonable), but it says 40 tons of uranium, not shells. I don't know if this is true or not, so I won't comment further. What is the effect of 600+ oil wells being set afire and spewing toxic fumes for months? Or was the our fault too? BTW, I tend not to trust socialist/communist web sites. You surely don't believe socialism/communism actually works do you?
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: ...and that would take a lot of shells. We dropped more bombs in Gulf War I than in the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. The U.S. had a massive build-up of weaponry throughout the cold war, all to "one up" the Soviets if WW3 ever were to come about. In 1989 all of that changed. What to do with all these bombs, and how do the defense contractors keep earning their riches off taxpayer money now that we've run out of excuses to keep building bombs? Simple: find a new enemy. One that provides an excuse for dropping an insane amount of ordnance, so they can show off their cool "smart bomb" technology. Control over all of that oil and the need for a new enemy was just too delicious for Bush to resist. Allow Saddam to run over Kuwait by looking the other way. Make up some stories about how the Iraqi military is raping and brutally murdering innocent Kuwaiti civilians. Try to forget about the Kurds that Saddam gassed on his own soil... that was okay when Bush and Saddam were allies. Get the American people to support a war and support spending money on more defense. Then bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, show off your tech on CNN. Shock the hell out of Saddam, hoping he gets the picture... don't mess with Bush! Whoops, the war was far too easy. Guess they overestimated the strength of Iraq's army. Didn't expect them to cave in quite so easily. Couldn't just run in there and nuke them all while they're trying to surrender. Well, that's not entirely true. They did kill hundreds of Iraqi troops trying to retreat and get out of Kuwait. So, what to do when your enemy is not up to the challenge of a "decent war?" Pull out, throw down some sanctions, go back home and build some more bombs, this time with newer tech funded by the taxpayers. Leave Saddam in power so we can come back and do it all over again in a couple years. After all, if you yank him out in 1991 and install a democracy, what evil dictator could take his place? Whoops, didn't get re-elected. DAMN that Ross Perot! That threw the entire plan out the window. Saddam plots assassination attempt on Daddy Bush. Okay, now it's really personal!! Get two sons into politics. 1996 is too early, plan to buy the 2000 election with either Shrubya or Jethro. Shrubya gets the nod. Steal the election by the narrowest of margins. Okay, Bush is back in power. Time to make up for all that lost time. Bomb Iraq right away, within a month of inauguration. Show him his days a
-
Some more stats for you, http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html[^] Michael He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious - Sun Tzu (The Art of War)
LOL, a site with a mailing address of Washington, DC. That is too funny. All articles on that site conveniently leave out the civilian casualties as a result of Gulf War I, and the horrible after-effects of that unprecedented bombing that continue to this day. I'm sure with that kind of logic you'd support bombing nearly all of Africa now, too. After all, the human rights violations that have been going on there for decades... nay centuries... have extolled a tremendous price on their civilians. http://www.rnw.nl/humanrights/html/violations.html[^] http://hrw.org/reports/2003/sierraleone/sierleon0103-05.htm#P302_34890[^] http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/africa7.html[^] Chaos in Eastern Congo: U.N. Action Needed Now[^] Would you support a war to go in and help these people? No need to think too long about that... there isn't anything of material or political value down there, so Bush won't bother. Just one of those hypothetical questions you can ponder while supporting Bush's plan to bomb Iraq with or without U.N. consent. Ty
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Albert Einstein
-
Hey, thanks! Ty
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Albert Einstein
Strikingly low. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Now there's a reliable source. The man was arrested for trying to pick up young girls over the internet. non-sequiter, b.t.w. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
I agree that the fact that he has been charged with attempted solicitation of minors has no relation to his knowledge of the issues in Iraq. Of course the fact that he has accepted pay from Iraq might bias his statments... And the assertion that Iraq's "state of disarmament" is unprecedented in any way other than fiction is ludicrous. How does disarmament of WMD in Iraq compare to that in SA? Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
LOL, a site with a mailing address of Washington, DC. That is too funny. All articles on that site conveniently leave out the civilian casualties as a result of Gulf War I, and the horrible after-effects of that unprecedented bombing that continue to this day. I'm sure with that kind of logic you'd support bombing nearly all of Africa now, too. After all, the human rights violations that have been going on there for decades... nay centuries... have extolled a tremendous price on their civilians. http://www.rnw.nl/humanrights/html/violations.html[^] http://hrw.org/reports/2003/sierraleone/sierleon0103-05.htm#P302_34890[^] http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/africa7.html[^] Chaos in Eastern Congo: U.N. Action Needed Now[^] Would you support a war to go in and help these people? No need to think too long about that... there isn't anything of material or political value down there, so Bush won't bother. Just one of those hypothetical questions you can ponder while supporting Bush's plan to bomb Iraq with or without U.N. consent. Ty
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Albert Einstein
So you're arguing that we shouldn't go to war with Iraq because other countries are also misbehaving and we're not preparing to do the same to them. So then, logically, you would support war with Iraq if we also simultaneously went to war with all those other countries as well. :eek: My point is, you should reconsider not using that silly "we don't do the same to other countries" argument in your daily "GWB sucks" rants. While I would agree that there are plenty of inconsistencies in this country's foreign policy, it's not an excuse to just do nothing, especially when it comes to lunatics like Saddam. Regards, Alvaro
Quitters never win. Winners never quit. But those who never win and never quit are idiots. -- despair.com
-
Ooh, this looks just like the last time you replied. Except of course you bracketed it with <flamebait> this go 'round. So here's how we proceed... correct me where I'm wrong. I respond with a witty retort. You up the ante and respond with double the insults, all the while feigning interest in the actual topic, and attempt to further instigate a proper response at the level in which you dwell. I do so, and upon reading it, you take your ball and go home, somehow feeling good about yourself. That about right? Class is out today, just my luck. Here's a truce. You need not ever reply to another one of my threads. It is apparent that we are both completely intractable in our positions and any non-constructive responses (like these) are without merit and merely a distraction. In doing so, I will never reply to one of your threads. Seeing how you are without value on this planet and merely a drain on our oxygen supply, this will not be a difficult assignment for me. I am not sure the same can be said for you, as it seems any post that provides a platform for self-promotion and fuel for your abusive nature is far too tempting to resist. I will start my end of the bargain now. Ty
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Albert Einstein
-
Jason Henderson wrote: ...and that would take a lot of shells. We dropped more bombs in Gulf War I than in the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. The U.S. had a massive build-up of weaponry throughout the cold war, all to "one up" the Soviets if WW3 ever were to come about. In 1989 all of that changed. What to do with all these bombs, and how do the defense contractors keep earning their riches off taxpayer money now that we've run out of excuses to keep building bombs? Simple: find a new enemy. One that provides an excuse for dropping an insane amount of ordnance, so they can show off their cool "smart bomb" technology. Control over all of that oil and the need for a new enemy was just too delicious for Bush to resist. Allow Saddam to run over Kuwait by looking the other way. Make up some stories about how the Iraqi military is raping and brutally murdering innocent Kuwaiti civilians. Try to forget about the Kurds that Saddam gassed on his own soil... that was okay when Bush and Saddam were allies. Get the American people to support a war and support spending money on more defense. Then bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, show off your tech on CNN. Shock the hell out of Saddam, hoping he gets the picture... don't mess with Bush! Whoops, the war was far too easy. Guess they overestimated the strength of Iraq's army. Didn't expect them to cave in quite so easily. Couldn't just run in there and nuke them all while they're trying to surrender. Well, that's not entirely true. They did kill hundreds of Iraqi troops trying to retreat and get out of Kuwait. So, what to do when your enemy is not up to the challenge of a "decent war?" Pull out, throw down some sanctions, go back home and build some more bombs, this time with newer tech funded by the taxpayers. Leave Saddam in power so we can come back and do it all over again in a couple years. After all, if you yank him out in 1991 and install a democracy, what evil dictator could take his place? Whoops, didn't get re-elected. DAMN that Ross Perot! That threw the entire plan out the window. Saddam plots assassination attempt on Daddy Bush. Okay, now it's really personal!! Get two sons into politics. 1996 is too early, plan to buy the 2000 election with either Shrubya or Jethro. Shrubya gets the nod. Steal the election by the narrowest of margins. Okay, Bush is back in power. Time to make up for all that lost time. Bomb Iraq right away, within a month of inauguration. Show him his days a
TyMatthews wrote: Simple: find a new enemy. One that provides an excuse for dropping an insane amount of ordnance, so they can show off their cool "smart bomb" technology. Control over all of that oil and the need for a new enemy was just too delicious for Bush to resist. That is so much BS, I can't believe you would actually believe it! We don't control the oil and we have never controlled it. We could have, but we didn't take it. OIL IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE! The rest of your ramble is utter BS as well. You actually believe that Bush 41 put his son into power just so he could get even with Saddam?? That's insane! To think that the gov't knew about 9/11 is also
insane!!! You're obviously not thinking clearly. You seem like an intelligent person, please use your intelligence rather than letting someone else feed you with this crap. TyMatthews wrote: Which ones are socialist/communist? The last two links, the militant, and I forget the other one.Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
TyMatthews wrote: Simple: find a new enemy. One that provides an excuse for dropping an insane amount of ordnance, so they can show off their cool "smart bomb" technology. Control over all of that oil and the need for a new enemy was just too delicious for Bush to resist. That is so much BS, I can't believe you would actually believe it! We don't control the oil and we have never controlled it. We could have, but we didn't take it. OIL IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE! The rest of your ramble is utter BS as well. You actually believe that Bush 41 put his son into power just so he could get even with Saddam?? That's insane! To think that the gov't knew about 9/11 is also
insane!!! You're obviously not thinking clearly. You seem like an intelligent person, please use your intelligence rather than letting someone else feed you with this crap. TyMatthews wrote: Which ones are socialist/communist? The last two links, the militant, and I forget the other one.Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi"In essence, the Cheney report makes three key points: * The United States must satisfy an ever-increasing share of its oil demand with imported supplies. (At present, the United States imports about 10 million barrels of oil per day, representing 53 percent of its total consumption; by 2020, daily U.S. imports will total nearly 17 million barrels, or 65 percent of consumption.) * The United States cannot depend exclusively on traditional sources of supply like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Canada to provide this additional oil. It will also have to obtain substantial supplies from new sources, such as the Caspian states, Russia, and Africa. * The United States cannot rely on market forces alone to gain access to these added supplies, but will also require a significant effort the part of government officials to overcome foreign resistance to the outward reach of American energy companies. In line with these three principles, the Cheney plan calls on the Bush administration to undertake a wide range of initiatives aimed at increasing oil imports from overseas sources of supply. In particular, it calls on the president and secretaries of state, energy and commerce to work with leaders of the Central Asian countries and Azerbaijan to boost production in the Caspian region and to build new pipelines to the West. It also calls on U.S. officials to persuade their counterparts in Africa, the Persian Gulf and Latin America to open up their oil industries to greater U.S. oil-company involvement and to send more of their petroleum to the United States. " http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12946[^] Do you think this is just made up? There are major problems with this adminstation.:mad: Later,
JoeSox
www.joeswammi.com
The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty. Eugene McCarthy -
LOL, a site with a mailing address of Washington, DC. That is too funny. All articles on that site conveniently leave out the civilian casualties as a result of Gulf War I, and the horrible after-effects of that unprecedented bombing that continue to this day. I'm sure with that kind of logic you'd support bombing nearly all of Africa now, too. After all, the human rights violations that have been going on there for decades... nay centuries... have extolled a tremendous price on their civilians. http://www.rnw.nl/humanrights/html/violations.html[^] http://hrw.org/reports/2003/sierraleone/sierleon0103-05.htm#P302_34890[^] http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/africa7.html[^] Chaos in Eastern Congo: U.N. Action Needed Now[^] Would you support a war to go in and help these people? No need to think too long about that... there isn't anything of material or political value down there, so Bush won't bother. Just one of those hypothetical questions you can ponder while supporting Bush's plan to bomb Iraq with or without U.N. consent. Ty
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Albert Einstein
If I had my way, I'd go after every single one of those countries who violate the rights of their citizens - starting with the non-democratic ones and moving on to sort of the problems in the US and UK and the rest of the so called civilised world. I don't support Bush's plan to bomb Iraq... after all his intents are very dubious but the guy needs sorting out (just like the rest do). And we have to start somewhere - but we can only do this if we are ready to help and assist in rebuilding strong democracies in the countries we 'sort'. Of course, I'm an idealist - I know none of this is practical because the human race is a bunch of primitive savages. Maybe I've just seen too many movies, but why can't we go out there and deal with the bad-guys. Michael He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious - Sun Tzu (The Art of War)