Post #57,271
10/16/02 11:33:35 PM
|
N. Korea has nuke program
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/index.html|http://www.cnn.com/2002/...nkorea/index.html] One senior administration official said Pyongyang made the acknowledgment only after it was confronted with evidence that it has a uranium-based program and enough plutonium for at least two nuclear weapons.
The North's admission prompted urgent consultations among the United States, Japan and South Korea -- the three nations that North Korea had promised under the so-called "agreed framework."
The diplomatic term describes the 1994 agreement under which North Korea said it would no longer seek to develop nuclear weapons, and in exchange the United States and others agreed to provide the light-water nuclear technology for power generation. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #57,286
10/16/02 11:59:40 PM
|
No SH*T really!!! Big Surprise or what!!!!!!!!
Ya want to put North Korea out of business in 30 days or less? Start launching 1/4 pounders out of Aeroplanes over south Korea at 50k feet with little parachutes when a norther is blowing. Tell them they can have fries once the squirrel is out of office.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane."
Lyndon LaRouche
|
Post #57,921
10/19/02 11:49:48 PM
|
Tom Lehrer - 1965 - "Who's Next?"
First we got the bomb and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's O.K.,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way!
Who's next?
France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears;
They can't wipe us out for at least five years!
Who's next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white!
Who's next?
Egypt's gonna get one, too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb!
Who's next?
Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb!
Who's next, who's next, who's next?
Who's next?
Any questions?
|
Post #57,287
10/16/02 11:59:57 PM
|
We MUST invade!
#1. They have a noocloor program!
#2. They REFUSE to allow inspectors!
Okay, now......
It ain't about the OIL because if it were, then we'd be talking about invading N.K.
Anyone wanna take a bet on whether we do within the next 2 years?
|
Post #57,291
10/17/02 12:04:31 AM
|
import a lot of Kiljungons 4 seater at 5k a pop
with a 30k warranty will outsell kias 10-1 just need a 125k donation to Finestein dem ca or de armey repo non car state,
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane."
Lyndon LaRouche
|
Post #57,348
10/17/02 11:37:11 AM
|
You've left out a few steps...
...and a few years of violating those steps.
Oh...and we haven't invaded Iraq >yet< either.
BUT...my take is the announcement was made to do >exactly< what your snide comment implies...show the huge incosistency in policy should the US choose to invade IRAQ.
Look folks...its an Axis of Evil PR campaign...it would make Wag-Ed proud.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,382
10/17/02 3:42:27 PM
|
There you go again.
Making claims without supporting them. You've left out a few steps...
...and a few years of violating those steps. No mention of what, specific, steps I left out. BUT...my take is the announcement was made to do >exactly< what your snide comment implies...show the huge incosistency in policy should the US choose to invade IRAQ. "imply"? How clearly can I state it? How many times have I repeated it? It's all about the OIL!!! Another country WITHOUT OIL can do EXACTLY the same thing that the US CLAIMS Iraq is doing and even ANNOUNCE that they're doing it! But we won't invade. We will NOT invade. We will seek "peaceful" solutions to the problem. It is about the oil. It has always been about the oil. It will always be about the oil. And N.K. has demonstrated in no unclear terms that the US is attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq with lies. I know that will piss off some people who have managed to convince themselves that we aren't going after Iraq because of the oil, but that's just too bad for them.
|
Post #57,472
10/17/02 11:44:19 PM
|
Excuse me...
...for mistaking you for someone with half a brain.
I'm willing to wager that most everyone else understood those steps to be the UN resolutions and their subsequent violation..steps that have not yet been taken with NK.
But I should know better than to enter any thread where you are..because even if I somewhat agree with your position you act like an asshole.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,496
10/18/02 9:15:58 AM
|
Like I said, no specifics from you.
I'm willing to wager that most everyone else understood those steps to be the UN resolutions and their subsequent violation..steps that have not yet been taken with NK. So, the basis is the UN? But if the UN doesn't sanction an invasion, we'll invade anyway. Or are you implying that it isn't the ACTIONS that are the issue -but- That it is the UN's RESPONSE to those actions. Again, that would make sense if we were willing to NOT invade unless the UN sanctioned it. Nope. This is, has been, and always will be, just as I've said before A L L A B O U T T H E O I L
|
Post #57,534
10/18/02 11:59:08 AM
|
What t f ever.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,529
10/18/02 11:38:01 AM
|
Partial agreement
I understood your meaning, but I think the analogy fails for other reasons. Didn't S.K. have an agreement in place not to continue development of nukes? (leaving aside anything that had already been developed).
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #57,547
10/18/02 12:33:11 PM
|
Yes, they did.
|
Post #57,563
10/18/02 1:40:43 PM
|
Agreement with US, Japan and SK...no UN activity.
The agreement also allowed inspectors...which were then never allowed in country.
Difference with Iraq is there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence of NK sponsored terrorism. Additionally NK has no recent history of using womd against its own. They are not in the oil belt. There has been no UN activity nor resolution demanding the end of the NK missile program.
Big strategic difference...NK has missiles and targeting systems that are of significantly longer range than those in Iraq.
The timing of the announcement is, imnsho, a PR attempt against the US. Pretty effective one too. All because we spoke in "threatening terms"...which is one of the things Shrub has done so far that I completely disagree with...naming names beyond the "you are with us or against us" statement.
Unnecessary and destabilizing.
This is evidence.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,580
10/18/02 2:06:04 PM
|
This time I agree with all but one.
Difference with Iraq is there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence of NK sponsored terrorism. I have only heard the assertion from the bush mob that Iraq has ties to terrorism. All other groups with credibility (like the bush mob has any credibility) state the opposite. Not saying they don't but there is no "evidence" that I know of that has been presented anywhere to say they do. The propraganda is working Bill. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #57,594
10/18/02 4:01:31 PM
|
Well..you could start with...
[link|http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1031184073773956835,00.html|this.]
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,602
10/18/02 4:45:05 PM
|
Pardon me
Still wiping away tears of laughter.
Did you perchance miss my use of the word 'credible'? Perhaps I should have been more specific, The CIA has said there is no evidence of an Iraq/Al Qaeda link. If news reports are what you want, have you seen those where the intelligence community is infuriated at the bush gang for trying to influence the reports submitted? The reports that don't show a connection.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #57,615
10/18/02 5:14:44 PM
|
Is there anything...
...that could be considered credible...ESPECIALLY where the "intelligence" community is concerned?
You take what you can get and process it for yourself.
I have no personal doubt of Iraqi involvement with the Al-Q network...proof notwithstanding. I had no doubt of it long before the "hawks" felt that I needed to have that opinion.
Trusting CIA over Executive...hmmm...sort of like trusting Hannibal more than Dalmer not to snack when you take a nap.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,655
10/18/02 6:41:01 PM
|
I have many doubts
I have no personal doubt of Iraqi involvement with the Al-Q network.
Iraq is the most secular of West Asian Countries. OBL is a fundamentalist fanatic. Saddam is brutally repressive to fuundamentalist islam. OBL is rabidly for fundamentalist Islam. See where this is going? "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #57,666
10/18/02 7:05:44 PM
|
Been there, done that.
You will NOT get anywhere trying to alter someone's religious beliefs with facts.
Certain people just KNOW that there's a link.
Despite the radically DIFFERENT political/religous ideologies of Saddam and Osama.
#1. They are BAD men.
#2. They are RAGHEADS.
#3. They HATE the US.
Therefore, it is only NATURAL that they would be working together.
Despite any facts to the contrary and the lack of any evidence showing any connections.
|
Post #57,683
10/18/02 8:13:06 PM
|
Oh..right...
...no nation has >ever< supported another with different beliefs against a common enemy.
And no Iraqi government official has ever met with any Al Q member or suspected terrorist.
Right.
You could have tried to cast doubt on intelligence reports stating that Iraqi and Al-Q terrorists have held meetings.
Instead you throw charged language around to misrepresent an opinion other than your own.
Figures.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,776
10/19/02 12:47:32 AM
|
What reports?
You could have tried to cast doubt on intelligence reports stating that Iraqi and Al-Q terrorists have held meetings. Strange, the reports I recall from the CIA say that Saddam does NOT have any al Queda links. Also, I recall that there were stories about how the current regime has tried to suppress or change reports stating that Saddam doesn't have any links to al Queda. And no Iraqi government official has ever met with any Al Q member or suspected terrorist. You mean like our presidents meeting with Yasser? Again, you have no FACTS to support your beliefs, but you don't need to support them because you KNOW they're right. Instead, you'll just throw around POSSIBILITIES that you MIGHT be correct. That's all the support you need for your beliefs. Like I said, with some people, it's a religion. I'll stick to facts and, so far, there hasn't been ANY credible links between Saddam (secularist) and Osama (religious fundamentalist).
|
Post #57,805
10/19/02 9:53:22 AM
|
Re: What reports?
[link|http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/2/8/1s.html|http://www.nti.org/d.../2002/2/8/1s.html] While a connection between an Iraqi intelligence official and a key member of al-Qaeda was confirmed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the intelligence community has not, at least yet, indicated it has found evidence of Iraqi support for the group\ufffds terror operations [link|http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/3/19/2s.html|http://www.nti.org/d...2002/3/19/2s.html] Kurdish officials said Hussein\ufffds regime has had ties to al-Qaeda since 1992 Its not religion, bozo...its documented. And its not Osama to Sadam...its Iraq to Al-Q. I don't expect Sadam and Osama would be sharing to many beers at the corner bar. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,807
10/19/02 10:59:41 AM
|
And there you go again, again.
From the sites you linked: There is, of course, the possibility the United States does have such evidence but is holding it until after U.S. forces now in Afghanistan can be positioned to do something about it \ufffd to avoid alerting a regime prior to attacking. Exactly what I said about your methodology. You rely upon the POSSIBILITY that something COULD exist. Typical conspiracy theory religious practice. Nongovernmental analysts say they have seen no such evidence. I like that term. "no such evidence". While a connection between an Iraqi intelligence official and a key member of al-Qaeda was confirmed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, the intelligence community has not, at least yet, indicated it has found evidence of Iraqi support for the group\ufffds terror operations So, is that similar to our President's meeting with Yasser? Of course, if you had bothered to follow the links on the link you posted, you'd have come across this little gem. [link|http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/newswires/2002_2_6.html#4|Here] U.S. intelligence officials said, however, that the United States does not have enough information to prove Iraq has supported anti-U.S. terrorism (see GSN, Jan. 24). The last known Iraqi attempt at terrorism was a failed operation to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush in 1993. Again, your case relies upon non-facts and possibilities. One member of the Iraqi government (and it isn't Saddam) has a "link" to a member of al Queda. Just as our President has a link to Yasser and has publicly met with him. Some recent reports indicated that Iraq could have ties to terrorists, but intelligence officials said the information provided no substantial evidence. After the history or discussions with you, I don't expect you to recognize what "substantial evidence" means. To put it in simple terms: The guys who know this, who study this, say that they have found nothing saying Iraq is supporting Osama. Which is exactly what I've been saying. U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Mohamed Atta, a leader of the terrorists who hijacked the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a mid-level Iraqi intelligence officer, in Prague, but the meeting does not necessarily tie Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. Emphasis added. Yes, it is a religion with you. The experts say that there is no evidence that Saddam supports Osama. You sole "link" is a mid-level spy meeting with a terrorist in Prague. A religion is not based upon facts. It is based upon "feelings" and beliefs. You have one fact and you're going to extrapolate from that into an entire conspiracy. While the experts in the matter say that such a conspiracy just does not exist. And its not Osama to Sadam...its Iraq to Al-Q. I don't expect Sadam and Osama would be sharing to many beers at the corner bar. "Iraq" is nothing more than dirt, oil and plants. Only the Iraqi government and so forth can have ties to a group of people. You've floundered so far out of your depth that now you're fantasizing about a secret Iraqi government NOT headed by Saddam that has links to Osama. Or was that a secret Iraqi government NOT headed by Saddam that has links to a secret al Queda cabal NOT headed by Osama? Typical conspiracy religion. And only a true believer would accept such "proof".
|
Post #57,809
10/19/02 11:12:15 AM
|
and you too...
...pulling quotes from incorrect contexts..etc...
If anyone else cares to take up the discussion..I'll gladly continue..
Not with you.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,811
10/19/02 11:17:38 AM
|
Tee hee hee
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=57287|We MUST invade!]
Seems to me that YOU are the one that jumped in on MY comment.
Like I said, it's a religion with you.
|
Post #57,813
10/19/02 11:38:32 AM
|
Sure...
...and Ollie was acting alone too.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,815
10/19/02 11:55:02 AM
|
No he didn't act alone
He traded arms to Iran with the help of many others. But what does that have to do with a Iraq/Al Qaeda connection?
Oops. I first assumed you were talking about Oliver [link|http://www.airborne-ranger.com/ranger/wannabees/OllieNorth.html|North].
Kukla, Fran and Ollie? Oliver Wendell Holmes? Oliver Stone? Ahhh, I get it. Laurel and Hardy, right? Is there a point aside from the sarcasm?
The arguement isn't that humans have a history of working together, it's about the lack of evidence for the specific case of Iraq working with Al Qaeda.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #57,829
10/19/02 1:30:31 PM
|
Shut up!
Do NOT mock the Holy Conspiracy.
Do you NOT know that if something completely different happened to completely different people with no connection to the current subject...
That it PROVES that the Conspiracy is real!
Facts are the ENEMY (unless they support the Holy Conspiracy).
It is sufficient that the POSSIBILITY exist.
And that POSSIBILITY is proven by someone unrelated to the matter at hand doing something unrelated to the matter at hand.
#1. Saddam and Osama are BAD MEN!
#2. Saddam and Osama HATE THE US!
#3. Saddam and Osama are RAGHEADS!
#4. Ollie did NOT act alone!
Dude, it is so OBVIOUS that someone(s) in Iraq, other than Saddam, is (are) supporting al Queda operations/operatives through a channel(s) other than Osama.
I mean, who CARES what the CIA says!
The CIA has NOT provided any PROOF that the Conspiracy does NOT exist!
They just keep saying that "substantial evidence" does not exist.
Ha! Like that means anything!
|
Post #57,812
10/19/02 11:35:54 AM
|
Consider this
1. The US has a vast intelligence gathering community. After 9/11, many of the other intelligence communities of the world shared data related to terrorism with the US. Out of this huge pool of data, don't you think it likely that if there were convincing evidence of Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda, it would have been presented by now? C'mon Bill, they are trying to sell a war fer chris'sake. 2. Our intelligence community has specifically presented a report saying that Iraq has no verifiable connection with Al Qaeda. Our congress critters are saying they are not convinced. Our media is not convinced or where are the headlines blaring "Saddam bankrolling Osama!"? As for this-- ...no nation has >ever< supported another with different beliefs against a common enemy. Discounting a point that was not made? I am going to have say my first ever 'Bzzzt. Strawman' but I'll address it anyway. Yes the 'enemy of my enemy' argument has merit. I still see no convincing evidence that in this case it applies. and this-- And no Iraqi government official has ever met with any Al Q member or suspected terrorist. I assume you are referring to the meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. Didn't happen according to the Miami [link|http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/3170624.htm|Herald] (I use a media source since you have infered you don't trust our intelligence services) and [link|http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20020513.shtml|others.] "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #57,814
10/19/02 11:46:16 AM
|
I'm not tallking...
...about a simple link to cover Sept 11.
And I don't think we should invade Iraq...just for the record (because some will try and invent one for me)
But through multiple channels and from multiple sources a pattern of Iraqi involvment with Al-Q exists.
Do Saddam and Osama have similar beliefs? No.
Do they have similar objectives? Yes.
Would Saddam want to make samn sure any involvement would be plausibly deniable at his level. Damn straight.
There are just as many examples of the US government doing exactly the same thing. The "anti-hawks" will use these examples regularly to make the point that we (the US) are not blameless for the hate instilled against our country...but I use that same pattern recognition in this case and y'all are jumping up and down telling me the CIA (puleaze) doesn't agree with me so I must be wrong?
WTF is wrong with that picture?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,816
10/19/02 12:05:44 PM
|
Let's not get off on a tangent
I believe this subthread got going because of [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=57580|this] response to your statement about "hard evidence". I stated that IMO there is no "hard evidence".
If you want to talk about patterns, fine. You still haven't convinced me in regards to "hard evidence".
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #57,879
10/19/02 9:05:29 PM
|
Well...
are we futzing around because of the "hard" in that statement?
Are we toying around this point because you consider NK and Iraq to be identical situations?
Or are we denying any and all reports linking Iraqi officials to Al Q?
I don't think Hussein or Iraq had any direct involvement with 9/11...but if you subscribe to the "with us or against us" argument...they are definitely in the latter category...through association and support of the group.
However, you could have pictures of Saddam and Osama french kissing and that would still not justify a pre-emptive strike by the US...in my nsh opinion.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,899
10/19/02 10:17:41 PM
|
Some answers
are we futzing around because of the "hard" in that statement? Yes. You made a several assertions in your original post. I disagreed with one. You tried to show I was wrong in my disagreement. I don't think you succeeded. If that qualifies as 'futzing', so be it. Are we toying around this point because you consider NK and Iraq to be identical situations? No. See above. Or are we denying any and all reports linking Iraqi officials to Al Q? No. Just the one I assumed you were referring to. Do you know of any others? "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #57,905
10/19/02 10:47:59 PM
|
Hmmm
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=57805|I've posted a couple.] If your looking for pictures or something, thats not gonna be there.
We have other intelligence groups giving us reports that there is an association. Anything recent should be considered tainted...all because of high propoganda value. Some is still likely to be true.
Again...this is not saying that they aided in planning or funding any specific acts of terror against the US. Without this specific evidence, there is no justification for the current stance of our government...which is why I don't support it.
It is another thing entirely to discount all other reports of training assistance and asociation just because >our< guys can't find a smoking gun linking them to anti-US acts of terror.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,950
10/20/02 11:16:58 AM
|
I guess I wasn't clear enough
The meeting in Prague is what I was disagreeing with (your first link). Other reports I have seen cast doubt on it. I hadn't heard of the claims by "Kurdish officals" and an Iranian smuggler (your second link). That does not quite reach the level of hard evidence IMO.
I find it hard to believe that Saddam, with his known record of repression on Islamic fundamentalists, who he believes are a threat to his rule, would support Al Qaeda.
I find it hard to believe that the bush gang wouldn't present other evidence if it had any for reasons I've stated previously.
What I have seen reported is not convincing. Now that you have provided the 2 links from the same organization, I now have a grand total of 2 reports to base my opinion on. So how about you stop with the "any and all" crap. That's not what I've said and you know it.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #57,957
10/20/02 1:05:26 PM
|
Ok
The meeting in Prague never happened.
And you keep believing that 2 groups with different beliefs would not associate. I have no such illusion.
In the end...where the rubber hits the road...we both think our (US) current course of action is incorrect.
So we can bicker about details...or move on.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,963
10/20/02 1:57:27 PM
|
There you go again, again, again.
And you keep believing that 2 groups with different beliefs would not associate. I have no such illusion. Mr. Bill (Strawman) Pathetic. No one is saying, has said, will say, that groups with different beliefs will not associate. What has been said, repeatedly, is that there is NO EVIDENCE that such is the case here. Again, you base your position ENTIRELY on "possibly" and "maybe" and "could be". Which is exactly what the Conspiracy Religions do. Since people completely unrelated to the current subject, did something completely unrelated to the current subject, that PROVES that your position is correct.
|
Post #57,967
10/20/02 2:34:57 PM
|
Whatever you say. Amen brother.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,832
10/19/02 1:50:01 PM
|
"WTF is wrong with that picture?"
Simple, you cannot process information that does not agree with your religion. There are just as many examples of the US government doing exactly the same thing. The "anti-hawks" will use these examples regularly to make the point that we (the US) are not blameless for the hate instilled against our country...but I use that same pattern recognition in this case and y'all are jumping up and down telling me the CIA (puleaze) doesn't agree with me so I must be wrong? Emphasis added. Yes, there are specific examples of the US governments behaviour. Specific and documented. Those examples establish a pattern. Now, you attempt to take the US pattern and say that it applies to Iraq in this case. Yet you have no specific examples of Iraqi behaviour to support that pattern. Because the US has done so, you claim that Iraq has done so. Your support for this claim is based, not in facts, but in the POSSIBILITY that Iraq COULD have done so. Al Capone cheated on his taxes. Al Capone killed people. Mr. X cheates on his taxes. Therefore, Mr. X MIGHT also be a murderer. He might, he might not. And the logic is flawed. But you will never understand that.
|
Post #57,876
10/19/02 8:37:52 PM
|
Sure I can.
You must have mistaken me with yourself...someone who can't seem to realize that he isn't right 100% of the time...sad for you that you think the rest of the world are idiots when the truth is so much closer to home.
There are specific and documented cases of Iraqi officials meeting with or associating with Al Q terrorists either directly or through other organizations...much like out our own association with Al Q during the Soviet invastion of Afghanistan.
But you choose to deny that...not because its not plausible...but simply because it opposes my statement and you can toy around with pretenting to know, even remotely, what my "religious" beliefs are.
Yep...just to be an asshole.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,901
10/19/02 10:27:56 PM
|
Once again, you are wrong.
There are specific and documented cases of Iraqi officials meeting with or associating with Al Q terrorists either directly or through other organizations...much like out our own association with Al Q during the Soviet invastion of Afghanistan. Fine, then link to them. You can keep claiming that they exist, but until you provide the links, they're just in your imagination. But you choose to deny that...not because its not plausible...but simply because it opposes my statement and you can toy around with pretenting to know, even remotely, what my "religious" beliefs are. Again, it is simple to prove me wrong. Just provide the links that state what you say they do. I'm going to go on the record here and say that such links do NOT exist. Therefore, you will NOT be able to provide them. Although you will continue to claim that you COULD provide them. There are specific and documented cases of Iraqi officials meeting with or associating with Al Q terrorists either directly or through other organizations...much like out our own association with Al Q during the Soviet invastion of Afghanistan. Again, provide links. The CIA has said that they haven't found ANY "substantial evidence" linking Saddam to al Queda. You claim that there is such evidence. You must have mistaken me with yourself...someone who can't seem to realize that he isn't right 100% of the time...sad for you that you think the rest of the world are idiots when the truth is so much closer to home. Again, it is sooooo simple to prove me wrong. Just provide the evidence that the CIA says does not exist. It doesn't get much easier than that. Then you would PROVEN that I was wrong. Instead, what "evidence" do you provide? Your reference to Ollie acting alone. ooooooooookay. The problems with you religious types is that you can't distinguish between a fact and your fantasy.
|
Post #57,902
10/19/02 10:34:29 PM
|
You are so predictable.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,940
10/20/02 7:16:07 AM
|
And you think that wasn't?
|
Post #57,956
10/20/02 12:59:45 PM
|
Quite frankly...
I don't give a fuck if it was or not.
If I go tit for tat I get bitched at for shift...and Brandi won't accept anything anyway (as evidenced by the last time where his own links screwed his own argument and this time where links have already been provided...he just didn't accept them)
So I politely tell him to go stuff..and now I expect a reaction from you and most likely Ashton..
That, my European friend, is exactly what I expected.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,961
10/20/02 1:53:20 PM
|
"didn't accept them"?
If I go tit for tat I get bitched at for shift...and Brandi won't accept anything anyway (as evidenced by the last time where his own links screwed his own argument and this time where links have already been provided...he just didn't accept them) No. The shift occures when you do NOT directly address the PREVIOUS post. Like your comment about Ollie acting alone. I have addressed your links. And Silverlock has provided other links showing that such a meeting did NOT take place. Rather than provide MORE links to support your position, you resort to "possibly" and "maybe" and such crap. The CIA itself says there is no "substantial evidence" to support your allegations. But, instead of dealing with that claim, which I have previously posted, you'll cry about everything else. Deal with the FACTS, not the part where you "know" they are doing it. But, like I said, religions don't need facts.
|
Post #57,962
10/20/02 1:54:24 PM
|
yep...right...whatever you say.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,964
10/20/02 2:00:00 PM
|
And, once again, another discussion ends with you retreating
into sarcasm.
Because you couldn't find two facts to rub together.
Rather than admit you were WRONG, you'll hide behind sarcasm and innuendo.
Pathetic.
|
Post #57,966
10/20/02 2:32:37 PM
|
Yep...you're right...you're always right.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,684
10/18/02 8:13:57 PM
|
Yes I do.
See the first line in my response to whats-his-name.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,609
10/18/02 5:03:56 PM
|
Too sane-appearing to be summarily dismissed
Too circumstantial to be a wedge for any way-too-late spook work. A comment like Mr. Fox was suspended by FBI Director Louis Freeh for speaking to the media about the case; he died in 1997. Ms. Mylroie says that Mr. Fox indicated to her that he did not continue to pursue the Iraq connection because Justice Department officials "did not want state sponsorship addressed." merely underscores ingredients of happenstance and personal political guess/manipulation - surely re every incident we ever read about! ie we don't know shit about any actual motivations and lengthy chain of actions re either of the above events. Same as approaching anything like 'proof' of CIA assistance / instigation of the Allende assassination. We are a species of congenital liars: truth-telling is so rare that, each such event is grounds for a Prize - or at least a novel about the 'novel' situation. It's not cynical to suspend belief in most mass stories - just sane. (Bizness, marketing lead the way in this decline, natch; way out in front: lying as an institution - and Billy/Bally be the icons most recognize. And applaud.) Ashton Extra! Extra! John Wilkes Boothe - Lincoln's love-child with a maid from Mary Todd's family estate: another sibling killing!
|
Post #57,712
10/18/02 9:12:58 PM
|
Re: Hey!!! - N Korea has both Nukes, and used WOMS
N Korea has been using WOMS (Weapon Of Mass Starvation) against its own people - so how does it matter how they kill em - quickly with bio-weapons or slowly with prolonged starvation.
Seems to me that WOMS is a durned site worse than WOMD
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #57,736
10/18/02 10:33:46 PM
|
Hmm..
...can they launch starvation at Japan?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #57,369
10/17/02 2:33:38 PM
|
Interesting timing, don'cha think?
We knew it all along, but they decide to admit it just as we're busy with Iraq?
They're trying to force us to fight on two fronts at the same time.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html]
The nihilists and the liars have buried truth alive in a shallow grave.
"The US party calls in mortar fire on the enemy positions. The UN party stands up, climbs over the lip of the trench, and recites Robert\ufffds Rules of Order as it approaches the machine-gun positions." - Lileks
|
Post #57,384
10/17/02 3:48:34 PM
|
Suicide! It's the "terrorist" way.
Sure.
N.K. WANTS us to invade them and overthrow their government ("regime change" to those with single digit IQ's) because it would mean we'd have to fight on two fronts at once.
While maintaining a military presence in Afghanistan.
No. N.K. knows we won't invade. Not now. Not ever. Even when they publicly announce their nuke program and admit that they've been hiding it for years (and not telling the truth about it).
They're doing this to prove to the world that the Iraq invasion is all about the oil.
|
Post #57,400
10/17/02 4:55:32 PM
|
Re: Suicide! It's the "terrorist" way.
No doubt the Red Chinese are somehow involved in this.
-drl
|
Post #57,477
10/18/02 12:27:41 AM
|
Re: Hey Darryl, ya got a real soft spot for them 'red'
Chinees dontchya <grin>.
But I keep tryin to tell ya that Mao is dead !!! (big surprise no?).
The Chinese I keep meeting are the biggest cowboy capitalists I have ever met - these cowboys are unrestrained by legislation that enforces consumer protection & workers rights etc: etc:. American businessmen I know envy the crap out of these guys because the country will take another 15 years of learning before they have reined in the more aggressive capitalists that are rampaging through the country.
Usually when the central govt has evidence of the bribery & tax evasion & worker exploitation being done by the leading graspers, they are long gone off to the US or Canada or some other haven, along with the billions of Yuan they bilked.
|
Post #57,558
10/18/02 1:25:09 PM
|
WTF is Darryl :)
Danny, me cobber!
I don't trust their govt any more than I trust ours. Your report on cowboy capitalists is interesting. Links RE this phenom?
-drl
|
Post #57,699
10/18/02 8:50:14 PM
|
Used to read all about it in SCMP but is is pay now
google pla ties to american business and government, google also chinese corruption. It is the major threat to the chicom govt that could return china to warlordism and that is happening in certain areas. Also google on Shanghei and see a picture of what it looks like today. It out brites vegas.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane."
Lyndon LaRouche
|
Post #57,759
10/18/02 11:55:26 PM
10/19/02 7:09:52 AM
|
Re: Sorry Danny mate - me memory got warped
Anyway re China, as Bill suggests almost Any Google will produce interesting results & be prepared to be stunned if they have lots of pics of Shanghai or Beijing (or almost *any* of the major cities across the country).
The massive shopping malls stocked with worldwide produce, the brand names one sees (incl Starbucks, Pizza Hut, KFC, Pepsi, Coke, Maccer Ds, Wong's Peking Duck :-) etc: etc:), the private enterprise 3-5 star hotels, the advertising on TV, the advertising hordings, the English names & words everywhere, the numbers & variety of cars in the past 10 years (absolutely staggering).
Bejing in little over 12 years went from a city of drab dress, lots of bicycles, few cars, wide empty boulevards, to a smog filled, grid-locked, scyscraper packed city, gaily dressed citizens, advertising everywhere, husstle & busstle, etc: etc:.
Beijing now has 6 massive major Ring roads, a subway system, a fully replaced international airport (the old one was a national disgrace 12 years ago - I could tell some barely believable stories about it).
I still find it hard to grasp how fast buildings & roads appear in China - iut truly staggers me and I always wondered how I could explain it to other people who hadn't seen it for themselves with their own eyes. Some of these buildings are spectacular.
12 years ago China had a dual currency system. The FEC (Foreign Exchange Certificate) and the Yuan (Remin B). We could only use FEC & locals paid a different (dirt cheap) price in Yuan - today that has all gone & we all pay the same prices - internal tourism in China is a staggering growth industry, the growing Chinese middle class are on the move & can now travel overseas quite freely - both Aust & NZ expect their biggest growth in tourists from any region will be toursist from China. Both Aust & NZ are having to warn the growing swarms of these tourists against the shysters and rip-off merchants who are beining to prey on them - most are not used to the crime we have in NZ & Aust (but I have to admit - us Aussies are all from crim stock & our police force has corruption so built into it that noone can eradicate it - the last police commisioner brough in esp from London's Scotland yard with the mission to break the cycle, in the end got sent away having failed.
Tourism to China is only just scratching the surface. Massive effort is being put into restoration & creation of tourist facilities. We have seen some wonderful locations, world heritage sites, that make visiting them a lifetime's treat.
Be prepared to be amazed when the Olympics get held here - many will wonder where this amazing place really is. (well it snuck in under the radar of perception, asnd at supersonic speed). China seems unstoppable at the moment.
Cheers
Doug
Edited by dmarker
Oct. 19, 2002, 07:09:52 AM EDT
|
Post #57,405
10/17/02 5:08:36 PM
|
Ah but.. they're Communists, you see
US Rules of logic must correct:
Since they are sub-human (communist AND er brown-ish), they do not think like US.
Fact: they are too poor to have a magnicent program of creating an entire advanced arms industry (let alone one capable of supplying its wares to.. oh just about anyone with a few $$ to spare from the peasants' food fund and.. who agree to Like the supplier of this manna, next.)
Fact: they are isolated; they are the Grudge-Masters du jour. No sympathy then from er 'allies' ('axes' - we so love to fuck language, and anything else that moves).
NO, the fact that they are also unlubricated has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with our disinterest! [Honest] We NEED at least one Commie Pinko State besides tiny Cuba: to keep Loral, Motorola, GE, Halliburton and friends supported in the manner they have become accustomed (to).
IT's NOT ABOUT OIL.. it's it's about *Principle! you comsymp lackey. (Besides taking 'em out would be just too easy; we Muricans have a word for such folk: gooks. Why they aren't even prospects for The Mouse or McD!)
* and Interest, of course. Compounded.
|
Post #57,481
10/18/02 4:07:15 AM
|
Re: Ashton - ya made my day with yer Principle
(& interest) play on words. Hope the others got as well.
I need a good grin like that at the end of a long week's work - I mean to say I gotta look at these gooks every day - If I were to work for a Murican corp here I'd deserve danger money for that (then I could go with my good gook friends & have more piss-ups in the bars down in Lan Kwai Fong).
OOOOps - mustn't do that - we gotta be next for a big boom & Lan Kwai Fong could be a prime target - narrow streets - big crowds - small area - it would be carnage.
We could always go to Wan Chai - OOOps thats the Kuta beach of Hong Kong Island - nope gonna have to forego the many pommy pubs & bars down there.
Ahh well - just have to spend it on the long lunches we enjoy having Yum Char.
Cheers Doug
|
Post #57,485
10/18/02 6:05:30 AM
|
OT - shipping numbers + John Wayne shoots Bambi
Damn, and here I be, out in the sticks.. While the Chinese takeout here is pretty authentic.. no decent atmosphere like That! with or without assassins. It's getting weird fast.. as in Philip K. Dick's short story about the statistician, Potiphar Breen, The Year of the Jackpot.
(I also just read about US shipping ports VS the automated ones everywhere else) We're having a bit of a W.Coast strike currently; the final gasp of dying unions who don't want to see the last of their longshoreman jobs 'downsized' to automated bar-code reading robots.
They'll lose of course; bizness isn't about people, it's about max. imaginary figures (not even on paper) and the daily fear-factor: you'll be the next expendable one, #11666 - so let's see your ass in here Saturday at 8 AM.
Seems:
Taiwan leads at 19,000 TEUs/gross acre/1999
Kwai Chung (HK) 3rd at 13,400 << that's YOU guys
...
...
LA + Long Beach USA 11th at 4000
NY + NJ 14th at 2343
(TEU = 20' equiv. units for containers)
So you must see lots of ships, whereas over here not much work seems to get done - just a lot of office computer typing activity and rebooting. Or as was re-observed of late:
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID <<<
unless W can keep the drumbeat loud enough til Nov. 5, so that no one talks about the growing disintegration his sophomoric bellicose ways are intensifying. I see US-goods boycotts all over, next.
Hope yer salting away a few $HK.. in a depression, some sort of imaginary cash is imaginary-King. What a Way to start a Millennium! with a Village Idiot holding the nookular football.
Ashton
just watchin the show.. and it's John Wayne Shoots Bambi, in his Maidenform\ufffd bra; ads by Rush Limbaugh and Rev. Foulwell (who recently garnered a few million more wannabe assassins of Muricans)
|
Post #57,461
10/17/02 9:37:42 PM
|
Re: But wait!! There's more <grin>, Rumz said that ...
he believes that Nth Korea may have a few small nuke weapons.
Heard & saw him say this during press briefing.
Rumz looks really wierd with his pants down round his ankles.
Cheers
Doug M
|
Post #57,497
10/18/02 9:16:45 AM
|
bad visual! bad visual!
eeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
|
Post #57,515
10/18/02 11:12:31 AM
|
<sarcasm>I needed that</sarcasm>
Just the visual to go along with my head cold. Now I'm miserable AND grossed out.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #57,470
10/17/02 11:39:07 PM
|
Re: Interesting timing, don'cha think? - Dont YOU think ?
What impact does the timing of their announcement have ???
Are you seriously trying to imply that it is bastardry of N.K. to show up the falseness of the Iraq strategy ???
If I read your bizzare logic correctly you are more or less saying
"Ohhh look - these evil N.K. people are bastards for announcing their bombshell when they did because it shows our Iraq policy up for the false & assinine stratgy it is - what evil bastards these N.K. people are"
Your brain, assuming you have one, works in mightly mysterious ways.
Doug Marker
|
