| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Huh? That makes about as much sense as beating up a paraplegic to demonstrate to members of the gang that attacked you before that you mean business.
If the Pearl Harbor attack had come in 2004 instead of the '40s, Bush would likely have retaliated against Singapore.
| |||||||
|
Jaded, yethopefu Registered: 01/28/05 Posts: 1,258 Loc: Appearing at a m Last seen: 18 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Quote: I get your 'point,' it's just that it is lacking in any semblance of being arrived at by rational thought. Quote: Actually, I had laser surgery to correct that condition. Quote: Only if you lack the sense to understand. Quote: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Are you a neocon automaton? Because that's right out of their robotics programming guide, you know, changing the rationalization in mid discussion when confronted with a good argument. Do you remember this? Quote:You see that? We went from discussing attacking Iraq as a response to 9/11 to a wholly different rationalization. Amazing! Quote: Please explain, citing FACTS AND SOURCES, what role Iraq played in the events of 9/11 and how many of the alleged hijackers were Iraqi. Because us RATIONAL folks aren't naive enough to buy into the simple minded propaganda. Attacking the country of a third rate dictator of a SECULAR REGIME who's military capabilities were SERIOUSLY DEGRADED from the first Gulf War to send a message because of 9/11 seems like the rationalization of a bunch of chickenhawks looking for a fight that they were 'sure' they could win, not a viable strategy to address Islamic terrorism. I'm curious, when you are on recess do you beat up weaker kids that you previously beat up as a warning to others you can't find? Quote: What is 'the moonbat party line'? What do Russian astronauts have to do with this? I see that you still have not progressed past epithets when confronted with rational thought. -------------------- Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes. You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way. - Tom Willhite Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Tell me you have never heard of "moonbats" and don't know what the Daily Kos is
| |||||||
|
Live to party,work to affordit. Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 8,978 Loc: South Texas Last seen: 12 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
what does a Chickenhawk have to do with anything????
Chickenhawk From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Chickenhawk: formerly the name of two species of hawk known to prey on barnyard fowl - the Red-tailed Hawk and the Cooper's Hawk. Chickenhawk: Gay slang for a man attracted to, or seeking, much younger men such as twinks. chickenhawk - (North America & UK) a gay man who has a sexual preference for postpubescent young men (mid-teens to early-20s, generally) http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-sexual-slurs -------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
| |||||||
|
Live to party,work to affordit. Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 8,978 Loc: South Texas Last seen: 12 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
79% Say Success In Iraq is Important: 48% Say Success is Likely
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Perspectives%20on%20Iraq_August%2029.htm Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Americans say that it is important for "Iraq to become a stable company that rejects terrorism." Now who could that remaining 21% be...?????? -------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
| |||||||
|
The Innovator Registered: 05/25/05 Posts: 1,074 Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: That's a bad comparison. There is no oversees war on rapists. -------------------- I don't think for myself. I think as though I'm explaining my thoughts to someone else. I'm concerned only for those listening.
| |||||||
|
DarwinianLeftist Registered: 08/02/06 Posts: 883 Last seen: 16 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: What you are talking about is dual-use technology. Dual-use techology is specifically controlled by the government's in most countries due to the fact that they have strong, and obvious military applications which can easily be fulfilled by another product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology So yeah this technology wasn't completely military in nature, it was dual-use. But that isn't the same as saying it is just technology with just "possible" military applications by a long-shot. There is a reason a specific type of technology is labled dual-use and not another kind that can regularly be imported/exported, and that reason usually involves the fact that the technology is the type to be generally or obviously used for military applications. The distinction between regular and dual-use technology is not made lightly but as a matter of legal process. Namely because a product labled "dual-use" is going to be blocked off during embargos or sanctions. The fact that the UN specifically blocked dual-use, instead of all medical technologies and food products to Iraq is a reason why the UN isn't culpable for the 400,000 Iraqi children who starved to death under these sanctions for example (saddam at any time could have imported a great deal of food/medical products which were not dual-use). But I digress, like you have said it can go either way-- so lets look specifically at what was sold to Iraq in order to judge this specific case. I will just use example here to illustrate why I think these were no mere civilian commidities but weapons, including but not exclusive to bioweapons. I will go specifically into the biological cultures here as you have yourself specifically made note of them via "Note that "biological agents" refer to everything from nutrient media to reference cultures." Sounds really harmless when you describe in such a vague and general way, but lets keep in mind that we are talking about "anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and Clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene." Biological cultures which were obviously intended for use in helping Iraq's biological weapons program. You can't honestly sell a fascist dictator samples of anthrax and pathogens which cause "gas gangrene" and not expect them to make biological weapons. -------------------- ![]() "Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
From the link you so thoughtfully provided --
Quote: Your link confirms what I (and others) had already pointed out in numerous past threads on this topic -- the contribution of materials by the United States is a drop in the bucket compared to what other nations were providing. Some computers (which can be and are used for just about anything) and some biological cultures, some of which were used for vaccine development. Of the agents listed -- anthrax, West Nile virus, botulinis, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens -- none are even remotely exotic (except perhaps at that time West Nile virus) and none of them even the least bit difficult to obtain. Hell, anthrax and brucella are available from any veterinary college in the world, while botulinis and clostridium are as common as dirt. Botulism is a major cause of food poisoning and is dead simple to culture. And no, gas gangrene is not suitable as a biological weapon since it is not contagious and can develop only in wounds. Clostridium perfringens is an anaerobic bacterium. So what's the scorecard? Of all the countries listed in the article you linked, the US has the lowest -- by far -- contribution to Iraq of items which could be designated "dual-use". Compare this to countries such as Brazil, which the article states gave Iraq not just precursors to mustard gas, but actual mustard gas itself -- 100 tons of it. And of course Germany and France, who to all intents and purposes provided entire factories for nuke and chemical production. Remind me again the position of France and Germany in the UNSC debates discussing the resumption of hostilities in Iraq? Why, as I recall, they were against it. Probably just a coincidence. Phred
| |||||||
|
DarwinianLeftist Registered: 08/02/06 Posts: 883 Last seen: 16 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: So the US did sell weapons to Iraq that were used in Saddam's research program to make WMDs. Whether you think we gave them more or less support then other countries is besides the point--two wrongs don't make a right. And furthermore lets keep in mind who we were selling to exactly: the Iraqi Ministry of Defense: Quote: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Selling dual-use equipment essentially to the Iraqi Army is a clear indication that these items were intended for military use. -------------------- ![]() "Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin Edited by FrenchSocialist (08/02/06 05:47 PM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Incorrect. Are you incapable of reading your own links? The US sold computers. Computers are not weapons. And the US sold cultures of commonly available bacteria. Commonly available bacteria are not weapons. As for your pious "two wrongs don't make a right" bullshit, compare what was actually sold by the other countries mentioned to what was sold by the US. Not even close to the same thing. Quote: Are you incapable of reading your own links? What part of "In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" " is unclear to you? Are you saying Bell sold helicopters configured for military use to Iraq? Link, please. What part of "In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters," are you having difficulty comprehending? Anyway, what's this new interest in trucks and helicopters? Are you now trying to claim that trucks and helicopters are WMDs? Phred
| |||||||
|
DarwinianLeftist Registered: 08/02/06 Posts: 883 Last seen: 16 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 1- We sold more to Iraq then computers. We sold military vehicles. We sold viruses. We sold this to the Iraq Ministry of Defense. And the computer equipment we did sell was dual-use. This is an open and shut case. 2- You say these biological samples are both commonly available and not weapons but where's your proof? These devices were not only possibly used to make biological weapons, they were used in helping Saddam make biological weapons according to the wiki article I presented (with the key section written in bold in my previous post). 3- The part where you talk about US military vehicles being sold to Iraq: Phred: "What part of "In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" " is unclear to you?" Is taken out of context. The whole quote is: Quote: In other words there were repeated attempts by Saddam to further militarize what dual-use devices were sold to him before the US sold the same kinds of devices to Iraq, the State Department knew about this, and the State Department didn't care because that is what was intended. In any event, you seem to be missing the point. The point is, even if the US sold less weaponry to Saddam then other nations- so what? The fact is we can hardly complain years later about Saddam having WMDs after we sold him anthrax that was used in his biological weapons program. And the fact is dual-use technology is hardly just technology with a mere possibility for military use like you say it is. Like I said, these devices are specifically chosen as a matter of legal process after several considerations. If you want to continue exaggerating how broad the standards are for labeling a device as dual-use, that's fine, but you could at least be polite enough to forward some evidence with your bold claim. -------------------- ![]() "Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin Edited by FrenchSocialist (08/03/06 12:44 AM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Source, please. US companies sold non-military helicopters -- helicopters the company refused to militarize for Iraq, according to the link you provided -- and US companies sold trucks. Would you care to explain to the audience how selling trucks is bad? What is the difference between a truck and a "militarized" truck, anyway? The color of the paint? Quote: Would you please provide us a link from a credible source showing the viruses were sold to the Iraq Ministry of Defense? Quote: Computers are multi-use, not dual use. A computer will do whatever you program it to. If you want to provide a link from a credible source showing US companies sold Iraq computer programs designed to .... oh, I don't know... control milling machines used to shape plutonium or uranium slugs for use in fission bombs, you might have a case. Quote: An open and shut case of your reading into data what isn't there. Quote: My knowledge of what one can get from veterinary colleges. An acquaintance of mine is a veterinarian specializing in livestock care. Anthrax and brucella are not particularly rare afflictions of livestock. Anywhere there are enough sheep a livestock vet will come across cases of anthrax. Anywhere there are enough cows you will run across brucella. As for clostridium and botulinus, neither are uncommon in soil samples. There are cases of botulism poisoning somewhere in the world every week -- possibly every day if you look hard enough. None of these organisms (with the exception of West Nile virus) are considered rare. They are common as dirt. I'll tell you what is considered rare -- smallpox. What is your take on the outbreak of smallpox in Iraq mentioned in the article you linked? Quote: What do you mean by "before the US sold the same kinds of devices to Iraq"? US companies sold Iraq non-military helicopters and non-military heavy trucks. The company which sold Iraq the non-military helicopters refused to assist in militarizing those helicopters, and the companies which sold Iraq the heavy trucks were apparently not even asked to assist Iraq in militarizing those heavy trucks, South Korea was asked. By the way, just what is involved in "militarizing" a heavy truck other than painting it a different color? Besides, you will note all these purchases of trucks and helicopters took place in the early Eighties. What reason would a US company have in 1982 for not selling trucks and helicopters to Iraq? Or to Afghanistan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Turkey, for that matter? And of course, helicopters and trucks are not WMDs. Quote: It is you who miss the point. It was the conditional ceasefire agreement signed by Iraq in 1991 which required verification of the proof of destruction of Iraq's chemical and bio weaponry. That ceasefire didn't exist in 1982. Or in 1983 or in 1984. Quote: Sorry, but when it comes to computers, helicopters, and biological cultures, yes it is. How many countries in the world have anthrax cultures somewhere? Almost all of them do. How many have trucks? How many have computers? Hell, clothes can as easily be considered "dual-use" as trucks -- what are uniforms if not clothes? What about canteens? Backpacks? Boots? Are these things not also "dual use"? What about cameras? Radios? You smugly trot out a VERY short list of stuff sold to Iraq by the US (compared to every other country mentioned in the link you provide) as if it is something for which the US should be condemned. If a truly objective observer were to look at that list, I guarantee you the US would be the last country he'd focus on. Quote: What the hell does that mean? Iraq needed computers. The US made the best computers in the world. Nothing to consider -- buy a US computer. Same with trucks and helicopters. Same with pathogens -- it is no secret the reference tissue collection at CDC is the standard by which all others are meaured. Anthrax and brucella are common afflictions of livestock, botulism food poisoning is a worldwide phenomenon, gas gangrene is a problem every hospital in the world has to deal with occasionally. If the US were to refuse to provide -- in the early Eighties, remember -- assistance to a Middle Eastern country in dealing with these common health problems, can you imagine the cries of condemnation? Typical NYT headline would be -- "US to Arab countries -- your diseases not our problem." Phred
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
"Bush Knew........An American Requiem" (Flash animation) ( |
6,315 | 96 | 09/12/03 07:02 PM by afoaf | ||
![]() |
Bush haters examined. ( |
2,733 | 22 | 09/22/03 09:51 PM by silversoul7 | ||
![]() |
Bush torturing almost 1,000,000 Americans ( |
7,112 | 77 | 12/18/03 10:29 AM by medicinebag | ||
![]() |
Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Marriage, no gays ( |
5,901 | 41 | 01/23/04 12:21 PM by Azmodeus | ||
![]() |
What if the next Bush is worse? ( |
1,163 | 22 | 02/14/03 05:07 AM by angryshroom | ||
![]() |
G.W. Bush ( |
3,218 | 25 | 02/02/04 06:37 AM by Phred | ||
![]() |
Corzine speaks on the Bush tax cuts. | 597 | 3 | 10/30/03 02:00 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
Why would someone like George W. Bush ( |
4,026 | 65 | 04/29/03 04:24 PM by GreenGuys420 |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 4,442 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||




