Home | Community | Message Board

Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: Alex213]
    #6561871 - 02/13/07 07:37 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

At best, it's negligence. Certainly not itentional as the U.S. has nothing to gain by intently harming civilians, nor is it their policy/strategy to do so.


--------------------


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6561927 - 02/13/07 08:19 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

the meddling of Iran in Iraq.




Oh my god. Its just like wmds all over again. Pity the blind fools.

Quote:

obviously unjustified meddling by two countries and a few token gestures in Iraq to try and protect the dollar and secure the last few drops of oil.




FYP


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinetrippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Male

Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: GazzBut]
    #6562149 - 02/13/07 10:53 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Just like the WMD argument in Iraq, I don't buy the one for Iran either. Don't we have allies? Why can't Iraq? Why can't Iran? Seems a little selfish for the US to claim we're the only "proper" thinking country who can have allies. Especially when Iraq's war has turned into a civil war for FREEDOM. Didn't the French help us during our fight for freedom?

And for those of you who claim the war was about terrorism, may I point out the name of the operation that over ran Iraq? Wasn't it Operation Iraqi Liberation? And isn't the acronym for that OIL? If you read even further into the operation, the action that captured the oil fields (so BIG oil can come in and pump it out) was called operation gemstone? A little strange if you ask me. But I don't claim to know everything or even be right.


--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to  blind person who has never seen a horse.

^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^


--------------------------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: trippindad82]
    #6563162 - 02/13/07 04:35 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

trippindad82 said:
Quote:

mattymonkey said:
can you link a source for these alleged birth defects?




Happily

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/ud_main.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3627
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11023




From the first one:
""The cause of all of these cancers and deformities remains theoretical "...and "The report also said, "Gulf War exposures to depleted uranium (DU) have not to date produced any observable adverse health effects attributable to DU's chemical toxicity or low-level radiation. . . .".....and
"Depleted uranium is a problem in other former war zones as well. Yesterday, U.N. experts said they found radioactive hot spots in Bosnia resulting from the use of depleted uranium during NATO air strikes in 1995." .... Without citing a similar increase in cancer and birth defects there. Further, the whole reportage of this increased cancer and birth defect "phenomenon" is somewhat dubious as it comes from Iraqi officials who are about to be but not yet invaded. Hmmm, Iraqi officials whining about a highly effective weapon just before they are about to get smacked again. Of course, they are entirely credible. If you're a knee-jerk whackjob with no critical thinking skills. College anyone?

From the second one:
" Depleted uranium (DU) used in Nato weapons in the Balkans has no detectable effect on human health, according a European Union panel of experts.


In the case of the average back garden, there is as much uranium as you would find in a shell

Prof Ian McAulay, EU expert
The European Commission ordered the investigations after claims that veterans of peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo had developed illnesses, particularly cancer, after being exposed to depleted uranium used in armour-piercing weapons."
....
That kinda sucks for your point there doesn't it? If you think that you can just post a list of links and assume we will automatically believe they say what you say they do you are sadly mistaken. I caught on to that game a long time ago.

The third one is just a huge list of assorted whacko links with no scientific support. From the first one I read:
"Of the 580,000 US soldiers that served in Iraq in 1991, by mid 2004 518,739 were on medical disability pensions."
I seriously doubt this.

From the fourth one:
"DU is both radioactive and toxic. Past studies of DU in the environment have concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risk. But some researchers are beginning to suspect that in combination, the two effects could do significant harm. Nobody has taken a hard look at the combined effect of both, says Alexandra Miller, a radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. "The bottom line is it might contribute to the risk."...
Now that right there is 100% proof of your assertion. These brave scientists going so far out on a limb to take on the evil Amerikkka and prove that we are making mutant babies. Fight the Power.

And the final one is an alarmist screed from our good and credible friends at truthout. Anyway, the article in question makes several rather alarming charges and then lists a whole boatload of studies. I went through about 12 pages of summaries and results and didn't find a single one that supported the loons allegations. What I found was a whole lot of this..
"In its Report to Congressional Requestors dated March 29, 2000, the GAO responded to each of these issues. With respect to the health effects issue, the GAO cited the recent expert studies by RAND and by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which concluded that "current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that inhaled or ingested depleted uranium poses a radiation health hazard, namely cancer."

Quote:

can you link a source for these alleged birth defects?




Apparently not, or you probably would have.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,413
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 17 minutes
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6563419 - 02/13/07 05:58 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
As they should have been. You know what I said that morning? As soon as the second plane hit? I said al qaeda and bin laden. The whackos in Afghanistan were given an opportunity to hand the asshole over. They didn't. Sadass (currently nicely chilled) had ample opportunity to prove he didn't have the weapons. He was in noncompliance with the contract he had agreed to. Oops, his bad, no pussy president this time, c'est la vie. Or morte. Too, too bad for both assholes, that a craven cowardly piece of shit wasn't president. Good for us. Of course, the douchebags on the left are doing everything they could possibly do to back away from their own votes to get some fucking balls and instead validate the rampant opinion among lunatics that America is seriously pussified.




I love it when people misrepresent what true cowardice is.


Cowardice is supporting the murder of tens of thousands of innocent to protect your own sorry ass. Explain to me exactly how hiking our collective skirts up and going "Eek! Terrorists!" and then in a paniced frenzy, murdering a bunch of women and children while accomplishing no increase in safey to yourself at all, makes us brave.

Now, it could be argued that the actual soldiers going into war are brave, but not the president hiding behind his desk saying "git 'em", or the people hiding under their beds saying "yeah, git 'em".

Methinks ye suffer from Machismo by Proxy Syndrome.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


LET'S GO, DARWIN!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #6563469 - 02/13/07 06:14 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

I don't think so, Baby. Carter was a coward for failing to act in Iran. Clinton was a coward for running his entire presidency on opinion polls. In your world is there only physical bravery? Because surely someone with a moniker such as yours is very brave to brandish it.

It takes courage to lead, not something parrots know anything about.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male

Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6564809 - 02/13/07 11:50 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Sadass (currently nicely chilled) had ample opportunity to prove he didn't have the weapons.




And he would have had to have been an absolute moron to admit that.

Let's see.. Saddam had recently fought a decade-long war with his arch rival, Iran, which was extremely costly in terms of lives and money. A fight which ended in a draw. He used chemical weapons on Iran which cost them 100,000 casualties.

Iran was itching for vengeance.

So why on earth would Saddam admit that he had actually complied with U.N. resolutions , ditching his WMDs thereby showing his mortal enemy how exposed and vulnerable he was? (Especially after his conventional military had been gutted by the U.S. during the Gulf War).

Do you think Saddam got where he was by being a moron?

It was up to Bush-chimp to prove he did not possess WMDs.
So why did he fail to give inspectors adequate time to do their job?

Answer: He had already decided to go to war evidence be damned. No rational, unbiased observer can deny at this point that this administration does not give a flying fuck about the facts, public opinion or ethics.

They care about raw power and global dominance.

Period.



--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch


Edited by zorbman (02/14/07 03:52 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinetrippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Male

Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zorbman]
    #6564919 - 02/14/07 12:22 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

The third one is just a huge list of assorted whacko links with no scientific support. From the first one I read:
"Of the 580,000 US soldiers that served in Iraq in 1991, by mid 2004 518,739 were on medical disability pensions."
I seriously doubt this.




Why? Because the govt and mainstream media won't admit this? When will you stop believing everything the media says and covers. In a previous post I brought this up and many agreed that the media will lie and/or not cover a story to protect advertising revenue. If that's agreed upon, then let me offer this up. There are many companies making BILLIONS of dollars in revenue off this war. Many of these companies advertise on major networks. Many of these companies have board members (current or past) and CEO's whom are either in high political positions or military positions. Some examples for you are Dick Cheney (Haliburton/KBR), Condoleeza Rice (Chevron OIL), president George Bush (OIL), and Blackwater's CEO (ex-military). Why wouldn't the media lie for the protection of these peoples if they will lie about the effects of rBGH on cows and milk? 1+1=2 in my book.

Quote:

And he would have had to have been an absolute moron to admit that.

Let's see.. Saddam had recently fought a decade-long war with his arch rival, Iran, which was extremely costly in terms of lives and money. A fight which ended in a draw. He used chemical weapons on Iran which cost them 100,000 casualties.

Iran was itching for vengeance.

So why on earth would Saddam admit that he had actually complied with U.N. resolutions , ditching his WMDs thereby showing his mortal enemy how exposed and vulnerable he was? (Especially after his conventional military had been gutted by the U.S. during the Gulf War).

Do you think Saddam got where he was by being a moron?

It was up to Bush-chimp to prove he did not possess WMDs.
So why did he fail to give inspectors adequate time to do their job?

Answer: He had already decided to go to war evidence be damned. No rational, unbiased observer can deny at this point that this administration does not give a flying fuck about the facts, public opinion or ethics.

They care about power and global dominance.

Period





:thumbup:


--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to  blind person who has never seen a horse.

^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^


--------------------------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: trippindad82]
    #6565113 - 02/14/07 01:36 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Why not address the rest of his post?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: Basilides]
    #6565573 - 02/14/07 04:48 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Basilides said:
At best, it's negligence. Certainly not itentional as the U.S. has nothing to gain by intently harming civilians, nor is it their policy/strategy to do so.




I'm not sure. If the cops were chasing a bank robber and machine gunned half a dozen houses full of women and kids in the process I'm not sure I'd call that "negligence". It's the same situation if american soldiers are chasing insurgents. Lets just say if it was american civilians being killed they'd be taking a helluva lot more care.

I'm not sure the US has nothing to gain by harming civilians either. I'm sure 90-95% of all American attacks on civilians never get reported and keeping people scared is a good way of ruling them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6565581 - 02/14/07 04:51 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Carter was a coward for failing to act in Iran.

Failing to act in what way?

It takes courage to lead

Wrong. It takes courage to lead RESPONSIBLY. D

on't confuse eagerness to start wars with "courage". Cowards are notoriously courageous with other peoples lives but not their own. That's why Bush ran from Vietnam and why he spent 9/11 hiding down a hole a mile deep in Nebraska.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zorbman]
    #6565897 - 02/14/07 10:08 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zorbman said:
Quote:

Sadass (currently nicely chilled) had ample opportunity to prove he didn't have the weapons.




And he would have had to have been an absolute moron to admit that.




That was nonetheless what he was obligated to do under the terms of the cease fire agreement, which was necessitated by his little expedition in Kuwait. Remember that? Obligated.
Quote:



Let's see.. Saddam had recently fought a decade-long war with his arch rival, Iran, which was extremely costly in terms of lives and money. A fight which ended in a draw. He used chemical weapons on Iran which cost them 100,000 casualties.




Well, that incredibly costly war certainly didn't deter him from other projects, did it? See above if you are unclear on that.
Quote:



Iran was itching for vengeance.




There is no evidence for this
Quote:



So why on earth would Saddam admit that he had actually complied with U.N. resolutions , ditching his WMDs thereby showing his mortal enemy how exposed and vulnerable he was? (Especially after his conventional military had been gutted by the U.S. during the Gulf War).




Because he was OBLIGED to. Those were the terms that he accepted. Really, that ends all discussion of this particularly moot matter. If the Iranians were so hell bent on revenge and saddass's military was eviscerated why didn't they act anyway? Because they were not hell bent on revenge and because I think they realized that the rest of the world would stop them anyway. The Mad Mullahs aren't stupid either and they sure didn't want us to do to them what we did to saddass.
Quote:



Do you think Saddam got where he was by being a moron?




He was a cunning and particularly ruthless thug who covered up his incompetence with a viciousness not often seen. I would label him an Idiot Savant.
Quote:



It was up to Bush-chimp to prove he did not possess WMDs.
So why did he fail to give inspectors adequate time to do their job?




I think you mis-spoke yourself here. Didn't you mean to say, "It was up to Bush-chimp to prove he DID possess WMDs." Which if you did mean is just wrong. It was saddass's obligation to prove he didn't (there's that word again) and not Bush's or Clinton's or anybody else's to prove he did. And the constant jerking around of inspectors went on for ten years. Five years should have been enough if he had cooperated. Let them in, kick them out, stop them here, let them in there. He had ample opportunity to comply. He didn't. Instead he tried to play this shell game, with apparently empty shells, although that certainly hasn't been proven.

And do not forget for an instant that there was a growing cry by the bribed (UN, France, Russia) to end the sanctions entirely and allow him to completely skate away. No, it was quite clearly time for him to go.
Quote:



Answer: He had already decided to go to war evidence be damned. No rational, unbiased observer can deny at this point that this administration does not give a flying fuck about the facts, public opinion or ethics.




Saddam had ample opportunity to comply. He refused. No rational observer can deny that fact. He was a bona fide threat willing to aid and abet terrorists. That fact cannot be denied. The UN, France and Russia had been bribed to let him off the hook. That fact cannot be denied. And, in case you were 15 at the time, there was enormous public support for the war and there was enormous support in Congress for the war. Ethics? What the fuck are you talking about?
Quote:



They care about raw power and global dominance.

Period.






Bullshit


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinetrippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Male

Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6565924 - 02/14/07 10:20 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Saddam had ample opportunity to comply. He refused. No rational observer can deny that fact. He was a bona fide threat willing to aid and abet terrorists. That fact cannot be denied. The UN, France and Russia had been bribed to let him off the hook. That fact cannot be denied. And, in case you were 15 at the time, there was enormous public support for the war and there was enormous support in Congress for the war. Ethics? What the fuck are you talking about?





Some of this is BULLSHIT. We went to war in the first place under FALSE pretenses. Just like you can't be charged and jailed on somebody's whim, we as a nation should not be able to go to war on a whim. Now that our nation and congress know the truth (the was NO evidence of WMD's) the war has lost support. I am not buying into the stories of Iran anymore than the stories of Iraq. Here is an older post that might help explain why: PROPAGANDA and only one side (our President's desire for more war) of the story.


--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to  blind person who has never seen a horse.

^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^


--------------------------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: Alex213]
    #6565929 - 02/14/07 10:21 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Carter was a coward for failing to act in Iran.

Failing to act in what way?




Defending by military action our territory and citizenry which had been attacked by Iran. But he was to cowardly to respond.
Quote:



It takes courage to lead

Wrong. It takes courage to lead RESPONSIBLY. D

on't confuse eagerness to start wars with "courage".




Don't confuse a willingness to accept an unpleasant necessity as eagerness. If they were so eager why was saddass given so many chances? It is cowardice to run from an unpleasant necessity.
Quote:






Cowards are notoriously courageous with other peoples lives but not their own. That's why Bush ran from Vietnam and why he spent 9/11 hiding down a hole a mile deep in Nebraska.




He was the President and as such more than the man. He does not have the option of not protecting himself. I have very little doubt that had he still been active and not President he would have been flying that day, but that is useless speculation.

Blah blah blah "chickenhawk". Nonsense that has been pounded numerous times. Is it your position that only the generals should decide when to go to war? Or the soldiers themselves? Because that's a pretty stupid position to take.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: trippindad82]
    #6565967 - 02/14/07 10:41 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

trippindad82 said:
Quote:

Saddam had ample opportunity to comply. He refused. No rational observer can deny that fact. He was a bona fide threat willing to aid and abet terrorists. That fact cannot be denied. The UN, France and Russia had been bribed to let him off the hook. That fact cannot be denied. And, in case you were 15 at the time, there was enormous public support for the war and there was enormous support in Congress for the war. Ethics? What the fuck are you talking about?





Some of this is BULLSHIT. We went to war in the first place under FALSE pretenses. Just like you can't be charged and jailed on somebody's whim, we as a nation should not be able to go to war on a whim. Now that our nation and congress know the truth (the was NO evidence of WMD's) the war has lost support. I am not buying into the stories of Iran anymore than the stories of Iraq. Here is an older post that might help explain why: PROPAGANDA and only one side (our President's desire for more war) of the story.




Which specific part is bullshit? Your entire position on everything seems to be that anything the government or the media says is a lie and the only people who can be trusted are the most outrageous and marginal blatherers who support their arguments with pretty much zero or distorted "facts". For instance this from a previous post of yours.

Quote:

Quote:


The third one is just a huge list of assorted whacko links with no scientific support. From the first one I read:
"Of the 580,000 US soldiers that served in Iraq in 1991, by mid 2004 518,739 were on medical disability pensions."
I seriously doubt this.






Why? Because the govt and mainstream media won't admit this? When will you stop believing everything the media says and covers.




It seems that any asshole can make any accusation and you'll believe it as long as it doesn't come from the media or the government. Which is clearly ridiculous. As is that dopes assertion that almost 90% of Gulf War 1 Veterans are on medical disability pensions. This you believe whole heartedly.

I don't argue with you for your sake. I do it for the children. I just don't want your nonsense to go unchallenged. Although relatively easy sport, it is nonetheless quite fun, like clubbing baby seals.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleMourningdove
Stranger
Registered: 11/24/05
Posts: 399
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6566088 - 02/14/07 11:32 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

That slobbering retard is on the shitbox right now pretty much saying they're gonna invade Iran for sure. I'm sure the demoshits will roll over and let 'im do it...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinetrippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Male

Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: Mourningdove]
    #6566676 - 02/14/07 02:22 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:



Which specific part is bullshit? Your entire position on everything seems to be that anything the government or the media says is a lie and the only people who can be trusted are the most outrageous and marginal blatherers who support their arguments with pretty much zero or distorted "facts". For instance this from a previous post of yours.




When will we all finally admit that the war in Iraq was NEVER based on terrorism? Operation Iraqi Liberation (why not just use freedom???) or OIL for short. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others planned this attack before "facts" were lined up about the WMD.

Also, here as an excerpt from everybody's favorite site, wikipedia which also explains that Bush had preinauguration plans on attacking Iraq, whether or not they had ties with alQaida. It was just part of his administrative policy. IMO, more like he wanted to impress daddy.

Quote:

The United States Republican Party's campaign platform in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress then headed by Ahmed Chalabi.[16] Upon the election of George W. Bush as president, according to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country. O'Neill later clarified that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.[1




--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to  blind person who has never seen a horse.

^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^


--------------------------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleAlteredAgain
Visual Alchemist
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/06
Posts: 11,176
Loc: Solar Circuit
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6567997 - 02/14/07 08:04 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

zapp, it is nothing new that government and media lie to their populace. you seem so surprised about this.

how many hours of television do you watch on average each day?

:egyptian:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: AlteredAgain]
    #6568070 - 02/14/07 08:21 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Almost none. How about you?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinetrippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Male

Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Iran attack by spring? [Re: AlteredAgain]
    #6568076 - 02/14/07 08:23 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

    Quote:

        Quote:

        The third one is just a huge list of assorted whacko links with no scientific support. From the first one I read:
        "Of the 580,000 US soldiers that served in Iraq in 1991, by mid 2004 518,739 were on medical disability pensions."
        I seriously doubt this.





    Why? Because the govt and mainstream media won't admit this? When will you stop believing everything the media says and covers.



It seems that any asshole can make any accusation and you'll believe it as long as it doesn't come from the media or the government. Which is clearly ridiculous. As is that dopes assertion that almost 90% of Gulf War 1 Veterans are on medical disability pensions. This you believe whole heartedly.




Not true at all. It also seems IMO that anything the US govt says is golden in your eyes. Why are you on this site if the govt doesn't lie at all? You shouldn't be touching marijuana and other psychotropic drugs because the govt says they are bad for you.

Maybe that number is a little high. I'm sorry I didn't read the whole way through. The numbers are far more conservative. But still, they currently range from 250,000-518,739.

Quote:

There is no such a thing as an unwounded soldier. While the US claimed 760 casualties in the 1991 Gulf War, by 2002 another 8,300 had died and 168,000 had been disabled by the effects of experimental vaccines, depleted uranium (DU), oil well fires, etc., and thousands of their children were born with disabilities.  UK veterans suffered similarly and demanded recognition and compensation for “Gulf War Syndrome”.

In May 2004, Scottish veteran Alex Izett’s hunger strike (supported by Payday) won the Independent Inquiry on Gulf War Illnesses in London, which ackowledged that Gulf War Syndrome exists.  However, the proposed “compensation” for 6,000 UK veterans and their families was an insult – £500 on average.

This movement for reparations is now widening to other wars. Two US states now provide DU screening for soldiers returning from Iraq. The Italian Senate is investigating the effects of DU on Italian soldiers and, for the first time, on civilians exposed during military exercises in Italy itself.  The tragedy of possibly millions of similarly affected women, children and men in Iraq, former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Afghanistan,  is now on our agenda.



http://www.refusingtokill.net/UKGulfWar1/gulfwarsyndromeJournal2006.htm


----------------------------
Quote:

zapp, it is nothing new that government and media lie to their populace. you seem so surprised about this.

how many hours of television do you watch on average each day?

:egyptian:





:thumbup:


--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to  blind person who has never seen a horse.

^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^


--------------------------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* UN Officials Find Evidence of Iran's Secret Uranium Enrichment Plant
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 2,254 30 04/11/06 02:32 PM
by Phred
* Iran + the United Nations = Sanity???? SirTripAlot 871 9 04/18/06 11:34 PM
by SirTripAlot
* Iran enriches uranium Basilides 1,799 15 04/12/06 07:22 PM
by Asante
* Iran, Iraq, Bosnia - same old excuses Alex213 389 1 05/08/06 09:59 AM
by exclusive58
* Exile Opposition: Iran Hiding Another Nuke Site wingnutx 403 1 10/13/03 03:18 PM
by Learyfan
* Kerry would still supply Iran with nuclear fuel Great_Satan 1,560 9 10/10/04 02:12 PM
by Medley
* Iran, another Iraq?
( 1 2 all )
relativexistance 1,988 22 04/30/06 03:45 PM
by blaze2
* Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran.....
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
lonestar2004 7,942 112 12/15/05 04:08 AM
by GazzBut

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,774 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 19 queries.