The W
Views: 100763197
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.14 0857
The W - Current Events & Politics - NYT on the "mobile bioweapon factories"
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1997 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3936 days
Last activity: 3882 days
#1 Posted on
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/international/worldspecial/07TRAI.html

Short summary: There's a lot of debate regarding the possibility of those trailers being even part of mobile biological weapon manufacturing centers (bear in mind that each of the three trailers found would only be one-third of a full mobile bioweapon center, and all three would be the same third). A number of experts are arguing that the arguments for them being weapon centers are sketchy, and "political motive" is being tossed around a lot.

Incidentally, my take on WMDs right now is that although Saddam was almost certainly trying to get them (he was evil, it makes sense), he just as certainly did not have them at the time of invasion. The United States currently has access to two-thirds of the Iraqi "deck of cards" leaders, plus over half a dozen Iraqi generals surrendered, and all these guys are cutting deals and not one has delivered up a single WMD location - including the ones with nicknames like "Chemical Ali" and "Dr. Anthrax". There's Iraqi weapons experts and scientists swearing that the search is pointless because there aren't any weapons left any more. And Uday Hussein is negotiating his surrender, and if HE can't give any up then you can forget it, because it's kind of unlikely that Saddam wouldn't tell his own son where they were.

Also of interest: John Dean, indicted during Watergate, gives his take on whether lying over WMDs could be considered an impeachable offense to his office.
Promote this thread!
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Have you started to hear the Conservative apologists already starting to hem and haw as to why it was OK for Bush to maybe stretch the truth in this case? Michael Savage's (I would love Savage Nation so much if he co-hosted it with Dan Savage) little justification is that the lie didn't hurt National Security, therefor it's OK. As opposed, of course, to the Commie Hordes that came trampsing through the heartland as a result of Bill Clinton lying about a blowjob. Bunch of hypocrites.



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1300 days
Last activity: 1097 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
If the weapons were destroyed in the short period of time before the war, does it matter? If that were true, then they would still have the capability of doing so.




"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
- Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 576 days
Last activity: 443 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on
Tests of the trailers have shown them not have been used for biological weapon transports.

And Grimis, not one of those Iraqi people arrested even said the WMDs were destroyed right before the war. Every time I've read any quote from an Iraqi governmental person, it's that WMDs were destroyed a long time ago.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3863 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00


    Tests of the trailers have shown them not have been used for biological weapon transports.


Untrue, the first two sets of experts agreed that they were used as germ labs, but the third group has dissented. The only thing "tests" have shown is that there are no longer any biological agents in them.
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4087 days
Last activity: 4086 days
#6 Posted on
Bottom line;

Lying is okay if you're a conservative.





Hm.



Is lying about getting your dick sucked worse than starting a war based on lies? Seems to me that the former is a much less serious lapse than the latter.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3863 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
How can you confirm that they lied yet? What will you say if weapons turn up in a week or so? 5 days into the war, the Washington Post reported that "un-named generals" had told them that the war could take upwards of four months..people were calling it a quagmire less than a week in. Can we wait and see where this goes before being so sure that Bush is a liar?

Even France, Germany, and Syria agreed that Iraq had WMD. That's what 1441 was all about, and it passed 15-0. The disagreement was over whether or not war was the best way to solve the issue, not whether or not the weapons existed. If Saddam had nothing, all he had to do was point out what he had done with the stuff, and the inspectors would have verified it, but he didn't do it.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 73 days
Last activity: 73 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
I, personally, trust everything the NY Times says these days...

FLEA



Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high...

FLEA - Man, EVERYONE has a website!-RYDERFAKIN.COM
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3936 days
Last activity: 3882 days
#9 Posted on
Even France, Germany, and Syria agreed that Iraq had WMD. That's what 1441 was all about, and it passed 15-0.

Actually, 1441 was that Iraq might have had WMDs. That's why it was the basis for UN inspections, and the first round of inspections proved inconclusive as to the existence of WMDs, which is why France and Germany said "let's have some more inspections so we can prove one way or the other there aren't any."

What will you say if weapons turn up in a week or so?

"Wow", because at this point I will honestly be extremely surprised to see them turn up. Like I said - the Iraqi government officials they have, who really have no reason to lie at this point because revealing the WMDs is easily their best chance to cut a deal, keep saying "we don't have any" over and over again. They've inspected all the "prime" sites and found nothing, and Rice and Rumsfeld and Bush are now down to "look, they could have buried them a long time ago" but most chemical weapons need to be maintained or they go inert.

Again - Bush and Blair claimed they had proof of 5000 gallons of sarin, ten thousand drums of anthrax. That level of WMD-age simply isn't feasible to remain hidden for this long, especially when they were claiming they knew where it was, and the "Saddam must have destroyed them to make the US look bad" meme is fairly blatant crap.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3779 days
Last activity: 3249 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on
On a completely unrelated note, when I looked at the title of this thread right after waking up earlier today, I saw it as "MTV on the mobile biohazard fuckers".

Doesn't really mean anything, but I remain vaguely disappointed at not finding out what MTV thinks of the mobile biohazard fuckers.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on

    Originally posted by -proletarian-
    Bottom line;

    Lying is okay if you're a conservative.





    Hm.



    Is lying about getting your dick sucked worse than starting a war based on lies? Seems to me that the former is a much less serious lapse than the latter.

Please stop trolling; you've done way too much of it this weekend.



©CRZ™
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by Michrome
    If Saddam had nothing, all he had to do was point out what he had done with the stuff, and the inspectors would have verified it, but he didn't do it.


Yeah, he did....and the inspector's did not believe him, hence the need for a long, thorough inspection... And instead of a conversation about the validity of th claims on either side, the argument dwindled down to the credibility of the UN. Unless the UN inspectors justified our want to invade, Bush and Co. were not going to be happy.

The fact that we run the whole frickin; country and STILL cannot find any credible evidence... personally, I am surprised a "Gulf of Tonkin"-esque or "incubator baby"-esque story hasn't emerged yet. As if it matters...

It's kind of funny.... Last Friday I got in to an argument with a Marine who, after having to yield that there was little evidence of WMDs and that we supported Hussein while he was gassing his own people, that what this really boiled down to was showing the world that we were still a force to be reckoned with - and he found that perfectly acceptable. Welcome to America...



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
cactuspete
Blutwurst








Since: 22.9.02
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4163 days
Last activity: 4162 days
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN
    I, personally, trust everything the NY Times says these days...

    FLEA



Ditto brutha!!! Nothing says journalistic integrity like the New York Times!





The above post has been verified as 100% accurate.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Can we wait and see where this goes before being so sure that Bush is a liar?

Fine. How long do you want? Give a date and we'll check back then.

that what this really boiled down to was showing the world that we were still a force to be reckoned with - and he found that perfectly acceptable. Welcome to America...

Well yes. This is what it comes down to for most people. However, this isn't as dumb a reason as it seems, at least for me. Given that the average Iraqi is better off now than with Saddam (although I know some folks still debate this) I think it's kind of a good thing in the end.

Most of the rest of the world kind of expected the U.S. to play "mournful victim," kind of like what France would have done, after 9-11. The U.S., not being that kind of country however, essentially instead went a little crazy. Now, lets say you're on the schoolyard. And the biggest kid out there is essentially a nice guy. But if he gets hit with a rock, he'll go nuts. Now, if this kid just tried to take out the guy who threw the rock, he'd be susseptable to all sorts of clever folks who'll try to fool the guy into starting shit, taking out their enemies, and so forth. And if the kid went to the guy who hit him with the rock and asked him nicely to stop, he'd probably just get hit some more. But what if the kid not only went nuts on whoever he thought threw the rock, but also took out a random kid or two he didn't really like just because he was pissed? Then, everyone is making damn sure nobody hits the kid with a rock, because they don't want to be the poor schmuk that might be on the kids hit list if he happens to get hit again.

It's weird analogy, but it works.





"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2861 days
Last activity: 2703 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
As a man who makes a lot of clumsy analogies, I salute you, Moe. I think the problem with that analogy, for a lot of people on this board, boils down to "but it's WRONG to hit the other kids! We should just let ourselves get hit by the rock before doing anything!" Of course, in real life it's not going to be a rock we get hit with.

Sometimes, being holier than thou is incompatible with being alive. I think we're living in one of those times.

Edit: Oh, and one more thing to throw out there. I don't care if Bush didn't have concrete evidence about WMD. I believe he had very reasonable suspicion, and I believe Hussein did everything he could to avoid allaying those suspicions, so the President was right to act. It's not about concrete proof anymore; it's about flexing our muscles (hopefully in a responsible fashion) and neutering the world's terrorist population (ideally, anyway). And what's more, Bush has more or less said this himself. We're all about the pre-emptive action now, and I'd rather that than wait for the proof to hit the DC or NY subways.

(edited by PalpatineW on 11.6.03 0118)


Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Oh, and one more thing to throw out there. I don't care if Bush didn't have concrete evidence about WMD. I believe he had very reasonable suspicion, and I believe Hussein did everything he could to avoid allaying those suspicions, so the President was right to act.

    (edited by PalpatineW on 11.6.03 0118)



But that's not what Bush and Co. said... they did not say "We have every reasonable suspicion..." They said "We know...". And they didn't know. And maybe Hussein "did everything he could to avoid allaying those suspicions" because it was all he could do to prevent getting bombed, because he didn't have any frickin' weapons to begin with!

How you can buy into this crap is beyond me.... they LIED... no different than the Gulf of Tonkin, or the "incubator babies"... the Bush administration just plain out LIED. And to make excuses at this point is ridiculous...


    Originally posted by PalpatineW

    It's not about concrete proof anymore; it's about flexing our muscles (hopefully in a responsible fashion) and neutering the world's terrorist population (ideally, anyway). And what's more, Bush has more or less said this himself. We're all about the pre-emptive action now, and I'd rather that than wait for the proof to hit the DC or NY subways.



I agree with the first part, but not the second... this had nothing to do with pre-emption, and everything to do with showing that no one can stop us... I am even willing to say that it is not about oil. It was all about winning a war we knew we could win to show off what we could do... And that's fucking criminal.

And to condemn anyone, country or individual, with out proof is just lunacy. Would you let your doctor amputate your leg without proof? Without proof, anyone could be a terrorist... hell, why not bomb Michigan?



Pre-emptive on





"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3779 days
Last activity: 3249 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    But what if the kid not only went nuts on whoever he thought threw the rock, but also took out a random kid or two he didn't really like just because he was pissed? Then, everyone is making damn sure nobody hits the kid with a rock, because they don't want to be the poor schmuk that might be on the kids hit list if he happens to get hit again.

    It's weird analogy, but it works.




No, then the kid gets to go to the psych ward for being dangerous. What is this, a prison movie? Find someone and shank 'em so everyone else knows you're dangerous?

We're not the target of terrorist attacks because we're viewed as being weak, it's because they view us, right or wrong, as corrupt imperialists who butt in where we're not wanted or needed. Pointlessly aggressive acts like what you're endorsing may scare a lot of people... but they'll add fuel to a lot of fires as well. We don't need any more enemies.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1300 days
Last activity: 1097 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake

    We're not the target of terrorist attacks because we're viewed as being weak, it's because they view us, right or wrong, as corrupt imperialists who butt in where we're not wanted or needed. Pointlessly aggressive acts like what you're endorsing may scare a lot of people... but they'll add fuel to a lot of fires as well. We don't need any more enemies.

Actually as far as radical Muslims go we can't get any more enemies then we already have; mainly becasue we are a majority Christian country(so we're pagan) and because we support Israel(which makes us sleeping with the enemy so to speak).



"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
- Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#19 Posted on
While our being a mostly christian country is something we cannot nor should change, I'm beginning to wonder if the latter half of that equation isn't causing us a great deal more harm than good at this point in time. Perhaps we need to reexamine who and what we support, and be a bit more cold-hearted in terms of saying "you fight your own battles, this is not our problem."



and maybe I should open up my sensitive side/but really, the sensitive side sucks./I've been there./You can only imagine the kinds of sweaters they make you wear.

NWA:TNA - I'm sure something happened, but I was at pub quiz. Oh well.
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 576 days
Last activity: 443 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on
The Bible tells me turn the other cheek. Therefore, if someone hits me with a rock, or insults me, all I can do is express God's love for them and forgive them. That is how Jesus lived, and living as Jesus did basically seems to me to be the entire foundation of Christian living.

Eye for an eye is Old Testament and was replaced with turn the other cheek in the New Testament. I don't claim to be holier then thou in following Christian teachings. I struggle a lot with loving all people, with anger, and with many other problems. But I try, and that trying does not include beating up whoever messes with me.

Moving away from a Christian perspective, the basic law of inner city living is that no matter how pshyco or strong you are, there is always going to be someone who wants to test their strength against you. There is always someone out there who might be as strong or stronger then you, know more or different tricks then you, know more people then you. You cannot live a healthy life as a fighter in the inner city. You will eventually get beat up or killed.

You might also get killed as an evangelist in the inner city, but the chances are far less, and if you do, you die having helped many people and with a sense of honor and morals.

Oh, and here's some # of civilians killed evidence

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2003/Jun/20030611News025.asp

I'm still waiting to see in what way life is truly better for the Iraqis. As bad as Hussein was, before the sanctions there was an actual middle class in Iraq.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: War Crimes
Next thread: Little Big Brother
Previous thread: Free Martha Stewart?
(1997 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I noticed Grimis saying that IDS was not 'a real Conservative'. IDS was voted in by the party members - not the MP's. Surely if the grass roots support wanted him to represent them, he has to be considered 'a real Conservative'.
- A-MOL, Duncan Smith Ousted (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - NYT on the "mobile bioweapon factories"Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.144 seconds.