Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Why would anyone bury a $30 plus million dollar airplane in the sand? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Why would anyone bury a $30 plus million dollar airplane in the sand?
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just saw this image of one of 30 plusMiG-25s and SU-25 ground attack jets that were found four months after Australian forces captured the al-Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad. It certainly is an interesting shot. It's taken 4 months to locate this much iron and steel shallowly buried. Kind of makes a person wonder what else we will eventually uncover there, doesn't it.?

More info on it at Banner of Liberty

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I’m sure we would have found them much sooner if our intelligence knew that they existed and exactly where they were.

Then again, maybe not. [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 774

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, I personally believe that Iraq posed a grave threat towards the development and subsequent distribution to terrorist groups of WMD. I believe that we will eventually find compelling evidence that this is the case. I believe that Saddam Hussien had more extensive links to terrorist organizations that we know about. I believe that we were within our rights to end the cease fire and attack Iraq. I believe that Iraq and the world is most likely better off because we did.

All that is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the President lied in making the case for war. It doesn't matter if the content of the lies are themselves true. If I say that I know that you are wearing a orange shirt and you are wearing an orange shirt, I still lied. I have no idea what color shirt you are wearing. The lie is not about what color your shirt is, but rather claiming certain knowledge that I just don't have. To lie about your shirt's color, I'd have to first know what it was and then say that it was something other than this.

Here's a sample of what I'm talking about from the Bush administration, paraphrased from a press conference about a week or so ago:
quote:
Reporter: Mr. President, while making your case for war, you claimed to have intelligence that linked Saddam Hussien to al-Queda. Do you have anything that you can give us to substantiate that claim.
President Bush: We have received a lot of evidence from our take-over of Iraq that is going to take a long time to get through. After we shift through it, we'll be better able to answer questions like that.

To me, this is as good as admitting that he had lied. Whatever evidence they find after claiming to have evidence is irrelevant. If, two months from now, they find pictures of Saddam giving bin Laden a hot oil rub-down, it doesn't change the fact that when they claimed to absolutely have evidence of a link, they actually didn't.

To me this is especially worrying because the Bush Administration has consistently refused to reveal information that it is supposedly making decisions based on. I completely understand that there are certain sources and types of information that must remain secret. The thing that bothers me is that, if you start lying about what you actually know, there's no way of me knowing whether you actually have secret information about something, or are just making up this information and counting on never having to tell me about it. You don't get to repeatedly claim that you know things that you don't know and expect me to go along with it.

If anything, the government should be bending over backwards to prove that they can be trusted handling secret information. However, Bush's candidacy and presidency have been littered with deliberate hiding of information (the energy thing, the documents shipped to his father's presidential library where they won't be available for another 8 or so years). While these might be technically within their rights, it's also technically within my rights not to trust what they say. If they want to win my trust, they have to be open and forthcoming about all things aother than those that should actually be kept secret.

Posts: 107 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This thread should be in the war watch section. But I will answer it anyway.

Who knows what could be found under those sands?
That si quite a question. People have been burying things under those sands since the time of mesopotamia.

The desired implication from this story as far as the administration hopes is that here is their excuse for not finding the weapons they promised Saddam was threatening the US with. Why he hid his nukes and germs and chemicals of course.

The only thing is if he was threatening the US with such weapons why did he not use them when his nation was invaded? Why has he not used them when the Coalition is doing their very best to kill him personally?

Even if he did have them it is plain that he chose not to use them to save his nations sovereignty or his own life. I call that remarkable restraint. I wish the Coalition had showed half that much.

Forget the evidence of WMDs. Where is the evidence Saddam was threatening the US? Where is the evidence that a pre emptive strike was the only way to prevent a terrible attack against the people of the United States?

I admit the Coalition has given plenty of cause for such an attack but merely providing a motive is a far cry from proving an attack was imminent.

I am not to be fooled by the fact that there were some planes buried in the sand because they would have been shot down if they had dared to fly.

If you happen to find the remnants of pharoahs chariots he sent after Moses that would be news.

Tom Bailey

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well we knew he had the planes. We just were not all that sure where they had got to after we knew where they were.

Who is to say that Saddam did not try and use the weapons? Our first strikes were to remove his capability to use these types of weapons. Radio stations, the infamous Command and control were what was taken out first. If our guys did their job right, and there is every indication that they did, then he would not have been able to order the release of the weapons.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
M2: of course, then he wouldn't have been able to order them to hide the weapons, either. And if the weapons were that available for use, what are the chances that every single one of them would have been successfully hidden after the offensive began?

It just seems much more likely that they were hidden before the start of the invasion.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anglachel
Member
Member # 647

 - posted      Profile for Anglachel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I used to bury Micro Machines in the sand so I could dig 'em up the next day.

This ceased to be fun when I stopped finding all of them.

Maybe Saddam liked treaure hunts?

Posts: 214 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orbit
Member
Member # 1193

 - posted      Profile for Orbit   Email Orbit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Where is the evidence that a pre emptive strike was the only way to prevent a terrible attack against the people of the United States?
Would you rather have waited until we had thousands (or more) of dead bodies for our evidence?

I personally believe that Bush is doing the right things. At this point whether or not Hussien had WMD's is irrelevant. He was a terrible leader, and a terrible person in general. Iraq, the Eastern Nations, and the entire would is better off without him in power.

-Orbit_

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Orbit says
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the evidence that a pre emptive strike was the only way to prevent a terrible attack against the people of the United States?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you rather have waited until we had thousands (or more) of dead bodies for our evidence?

Would you rather I wait till you murder my family member before I obliterate yours?

After all you are a human being the most dangerous species on the planet. Your kind are known for their ruthlessness and if you are willing to kill Saddams family before he attacks you why should I think mine would be safe from you?

quote:
I personally believe that Bush is doing the right things. At this point whether or not Hussien had WMD's is irrelevant. He was a terrible leader, and a terrible person in general. Iraq, the Eastern Nations, and the entire would is better off without him in power.
I would be interested to hear what you base your opinion on since his was about the only secular govt in the region. Women could go to school in Iraq or even drive and they were not required to cover wear the bhurka.

The terrorists are mostly fundamentalists who believe Hussien is a traitor to their religion. They hated him worse than the US until very recently. You see he was right there in their midst and the US was way on the other side of the world.

Hussien was not stupid enough to supply weapons to terrorists who might well use them on Hussien himself. But his secular rule buys him no friends in the US while the Saudis religious fundamentalists and the monarchy in Kuwait which also enforces moslem law are good buddys to the Coalition.

When you tell me you don't like Saddam because he is a dictator but that you would fight and kill for the dictator of Kuwait I have to wonder about your thinking. Hypocrisy is a word that might apply.

Tom Bailey

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One: Nice title-- copied and pasted directly from the article. At least now I know where Lambert gets all of his creativity. Two threads in a row with nary a single original thought.

Oh, and the "article" (reads more like a rant) says:
quote:
I suggest if Saddam could successfully hide 30 MiGs under our very noses for months, he’s probably capable of hiding a few amall vials of anthrax than could kill millions of people.
Then I suggest this author has a brain of cheese. A few "small"[sic] vials would be in powder form, and if they were buried in the sand without protection (i.e.- refrigerated boxes), they would very soon not even be capable of killing a mouse. But, of course, let's toss fact and biological knowledge out the window, since we just found 30 buried jets!

Thirty jets. Thirty. Saddam wouldn't even be able to invade New Jersey with thirty jets. Thirty jets, while being a very definitive showing of how Hussein wasted money on ridiculous weapons programs and projects instead of the people, don't mean diddly-squat to Bush's pre-war claims of NBCs. Jets do not equal nukes, do not equal biological weapons, and do not equal chemical weapons. A MiG would hardly even be a suitable deployment for such weapons-- it's no bomber, not by a long shot. So, the implications being made that these jets mean "Bush was right" are ludicrous. So far, he has yet to definitively show anything about the claims he made which garnered the support for the war to begin with: He's found no nukes, no anthrax, and no chemical weapons. No traces of any, either, unless you count the ambient rads from some waste uranium (that, by the way, can't be used in a nuke).

But yeah, since thirty planes were found under the sand, then Bush must be right. After all, fighter jets logically lead to nuclear, biological, and chemical warheads, right?

Maybe the noses of the planes are pointing in the direction where the warheads are buried.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maniacal_engineer
Member
Member # 116

 - posted      Profile for maniacal_engineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm trying to cut down but I'm sorry leto - that was one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen on this forum, and I have seen some pretty dumb ones.

The point is that a jet is BIG, bigger than a missile (or close to the same size) bigger than a mobile bio lab, bigger than a bio weapon spraying drone, bigger than the material for a dirty bomb, bigger than the plutonium/uranium for a bomb, bigger than a stockpile of anthrax or smallpox - even including the necessary refrigeration equipment.

you either are fully clueless or deliberately missd the point - the point is that while we were looking for large buried equipment we missed the large buried equipment right under our nose at the bagdad airport - the first place in the city we captured.
If we can miss such a big target right under our nose, we can certainly miss things that were more deliberately hidden. Planes were not forbidden, so I surmise that they were buried to prevent damage from shrapnel and fire and not to provide plausible deniability to their very existence.

Posts: 962 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm trying to cut down but I'm sorry leto - that was one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen on this forum, and I have seen some pretty dumb ones.
Ah, the sound of good, old-fashioned, "if you can't adequately debunk the post, ad-hom away" response. Bravo.

quote:
e point is that a jet is BIG, bigger than a missile (or close to the same size)
Roughly the same size. However, it isn't missiles we went to war over. It's warheads. Missiles just carry the warheads, and warheads need very special and specific storage, which is actually larger than the planes themselves.

quote:
bigger than a mobile bio lab
Which have already been found to not being bio labs.

quote:
bigger than a bio weapon spraying drone,
But not really bigger than the manned sprayers, which would be needed, unless they were on -- big surprise -- a warhead.

quote:
bigger than the material for a dirty bomb,
Materials which make effective dirty bombs are tracked. US troops messed up by breaking the seals on the only known stockpiles of material that would have been suitable for the dirty bombs in dangerous enough amounts. Seals which were placed by the UN. Big mistake, but another topic altogether.

quote:
bigger than the plutonium/uranium for a bomb
But once again, not bigger than the facilities needed to store said nuclear material.

quote:
bigger than a stockpile of anthrax or smallpox - even including the necessary refrigeration equipment.
Wrong. The necessary equipment would require either power or a building supplied with power. Not something that can just be buried or dumped off in the middle of the desert.

quote:
you either are fully clueless or deliberately missd the point - the point is that while we were looking for large buried equipment we missed the large buried equipment right under our nose at the bagdad airport - the first place in the city we captured.
You must be definitely clueless, because:
quote:
If we can miss such a big target right under our nose, we can certainly miss things that were more deliberately hidden.
That logic does not follow. If anything, logic would dictate that the weapons should also be hidden "right under our noses."

quote:
Planes were not forbidden, so I surmise that they were buried to prevent damage from shrapnel and fire and not to provide plausible deniability to their very existence.
Theory noted, but it still does absolutely nothing to prove one way or another that there are NBCs hidden. Once again, I state that Bush equivocably claimed to know what they had, and where they would go with it. To date, nothing has been found.

Don't get pissed and insult me because I'm calling a spade a spade. I'm glad we went into Iraq, but that doesn't stop the incredible farce of "The Hunt For WMD©" ("WMD" already being an utterly retarded acronym) from being what it is—egg on Bush's face. It's his own fault for allowing such an extreme stance to be taken with regard to finding and destroying any weapons. The burden of proof now lays firmly on Bush's—and, by proxy, the US military's—shoulders to show where the weapons are, and finding a few buried planes (and 30 is very few, in terms of military ordinance) does absolutely nothing to lay credence of claims that Iraq was brimming with NBCs.

It's nice they found the planes. Perhaps they can now be put to a good use (maybe even the new government's first air force). However, this does jack and squat for the search for NBCs, unless the NBCs turn up right next to the jets.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leto:
quote:
Roughly the same size. However, it isn't missiles we went to war over. It's warheads. Missiles just carry the warheads, and warheads need very special and specific storage, which is actually larger than the planes themselves.
Warheads do not need “very special and specific” storage any more than aircraft do. Which is the real significance of finding these buried MIG’s. Can you guarantee that Saddam would not have simply buried NBC warheads in the sand, under the belief that he could dig them up and clean them up later? Those aircraft will take significant refurbishment before they are airworthy again. What’s to say that Saddam didn’t bury his weapons without concern for specific storage requirements? If he had them once he could build them again, right?

quote:
Materials which make effective dirty bombs are tracked. US troops messed up by breaking the seals on the only known stockpiles of material that would have been suitable for the dirty bombs in dangerous enough amounts. Seals which were placed by the UN. Big mistake, but another topic altogether.
Key here is known. Even Blix admitted that Saddam was not cooperating fully, so was likely hiding other material. Those seals were placed on stores that the UN had found, but couldn’t destroy before they were kicked out.

quote:
quote:
If we can miss such a big target right under our nose, we can certainly miss things that were more deliberately hidden.
That logic does not follow. If anything, logic would dictate that the weapons should also be hidden "right under our noses."
? Of course it’s hidden under our noses. The point is that it took 4 months to find 30 aircraft hidden right next to the main airport. What’s a reasonable timeframe to expect the discovery of other equipment, which could easily be smaller than an aircraft, in which a real attempt was made to bury in some out-of-the way location where it wouldn’t be stumbled over?
quote:
Theory noted, but it still does absolutely nothing to prove one way or another that there are NBCs hidden. Once again, I state that Bush equivocably claimed to know what they had, and where they would go with it. To date, nothing has been found.
No, the claim was that Saddam had material that he refused to show to the inspectors. The weapons inspectors even agreed that he had more material than he was accounting for. It’s not really surprising that it wasn’t there when we got there is it?
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry. I try to restrain myself, but these constant unwarranted attacks from hapless people like Leto do need to be answered occasionally, lest anyone give them any credence. he posted:
quote:
One: Nice title-- copied and pasted directly from the article. At least now I know where Lambert gets all of his creativity. Two threads in a row with nary a single original thought.

Oh, and the "article" (reads more like a rant) says:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest if Saddam could successfully hide 30 MiGs under our very noses for months, he’s probably capable of hiding a few amall vials of anthrax than could kill millions of people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I suggest this author has a brain of cheese. A few "small"[sic] vials would be in powder form, and if they were buried in the sand without protection (i.e.- refrigerated boxes), they would very soon not even be capable of killing a mouse. But, of course, let's toss fact and biological knowledge out the window, since we just found 30 buried jets!

Leto, you should back off a little and let your brain cool down a bit. Think before you post such diatribes. Did my title bother you? It seemed appropriate. Should I only use puns or rhymes? You know something, Leto? Not only did I copy and paste an appropriate title - I also linked to the appropriate article and the appropriate photo. I guess I should've drawn my own artistic interpretation of it and put that up instead? Leto... I am a professional artist. I know how creative I am and don't worry about copying and pasting information that I would like to share in its original form. The rant you interpreted is more your kind of thing, I must admit. If you say the author of the article was ranting then sobeit. You are the accepted expert on the rant, and we must accept your conclusions.

However - you have little or no ability to use logic. I've noticed over and over how your tunnel vision prevents you from overcoming incorrect preconceived notions. Someone must have told you that powdered anthrax would never survive being buried in the sand and that is all you needed to concoct the illogical idea that Hussein had powdered Anthrax and wanted to use it after hiding it.

First - Hussein had no weaponized anthrax. he did not know how to create a viable powdered form that would survive long enough to be effective. The liquid anthrax that he is known to have stockpiled would be useless also after a few days without sophisticated technology to keep it viable. His motive in burying WMD was to hide it - not to recover it later. There is no validity to your surmise that he couldn't bury chemicals or other WMD because they would be damaged. The threat was in their discovery - not in their use.

I think the reason you are so enraged over a simple picture is that it demonstrates you are on the wrong side of history again and it gnaws at you. We all would appreciate an apology from you for your accusatory tone and abusive posts. There never seems to be a problem until you create it.

Again, to other Ornery posters and lurkers, my heartfelt apologies.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have yet to see any of the WMD apologists address the question of why, if Saddam had WMDs he did not use them to defend his nation his regime or his children?

Or why if he would not use them under those extreme circumstances his possession of them would pose any danger to the people of the United States?

Until you answer those questions I don't see any need to bother arguing whether he hid any in the desert. Why would it matter?

Tom Bailey

[ August 20, 2003, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Tom Bailey ]

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orbit
Member
Member # 1193

 - posted      Profile for Orbit   Email Orbit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Would you rather I wait till you murder my family member before I obliterate yours?
Well, yes actually. And If I had reason to believe that your were planning to "obliterate" my family I would certainly take action againts you before you actually did.

quote:
Women could go to school in Iraq or even drive and they were not required to cover wear the bhurka.
Yes. They could go to school. And while they were there they would be brainwashed with pro-Saddam propaganda. And they would take "field trips" to Saddams brothers mansion. During the tour the brother would watch the students. After they left he would tell the teacher which ones he wanted. They would then be brought back to him so he could do whatever he wanted with them. It'd be kinda hard to tell which ones to choose if they were still required to wear the bhurka. Saddam and his entire regime was sick and twisted beyond imagination.

quote:
I have yet to see any of the WMD apologists address the question of why, if Saddam had WMDs he did not use them to defend his nation his regime or his children
Because Saddam doesn't care about his nation, his regime, or his children. He cares only about himself. Anyone else associated with him is there only as his tool.

Lets face it. Saddam knew that the attack was coming for a long time. He had plenty of time to hide the evidence and turn tail out of there. He knew that there was no chance of winning this war... even with the use of WMD's. So, it was probably in his best interest to "prove Bush wrong" by hiding any proof that he had any weapons, and run away. So now Bush's administration is sweating, America is suffering extreme pressure, and people like you have helped to seperate this nation.

Like you said. Hussien isn't stupid. He's just an evil coward.

-Orbit_

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lambert, I am not enreaged, Lambert. I am, Lambert, finding it funny how the story changes, Lambert, about what Hussein is doing with the weapons. First, Lambert, he's hiding it. Then, Lambert, he's disposing of it. Regardless, Lambert, even with all the excuses, Lambert, nothing connected to the NBCs are being found, Lambert.

Finding these jets does not lead logically to there being NBCs either buried (like M_E says) or dumped for disposal (like Lambert says). It can, however, lead logically to more machines being buried, since hiding lots of machines like that makes sense. Who knows-- maybe they'll find those mystery bio labs that are actually bio labs?


Despite everything, threads like this are grasping at straws to try to legitimize the assertion that Bush is actually proving what he claimed before the war. Sorry to break it to you, folks, but Bush hasn't proven a thing yet. He's chased out Hussein, and for that I'm glad, but he's come out empty handed with regard to any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Empty... With any of it.

The only publications I can find trying to equate this find as pointing towards NBCs being hidden in the desert somewhere are -- surprise, surprise -- the publication Lambert copies and pastes, and links to the publication Lambert pasted. There seems to be a certain... ah, political "theme" running through them, as well. Perhaps it's the advertisements for Ann Coulter. Maybe it was the links to Limbaugh and O'Reilly rants. Whatever it was, the only publications on this news seem to not care that they come off with an agenda, and apparently, some people just eat it right up. I don't trust those links to be unbiased as much as I don't trust Salon.com to be biased in the other direction.

Of course, it doesn't stop the straw-grasping.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I asked Orbit;

quote:

Would you rather I wait till you murder my family member before I obliterate yours?

He replied;

quote:
Well, yes actually. And If I had reason to believe that your were planning to "obliterate" my family I would certainly take action againts you before you actually did.
Fine. Now what should I do when you claim to have such reason and you kill my children and then no evidence is found and you refuse to prove that I or mine were any danger to you?

Your support for this war already makes you a dangerous person. Your willingness to kill when you have not been attacked is a threat to all civilized people.

Do you get to just go around killing anyone you get a paranoid feeling about? And what do you think your neighbors are going to think when a pattern emerges that makes it look like you get that paranoid feeling most often from people who have something you want?

I pointed out that Iraq was more westernized than any nation in the region. Orbit replies with a bunch more accusations that he would never consider trying to prove in an impartial public trial. In his mind his accusation is enough to justify killing.

Americans used to expect proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And they expected that proof to be shown publicly. You insult your ancestors and your family when you turn your back on your heritage.

I had asked

quote:
I have yet to see any of the WMD apologists address the question of why, if Saddam had WMDs he did not use them to defend his nation his regime or his children
Orbits answer was that Saddam was far to selfish to take risks for his family regime or country and he was far to afraid of the mighty Coalition to dare fight.

The problem is that would mean he was never any danger to the US and it had no good reason to invade. Well other than the oil of course.

I really hate to see my nation engaged in wars for plunder. Especially when it is plain that the people are not going to get to share in the profit. Somehow I doubt that they will repeal the income tax and replace it with oil profits.

Unfortunately I am afraid Orbit is wrong about Saddams willingness to fight. I notice that despite repeated claims of victory the war goes on. All the Coalition has proven is that if you have something they want you had better get a lot of WMDs to defend it because otherwise you could end up like Iraq.

Tom Bailey

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr Bailey, please try to not make statements like "you insult your ancestors" when debating someone's claim. It's very disingenuous, and is just short of calling "yo mamma" on someone in an argument. Also, I get a little tired about the claims that we're invading their oil, since Iraq is the sole owner of Iraq's fields, not the US.

I don't totally disagree with you, but you had me shaking my head in disbelief by the end of your post. You may want to try a different tack, or rethink exactly why you feel the way you do.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maniacal_engineer
Member
Member # 116

 - posted      Profile for maniacal_engineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
just to clarify leto, I did not make an ad hom attack, I did not insult you. I insulted your idiotic post. further I did not claim that the NBC's or whatever were buried, but only that since it took us so long to find this stuff at the freakin airport for cryin out loud, that it shouldnt surprise us if it takes a while to find other stuff that was more deliberately hidden.

FWIW, things deep underground are pretty stable temperature wise, hence the practice of aging wine in caves. finding the planes doesnt prove anything, except that its hard to find seemingly obvious things.

I now find that i am repeating myself, and so I will desist from further postings because you and I are obviously not capable of making the point properly mutually understood.

Posts: 962 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leto takes me to task;

quote:
Mr Bailey, please try to not make statements like "you insult your ancestors" when debating someone's claim. It's very disingenuous, and is just short of calling "yo mamma" on someone in an argument.
How do I say they are turning their backs on the ideals of their ancestors then? I admit it was clumsily worded and I did not mean it so much personally as generally since for all I know the specific person that I was replying to is a foriegn national or new immigrant.

My point is that this generation has abandoned the most fundamental principles of liberty that their ancestors paid such a high price to gain.

Leto also says;
quote:
Also, I get a little tired about the claims that we're invading their oil, since Iraq is the sole owner of Iraq's fields, not the US.

Right. And the Coalition wants to be the sole owner of Iraq. That includes their fields and without the fields I see no reason the Coalition would want Iraq.

The coalition insists in dictating who will run Iraq and went to war to enforce their will. I find you disingenious to pretend that the oil is not the motive. Lots of countrys have worse dictators and lots of countrys have worse weapons. Why pick this one?

quote:
I don't totally disagree with you, but you had me shaking my head in disbelief by the end of your post. You may want to try a different tack, or rethink exactly why you feel the way you do.
I realize that I come on to strong and I realize that I am presenting a different and unexpected perspective which clashes terribly with the tunnel vision presented in the popular culture.

But you have to remember that I have been fighting this repudiation of the Constitution for over a decade now. It has twisted me somewhat.

I try to forgive a people who would think that having an affair with an intern is a high crime but surprise attacks on nations not at war with us killing women and children are not. I have to wonder am I the sick one or they?

How am I supposed to think of a people who are told their fellow citizens are being secretly arrested and indefinitely held without trials and they do not care?

I understand that I am the wierdo. My heart is broken and so is most of my spirit now. I had thought my fellow citizens actually cared and only needed to be shown the truth for them to rise up in righteousness and restore liberty.

I have sacrificed much in the fight to restore that liberty only to find that no one really cares about it or wants it but me. I think it is pearls before swine. And that makes me bitter.

That lesson was strongly put to me when I finally got my jury trial. I asked the jurors how many had voted in the last election? One was sure she had and two others thought they may have.

I asked how many had drivers licenses and everyone of them shot their hand up. This is a people that thinks keeping their papers in order is far more important than supervising their govt. And I can not prevent them from getting the govt they deserve.

They did not care a bit that my voting rights had been trampled. They did not care that the contract between us had been broken by men claiming to be acting in their name. They just knew they had to buy a drivers license and by God they were going to see to it that I did too. Even if they had to have me killed to accomplish it.

I am sick at heart on account of it and that sickness seeps into my posts no matter how hard I try to keep it out.

I would apologize but I don't see that it matters.

Who cares about my opinion?

Tom Bailey

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another thing, Mr Bailey (because I already call one Tom here "Tom"): adding a title before each post is a teensy bit out of place on a forum that is comprised of (most) people talking to each other like human beings. You may wish to can the narratives.

And m_e, perhaps it's that I don't see how saying, "your post is idiotic" is anything but a direct attack on a person. And like I said, it does not logically follow that finding the jets means that there are NBCs out there, or that it is proof that NBCs ever were there. Until some solid proof is found, the egg is on Bush's (and his administration's) face. I'm not saying it isn't there, or that it wasn't there; I'm saying that, right now, there is nothing showing the claims before the war, and the surety and conviction of proof that was displayed before going in, have much merit. I don't have a problem with that, because my support for the war had nothing to do with Bush's support for the war. I wanted it done years ago.

And "stable temperature" won't keep biological (and many chemical) agents potent-- refrigeration will.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maniacal_engineer
Member
Member # 116

 - posted      Profile for maniacal_engineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
finding planes proves nothing, except that it was harder than expected to find the planes. I extraploate that it will also be harder than expected to find the WMD's.

please tell me if there is a difference between:

a) yours is an idiotic statement

and

b) you are an idiot

I think most people will agree that they are not the same

Posts: 962 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leto posted:
quote:
The only publications I can find trying to equate this find as pointing towards NBCs being hidden in the desert somewhere are -- surprise, surprise -- the publication Lambert copies and pastes, and links to the publication Lambert pasted. There seems to be a certain... ah, political "theme" running through them, as well. Perhaps it's the advertisements for Ann Coulter. Maybe it was the links to Limbaugh and O'Reilly rants. Whatever it was, the only publications on this news seem to not care that they come off with an agenda, and apparently, some people just eat it right up. I don't trust those links to be unbiased as much as I don't trust Salon.com to be biased in the other direction.
Fine, Leto, but as I genuinely tried to explain to you - many articles are posted in many places, picked up and mirrored in others. If you dismiss the content of articles because you have a suspicious mind about the web site that put it up - then it falls to you to find the original article if you think the mirrored one is wrong and educate us to the disinformation. Most links I put up are from the WSJ or the like. Isn't it kind of evasive to complain about a link, but not to actually debunk it?
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Leto I do not mean my opening statement to be thought of as a title. I usually start posts with a quote from someone to set the context of whatever comment it is that I am replying to.

Everyone here is free to use aliases and many do. I don't mind that. But I like to properly attribute my quotes so many of my posts start out identifying who I am quoting. It does not take much effort to add a characterization to the quote as an interogative or a declaration or whatever. That helps set the context.

Naturally the accuracy of the characterization is in the eye of the reader. I don't usually mean anything by it. Unless I do. But then it is part of my slant right? I am here to present my point of view. For a fee I will present yours as well. If you want.

I get more complaints that I am representing someone elses views when they don't want me to. but they never paid the fee so I wrote it off as practice.

I am not especially computer literate. If you see my email address you will note that I am an aoluser. This forum is a completely new system for me.

It took me several days just to figure out how to quote something and even now when I see it on the board it does not look exactly like it did when I posted it.

Back then I was having to summarize what I was replying to and that can get sticky in less courteous forums because they start complaining you left out important bits or took it out of context or whatever. I have learned those are red herrings and like chaff spewed from combat aircraft to misdirect missles can lead away from the point.

I am just doing my best to communicate clearly and as you should be able to tell only suceeding on about eighty nine of a hundred strokes.

Or am I flattering myself?

The only thing I have going for me is that as nearly as I have been able to tell I bring an entirely different point of view and novelty has a certain attraction.

Thanks for reading my post.

By the way I can understand m_e's point that if migs can be hidden under the desert so can WMDs.

I still maintain that if he would not use them to save his regime much less his sons he was never a threat to me. He showed a lot more restraint than my own govt would.

I have reason to believe my govt would turn the world into a burnt cinder before they would give up power. Assuming of course they had the choice.

Saddam either did not have the choice or he is some kind of saint. No one seems willing to grant the man sainthood so I have to guess he never had them and it was all some paranoid cokehead fantasy of bush's or a coldly calculated political move hoping to win power in the name of war.

In any case if he does have something hidden under those sands like in that movie the Mummy I suggest everyone stop trying to goad the man into unleashing it.

Throughout history the people of those lands have fought fiercly over them. They have always been more interested in fighting whoever is right there with them than anyone else. They rapidly lose interest in anyone who is not there. In fact thier own rulers don't like them even thinking about anyone who is not right there.

I don't appreciate a bunch of people going there and claiming I sent them.

Tom Bailey

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fine, Leto, but as I genuinely tried to explain to you - many articles are posted in many places, picked up and mirrored in others.
Nice attempt to dodge, but baloney. The ONLY place the spin you describe is mentioned is in TWO places, both of which you linked, and both with the same agenda. ANY OTHER mention of it in the news or reports says zilch about any connection.

When you enter the real world, maybe we can have some real discourse. However, just like some others do with heavy-lefty publications, you can't seem to post a damn thing that isn't a super-right-rant with an agenda. You must be proud.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and Bailey:
quote:
Or am I flattering myself?
Yes, you are. And it's getting highly annoying.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well Leto the Lord knows I would not want to be annoying.

I am just a little tired of guys claiming to be acting in your name assaulting kidnapping and robbing me. Perhaps you could lighten up a little.

Tom Bailey

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I saw no one talking about Tom Bailey doing anything. I saw no one talking about the Bailey family doing anything. So, unless you are building a rather pretentious strawman, you may want to calm down some.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orbit
Member
Member # 1193

 - posted      Profile for Orbit   Email Orbit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fine. Now what should I do when you claim to have such reason and you kill my children and then no evidence is found and you refuse to prove that I or mine were any danger to you?
Ok, first of all if we're going to carry this analogy as far as you've begun to some other factors need to be added. First of all, when I "attack your family", I will not be viciously murdering every person I see. I will only be trying to kill those who were planning to attack my family. Sadly, some innocents will probably be killed. But who knows how many innocents will be saved because of it. Second, most of your family will benifit form you absense. As will all of your neighbors, and the community that you live in.

(Note: I am in no way actaully planning an attack of any type on Tom Bailey.)

quote:
Your willingness to kill when you have not been attacked is a threat to all civilized people
No, it's not a threat to all civilized people. It's a threat to all people planning to attack me. If I wait until I'm attacked to react, it could be to late for me. That's like telling one guy in a quick-draw shoot-out to wait until the other one shoots him first. That way he'll know for sure that he's going to be attacked. "Maybe there really isn't any bullets in the chamber! You have to wait and find out until you can shoot back." It sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

quote:
Do you get to just go around killing anyone you get a paranoid feeling about? And what do you think your neighbors are going to think when a pattern emerges that makes it look like you get that paranoid feeling most often from people who have something you want?
No I don't go around killing anyone I want. Only those who are a real threat to me.

(Note: I don't actually go around killing anyone.)

Since when was one country a pattern? And the only thing we want is Saddam out of power and an Iraq with a Democracy.

quote:
I pointed out that Iraq was more westernized than any nation in the region. Orbit replies with a bunch more accusations that he would never consider trying to prove in an impartial public trial
Those accusations are facts.

quote:
Orbits answer was that Saddam was far to selfish to take risks for his family regime or country and he was far to afraid of the mighty Coalition to dare fight.

The problem is that would mean he was never any danger to the US and it had no good reason to invade. Well other than the oil of course

Just because we wouldn't win a war he began us does not mean that WMD's would not severally devastate our country. He was still dangerous, whether he was going to win or not.

quote:
Unfortunately I am afraid Orbit is wrong about Saddams willingness to fight. I notice that despite repeated claims of victory the war goes on.
Yeah. And how often do we see Saddam fighting? None. Because he is off somewhere hiding. We can see the extremist's of Iraq's willingness to fight... but we have yet seen Saddams willingness to fight. However, we have seen his ability to hide, while his "people" (that he cares so much about are dying.

Like I said before. He's a selfish coward.

quote:
Right. And the Coalition wants to be the sole owner of Iraq. That includes their fields and without the fields I see no reason the Coalition would want Iraq.
Me niether. Which is exactly why we're giving it back to them after all traces of Saddem are gone. Which unfortunatley won't be anytime soon.

quote:
The coalition insists in dictating who will run Iraq and went to war to enforce their will. I find you disingenious to pretend that the oil is not the motive. Lots of countrys have worse dictators and lots of countrys have worse weapons. Why pick this one?
Because we had reason to believe that "this one" was planning to attack us. At the very least they were working with terrorists planning to attack us.

And lets face it. If the coalition forces did in fact "confinscate" the oil fields the population of their countries would not stand for it. It's much to politcally incorrect. It won't happen.

quote:
still maintain that if he would not use them to save his regime much less his sons he was never a threat to me. He showed a lot more restraint than my own govt would.

I have reason to believe my govt would turn the world into a burnt cinder before they would give up power. Assuming of course they had the choice.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I gain comfort in knowing that my country isn't going to let anybody in without giving a fight. Because our country cares to much for it's people. I can tell you right now that if we were invaded tomorrow, Bush would not go running off into some corner to dissapear.

quote:
Saddam either did not have the choice or he is some kind of saint.
Or he's a selfish coward.

-Orbit_

[ August 22, 2003, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Orbit ]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Leto I should not have personalized the thing by trying to draw an analogy between the Coalitions pre emptive war and a theoretical attack by you on me or my family.

And naturally your advise that I calm down is well taken. You should know that as a victim of pre emptive attacks by persons claiming to be acting in your name it is difficult to face your excuses objectively.

You see I was safely operating my vehicle down the public road when law enforcement agents who do claim to be acting in the name of the people which I assume includes you assaulted kidnapped and robbed me.

I call it a pre emptive strike because I had harmed no one. However I assume they believed that my papers being out of order indicated that I would inevitably harm someone in the future and so they were forced to kidnap and rob me.

I assume that you approve of their actions. Which makes you an actual danger to me. I can never be sure when you may decide you need to pre emptively strike me again. Simply refraining from harming you is not sufficient to guarantee that you will not harm me.

I believe I have been remarkably calm and rational under the circumstances. I am still dealing only in words. Those men you sent after me were carrying guns. I still have caused you no harm and you have caused a great deal of harm to me.

Now if you want to repudiate the actions of those officers or if you want to assert that they were not acting in your name or with your approval I will admit my allegations against you are unjust and unfounded. Otherwise I will have to continue to believe that you and they are dangerous criminals and I would do well to stay as far from you as I can get.

But panic will do me no good whatsoever. I agree I must remain calm.

Tom Bailey

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're talking about something totally unrelated to the original topic of this thread. You were beat up by cops? Well, take it to a court. Are you a foreigner? Then take it to an embassy. Whatever you are talking about, you seem to be changing the subject once again, and making something that happened to you personally into your sole argument against everything.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Orbit continues to justify pre emptive attacks. He continues to justify them based on the terrible suffering he would have to endure if he waited to be attacked first. But he continues to dodge the question of how he determines who needs to be pre emptively attacked.

If you pre emptively attack one nieghbor and then pre emptively attack another why should I not think I might be next?

quote:
No I don't go around killing anyone I want. Only those who are a real threat to me.

(Note: I don't actually go around killing anyone.)

Since when was one country a pattern? And the only thing we want is Saddam out of power and an Iraq with a Democracy.

How do you decide who is a real threat? Bush has failed to show any rational method of making that decision. He claims secret knowledge but the bits he lets out are proven to be lies so how can we trust the ones he does not reveal?

Don't start nothing won't be nothing. Keep attacking countrys without proven cause and you get painted as a mad dog.

And what do you mean one country does not make a pattern? How soon you forget Afganistan or Bosnia or Sudan or Somalia or Haiti or Panama or the Philipines or the Dominican Republic or Grenada.

Then there are the ones that the Coalition threatens like Korea or Syria or Iran. With a history as bloody as this you expect me to think Iraq does not fit a pattern? Don't be silly there are US troops in over half the countrys of the world and Bush has made it plain he wants them in the other half as well.

George Bush has openly declared an intention to pursue those he calls terrorists into every corner of the globe and he has openly declared he will depose the govt in any of those corners who don't let him come in and do his warrantless searches and secret trials among their populations like he has in ours.

Those who harbor terrorists or help terrorists will be destroyed right? And remember his definition of a terrorist. You are either with him or you are with the terrorists.

It seems any failure to obey Coalition demands is evidence that a nation is going to attack the Coalition and they are eligible for pre emptive attack. The Coalition is like a mad dog in the street. It threatens every nation in the world who has not already surrendered their sovereignty to it.

quote:
Yeah. And how often do we see Saddam fighting? None. Because he is off somewhere hiding. We can see the extremist's of Iraq's willingness to fight... but we have yet seen Saddams willingness to fight. However, we have seen his ability to hide, while his "people" (that he cares so much about are dying.

Like I said before. He's a selfish coward.

Typical demopublican. Believing two contradictory things at the same time. Saddam is to much a coward to fight but Saddam was on the verge of attacking the US and starting a war. Make up your mind.

I recall Saddam offered to duel it out with Bush and save the peoples of both nations this bloodshed. Bush is the one hiding thousands of miles from the front while other peoples children die. Saddams sons appear to have gone down fighting. I have no reason to believe Saddam won't be fighting if and when he falls as well.

They say you can tell what your enemy fears by taking note of what he threatens you with. I suspect I can tell what crimes the Coalition is guilty of by taking note of what they accuse others of doing.

Tom Bailey

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom:
quote:
I still maintain that if he would not use them to save his regime much less his sons he was never a threat to me. He showed a lot more restraint than my own govt would.
One reason is that if he did use them then France, Germany, China, et. Al. would have had no choice to but to back the U.S. action. He seems to have consistently operated under the assumption if he could keep everything hidden for just a little longer everyone would go away. The concern wasn't that he might use them against us dirctly himself but that he was training and supplying terrorists who would be using them against us.

The horror caused by 4 commercial airliners is pretty evident. What could be done with weaponized chemicals and small planes?

Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
chunga01
Member
Member # 1190

 - posted      Profile for chunga01   Email chunga01   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well I was hoping to stay silent on this topic, thought the picture was kind of funny, but the latest attacks on the Bush administration were a bit much.

quote:
And what do you mean one country does not make a pattern? How soon you forget Afganistan or Bosnia or Sudan or Somalia or Haiti or Panama or the Philipines or the Dominican Republic or Grenada.

Afghanistan was the first front in the war on terrorism. Their government had harbored and aided in the training of the men who attacked the civilian population of the United States. We were upheld by international organizations in the toppling of the Taliban government, while putting American lives in jeapardy fighting an extremely bloodless war where we never intentionally targeted civilian targets.

Bosnia took place under the Clinton administration, and our troops were placed there as part of a joint U.N. task force to keep the peace between warring factions.

Sudan, Somalia, and Haiti all took place under different administrations and were part of an effort to stop human rights violations by factions in those countries.

War in Panama, under a different Bush administration, was declared in order to capture Manuel Noriega, a known drug trafficker to the United States, who just happened to have military resources to back him up.

I can only assume when you're speaking of the phillipines, you mean the recent possibility of action in where u.s. troops would have cooperated with filipino troops to quell terrorist uprisings in the Sulu archipelago, but the Bush administration dragged its feet despite 15 years of dedicated terrorist attacks, and proven al-qaeda links. Unless, of course, you're speaking of the american-filipino war of 1902.

Grenada was an effort to topple a communist dictatorship (yet again by a different administration.) Even if (as is likely) it was an example of America flexing its muscle in the aftermath of vietnam, I have heard no complaints by those liberated during this struggle.

US involvement in the civil war of the dominican republic was an effort by the Johnson administration to exercise the Truman Doctrine in not allowing communist governments to take hold wherever it was our power to deny them the opportunity.

I fail to see how any of these examples shows the bloodlust that you so overtly accuse the current administration of possessing. In the two examples that the current administration had any say in, (afghanistan and the phillipines) we would have been beyond foolish to ignore the threats that elements in these nations were harboring against us.

With the attacks on september 11th we entered a new phase of warfare, where small groups of well funded radicals could, if unchecked, threaten people anywhere in the world. To sit on our hands while al qaeda, the PLO, the IRA, or Saddam Hussein developed weapons that could be deployed by two or three individuals and wipe out civilian populations would have been tantamount to supporting such actions ourselves.

At the same time that Bush is being accused of being a warmonger by some elements, he is accused of being duplicitous in his allegiances, almost in the same breath. The fact that we deposed Saddam Hussein's regime does not mean that we condone the regimes in Iran, North Korea, or even Saudi Arabia (as evinced in the recent "classified pages" in the 9/11 report about saudi arabian elements, and the recent seizure of funds of sponsors of Hamas.) We are simply trying to fight on one front at a time. The saudis have been warned, and our foreign intelligence is focused more on the money flow from that government than anywhere else in the world.

[ August 25, 2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: chunga01 ]

Posts: 150 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps it will turn into oil, or coal, or diamonds, down there under the sand.

Shouldn't the silica folks get modern transport, too?

Bury airplane + ????? = Profit!

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Bailey
Member
Member # 1172

 - posted      Profile for Tom Bailey   Email Tom Bailey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dan Allen said;

quote:
One reason is that if {Saddam} did use {WMDs} then France, Germany, China, et. Al. would have had no choice to but to back the U.S. action. He seems to have consistently operated under the assumption if he could keep everything hidden for just a little longer everyone would go away. The concern wasn't that he might use them against us dirctly himself but that he was training and supplying terrorists who would be using them against us.
Yes and just what evidence do you offer to back that claim? Saddam was running one of the few govts in the region which claimed its mandate from the secular vote of the people rather than religious law. The moslem fundamentalists actually hated Saddam more than the US because he was there controling the land the fundamentalists claimed and that always trumps everything else in those peoples minds.

Why should I believe he would give weapons to his own enemies that could well be used against him in the hopes that they would be used against someone who if they traced the origin of the weapon would no doubt invade his country and depose him and who if they did not trace the origin would have no reason to back off his regime.

I just can't see the advantage to him in eithr using them himself or in supplying them to the fundamentalists. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA and the Taliban was funded by demopublicans but I am supposed to blame Saddam?

I would like something that makes a little more sense before I go to killing people based on your allegations.

Tom Bailey

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leto, I note that you never answered any of my points, but instead just acted as if my posts were only valid based on what web site they may heve been referenced from. I have no idea what you are focussed on to be so off-point. You said "The ONLY place the spin you mentioned is in TWO places, both of which you linked, both with the same agenda. ANY OTHER mention of it in the news or reports says zilch about any connection." You know that is a bald lie. I don't think the obvious point one can draw from the picture is nowhere to be found. Perhaps you just didn't look very well.

I gave you a link to a photograph. It made you crazy. The obvious conclusion raised by many sources and not just me or two web sites you know of, is that we found 30 huge war planes hidden in the sand. We all wonder what else could be as easily hidden . Big deal! Why the rant?

You then made up your own counterpoint about it and said I was pushing some agenda. I am aware that Iraq had no nuclear weapons or weaponized Anthrax. I said that in this forum before we went in four months ago. It doesn't mean that they didn't have chemical, gas, or other WMD. A huge point that you continually ignore is that EVERYBODY admits such weapons were there. They were never acounted for as demanded by the original ceasefire agreement and in the months after 9/11, Iraq had been in a position to be a conduit for many things they either already had or might get in the near future. Our government said there was reason to go in. The forged document which turned out to be true was validation enough for that. Our presence there did good for the people of Iraq, and uncovered much of the hidden depravity of the Hussein regime.

I said said:
quote:
Hussein had no weaponized anthrax. he did not know how to create a viable powdered form that would survive long enough to be effective. The liquid anthrax that he is known to have stockpiled would be useless also after a few days without sophisticated technology to keep it viable. His motive in burying WMD was to hide it - not to recover it later.
Your response was not to fall on your knees to crave forgiveness for being so obviously wrong with your arguements - none of which responded on point. You just ignored what devastated your rants and went on to insult anyone who disagreed with your preconceived and unsourced opinions.

If you want to act like a debater here then do your homework and cite sources. You alibi out all your errors and distortions, and then never come back to defend them on point. You incorrectly restate what other posters have said, and then argue your own strawman argument. I posted in here what... two or thee times? In each post I probably gave you a source to verify something I said and the point I made was usually not that there WAS WMD buried - but that there MIGHT BE. You on the otherhand, have come out with a position that there are no WMDs (I do not know why you mistype them as NBC's - I just figure you are cross-posting some inside joke from another thread that most of us are not privvy to), and that it is stupid to not have the same conviction that you hold.

Almost everyone here has told you that we will just have to wait and see. Dr. Kay, himself, said it may take months before our military reveals WMD even after we do find any, if we do - but you are the sole judge, jury, and executioner of this topic and no one is allowed to disagree with you. I stated in another thread that even if we never find WMD it wouldn't matter, except for the helpful idiots who want to tear apart our own country to attack political opponents.

Look at the picture again. The people standing on the fuselage gives an indication of how huge they are. Do you note the hard to traverse terrain, and how difficult it must have been to even get to the buried planes? The desert is huge. When Star Wars was shot on location in the desert - none of the expensive electronic gear would function properly because of the electomagnetic anamolies that occur in the heat and sand. If a 100,000 searchers went side-by-side across the desert, they would take years just to cover the easily accessible areas - let alone areas booby-trapped with mines or other creative diversions.

I hold an opinion that your opinion of surety is ignorant, and that your disdain for anyone with logical disagreements is not sufficient for your antipathy. No one deserves to be reviled and insulted, and those who do are just rude.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your response was not to fall on your knees to crave forgiveness for being so obviously wrong with your arguements - none of which responded on point. You just ignored what devastated your rants and went on to insult anyone who disagreed with your preconceived and unsourced opinions.
If you expect me to fall on my knees, then I suggest you begin holding your breath now. When you wake up later from losing consciousness, go ahead and hold your breath again. Rinse, repeat.

When you can show proof that Hussein hid weapons in the sand, then I'll accept what you say. However, what you are doing is called a False Analogy, in that the jets, while similar in that they are military in nature, are in no way the reason the war began, nor the point of contention leading to the chase to find/remove NBCs. You are trying to lump anything military or scientific in nature with showing proof that there are indeed NBCs where we are finding not a single trace (in fact, finding that many things that were possibilities were, in fact, dead ends).

You may begin holding your breath now.

Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
chunga01
Member
Member # 1190

 - posted      Profile for chunga01   Email chunga01   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I fail to see the how the analogy comes out false. Both jets and WMD can be hidden in ways that make them very difficult to find, thus A and B both possess property P. That we haven't found items that could be as small as a few cubic meters in size in a country of over 400,000 square miles in the period of 4 months in no way disproves that Iraq had the items and the capability of manufacturing them.

Neptune was not discovered until 1863 when our methods of telescopy improved. All this despite the fact that astronomers knew it was there due to the variations in uranus' orbit.

Tutankhamun's tomb remained undiscovered until the 1930's, despite records pointing to its relative location and millenia of dedicated efforts to find it by grave robbers.

I still haven't found my car keys which were lost in my sofa about three years ago.

The point being that stuff can be hard to find when you know where it is. How much harder then to find well hidden items in a country of nearly half a million square miles?

[ August 26, 2003, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: chunga01 ]

Posts: 150 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1