If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Arthur Hagen wrote: Then I'm sorry, if you can't disclose your evidence it is useless to you in your case. No court passes judgement based on evidence you will not show the court even in closed session. Damn, someone better tell SCO... :-) Considering the speed by which the head honchos sold off their stock I'd say it's a fair bet they soon enough will. - -- Frode -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBPz/t++XlGBWTt1afEQKARgCfQuHbzO4qKtGN6GxjuGwYSEZWBpMAm gMo N6Xj/7avIS4cLWSGp7knekhn =JnJk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
I am from the uk and I heard alot about retired SAS members rumors etc..
but most of the time it doesnt involve them saying they have been in the SAS! "Alistair Maclean" wrote in message ... In message , noise writes I know some guys in the Australian SAS and they are great. IT's a bit of a boys' club to be sure, but that's part of the culture of being the top soldiers in the forces I guess. They are the best we've got, on a par with the British SAS, some of the finest in the world. They're not really assault troops, AFAIK they do more of your kind of surveillance and covert operations. One of them was in a music production course my ex-girlfriend did, and one night they had to all say what they did for a living. There were hair-dressers, office workers etc., then this guy gets up and says he's a professional trained assassin or something If the guy is really SAS then he should know better than to be stupid enough to tell everyone what he did for a living. I work on the principle that real SAS don't brag about it. It just makes them into targets. -- Alistair Maclean |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this thread even here?
"ben - m00ch0" wrote in message ... I am from the uk and I heard alot about retired SAS members rumors etc.. but most of the time it doesnt involve them saying they have been in the SAS! "Alistair Maclean" wrote in message ... In message , noise writes I know some guys in the Australian SAS and they are great. IT's a bit of a boys' club to be sure, but that's part of the culture of being the top soldiers in the forces I guess. They are the best we've got, on a par with the British SAS, some of the finest in the world. They're not really assault troops, AFAIK they do more of your kind of surveillance and covert operations. One of them was in a music production course my ex-girlfriend did, and one night they had to all say what they did for a living. There were hair-dressers, office workers etc., then this guy gets up and says he's a professional trained assassin or something If the guy is really SAS then he should know better than to be stupid enough to tell everyone what he did for a living. I work on the principle that real SAS don't brag about it. It just makes them into targets. -- Alistair Maclean |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
Frode wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Maynard wrote: Focus lad, focus. We're not talking about prior to '91. We're talking about '91-'03. This is so typical of your 'side': Make a false claim and then change the subject or claim 'modifications' when it's shown to be false. (Since we both agree the other's points above this was just bs there's no point getting circular so skipping the top portion) The subject covered in all of the thread that I've been involved in has been the justification for the second gulf war. Not the first. Not prior to the first. The one as of this year. You must've been really distracted if you thought we were discussing the US' burden of evidence for starting the first war. I think a few hundred Iraqi tanks in Kuwait covered that pretty well. You have a lot of gaul to make critical claims after having removed all that was said and every hint of context. No, I wasn't "distracted." I was replying to false claims made but since you've removed the entire thing I'll give a short example to illustrate. Suppose Mr. Bill, who is 5 foot tall, applies for a job. Mr. Critic says Mr. Bill shouldn't get the job because "no one of that height has ever done well at it." I point out that Mr. Jones, who is the exact same height as Mr. Bill, won two Excellence in Achievement Awards for doing the same job. Mr. Critic retorts that the 'subject' is Mr. Bill's unsuitability and not what awards Mr. Jones won. Well, Mr. Critic is wrong in that the subject was his false contention about "no one ever." You then, trying to be Mr. Cutesy, cut the whole thing out and chime in about how I must be 'distracted'. And you're just as wrong as Mr. Critic. In case you hadn't noticed, pal, the U.S. was already attacked; multiple times. 9-11 was the last straw. Please produce the evidence Iraq attacked the US. Prior to, including, and after the WTC attacks. Hasn't it been agreed on what group did that and didn't the world go to war in Afghanistan because of it? The WTC had nothing to do with Iraq. Same thing as above; you change the argument. No, I don't. I asked you to support your claim that you have been attacked multiple times by organizations proven to originate or be significantly linked to the Iraqi regime. What are the "multiple times" you are refering to? Where is the evidence proving Saddam's regime had anything to do with them? That is you changing the subject, as well as the context of it. What you ORIGINALLY claimed, and to what I responded, was the U.S. would have themselves "to thank for it" if it ****ed off the Middle East and, to use your exact words "the entire middle east blows up in your face and you trigger a flood of terrorism on US soil." I pointed out that we were already attacked AND "on U.S. soil." You didn't say anything about being attacked by "Iraq," as you now claim, you said "entire middle east" and "terrorism." You said it would be 'our fault' if we take action and then end up being 'attacked'. I pointed out we have already been attacked (for doing nothing). We are NOT at 'peace'. You had 1 terrorist act on your soil (not counting embassies) with a fair amount of proof as to its source. Again you change your claims. You originally said "only once" on U.S. soil and you've now modified it to exclude embassies, who knows why. Further, I've already pointed out that the WTC ALONE was attacked TWICE: the 1993 bombing and then 9-11. Your inability to get the number right is only a symptom of the disingenuous flim flam you're trying to pull off with the "1" time Bullwinkle, as if "1 time" is so 'trivial' for the 'over reaction' when your (erroneously) supposed "1" time wreaked death and destruction on a scale comparable to Pearl Harbor. You attacked that source with international support and sympathies. The US then decided it wanted to finish off Saddam as well, and went to Iraq with very little support and no evidence to connect Iraq to any terrorist activity on US soil. That's simply a complete misrepresentation of the reasons and justification. There's no evidence any groupings in Iraq previously attacked the US. Lord only knows what "groupings" are. If they do now out of religious fanaticism the US provoked them to do so. Unsupported hogwash. What 'religious' idiom did we 'attack?' And what the hell do you mean by "if now?" How many times do you have to be informed that the U.S. was ALREADY attacked by "religious fanaticism." It may have been the last drop to cause the cup to flood from their perspective. They've been supping on the 'last drop" for DECADES. Where the hell have YOU been? That's why the evidence needs to be very clear or you risk provoking groups previously not interested in harming US citizens. Terrorists have been wantonly murdering people for decades and Saddam, besides murdering his own population in droves, started two wars, threatened Saudi Arabia, refused to comply with U.N. mandates, and pursued illegal WMD programs. And you are worried we will 'provoke' them? To do what? What they're already doing? Your assessment of 'who' is involved in 'what' is blindly naive. The whole region is 'involved'. You can claim the same of an LA gang. "They're all involved in the shootouts". You can't go arresting them all based on that though. You have the burden of proof for every individual's involvement. The same goes for said geographical region. No, the same doesn't 'go' because "the region" is not an L.A. street gang. An L.A. street gang doesn't have the scope, organization, nor capability to wage 'war' and your analogies to 'domestic legalities' is wholly inadequate as the predicate FOR 'domestic legalities' does not exist between nations and/or international terrorist organizations. Domestic law is a contract between government and the society which grants it authority/power and imposes limitations upon that power. Government is, for example, granted the power of search and seizure but there is no such ability, besides espionage, for the U.S. to gather information from Iraq; nor could the U.N., as the inspection regime should have made abundantly clear even to YOU. Government (and the defendant) are granted power to compel witnesses to testify in court and even Saddam, laughingly, claimed he could not 'compel' his scientists to even so much as 'talk' to U.N. inspectors. Not to mention there is no enforceable COURT or else the south-end-of-a-north-bound-horse Saddam would have been made to comply with the 12 years of MANDATORY U.N. rulings. Not to mention, just how do you suggest he be 'arrested' in order to even APPEAR before the non existent 'court' without what was done? Your analogy fails miserably. What other terrorist acts on US soil apart from the WTC has been perpetrated by foreign organizations? You mean both times? Btw, U.S. embassies, wherever they are, are "U.S. soil" and so are U.S. Warships but I suppose you figure that, off the 50 states, U.S. interests are just 'fair targets' and 'tough luck', eh? Obviously military craft are by definition legitimate military targets. Oh, really? To WHO? YOU like to pretend an obsession with 'international legalities' so just WHAT international 'law' recognizes a terrorist's 'declaration of war' so that "military craft" are "legitimate targets?" But thanks for admitting it IS a "war" in the "WAR" sense. If an organization attacks a US ship in friendly or neutral waters, you are entitled to find out which group and go after that group. We a International terrorists. And don't turn around and change the topic again by asking the "when did Iraq?" question because that was never the claim and the topic here is "What other terrorist acts?" Same thing if it was a country that declared war on you. Gee, thanks for allowing the U.S. to fight back when war is declared on them. You're not entitled to attack any country you wish for reasons you can't produce evidence of and justify. No one made that claim either. You're simply inventing your own strawmen to flail against. Not to mention your contention is pollyannish. Just who do you think 'refereed' W.W.II to make sure each side only attacked the 'legal' ones? A country under attack has every right to fight those participating in the attack, including those aiding the enemy. Embassies in hostile regions are obviously targets as well. So you're declaring the entire world a "hostile region?" Albeit not legitimate ones. When it comes to terrorists, your quaint arguments of 'legitimate targets' falls on deaf ears. Like any other criminal act performed by criminals you are of course entitled to bring the perpetrators to justice in cooperation with the country's local law enforcement. That statement proves you haven't a clue what's going on, nor an understanding of what criminal, terrorist, and war means. You don't go leveling entire cities in doing so however anymore than you just burn down the worst neighborhoods in your own major cities. Weeeeeee. Let loose the flamboyant false rhetoric. And just what "cities" did the U.S. go in and "level" with precision bombing hitting strictly military targets, and usually so effective that you can see the effects on one building and not a scratch on the adjacent ones? See? I told you the folks on your side couldn't accurately represent reality if their life depended on it. Nor do you attack the country "we think they came from" without a very good amount of evidence Your standard for "good evidence" is impossible to ever satisfy. Hell, you can't acknowledge evidence even EXISTS unless it's 'mathematically perfect'. they are indeed from their and are supported by the government there. And, of course, if Saddam's "Information Minister," Baghdad Bob, says they aint there, when the US does, then you'll believe him, even though a TV crew is interviewing U.S. tank personnel 25 feet behind him. The OKC bomb? The Atlanta pipebomb? The much covered Washington snipers? The unabomber? They were Iraqis? No, and that's your absurdity, not mine. I'm still waiting for you to produce a list of what terrorist acts you were referring to above. The ones that took place on U.S. soil, including Embassies and military craft (as they are internationally recognized as U.S. soil). had huge storages of ready-to-fire chemical weapons. The US had nothing except general rumor and hearsay to back their claims up. There are none so blind as those who will not see. That's just the point. There's no evidence to see. You just proved my statement. I saw it. That's what the US has been telling the world. "I saw it" isn't much good without producing the evidence to support it though. You claim "There's no evidence to see." I saw the evidence presented. The whole world did. Now a reasonable person might say they didn't find the evidence presented convincing enough, to which I would disagree, but you don't. You falsely claim there's none to see. Based on "I saw it" every child's word is proof santa is real and closets harbor monsters. Wrong. I am capable of distinguishing between cartoons, news reports, U.N. presentations, CIA reports, UNSCOM reports, Congressional hearings, and the rest. The US has failed to produce anything except "we believe this is so because... we can't show you what our reasons are you just have to take our word for it and we'll show That you insist on playing like The Three Monkeys with plugged ears and covered eyes is your problem. I'm glad the justice system doesn't work the way you wish international opinion did. International opinion isn't a court to begin with nor does it, in any way, resemble a justice system. No trial would ever end up in anything but a deadlock since anything mentioned by either side would require no proof apart from being uttered in the courtroom. Give the U.S. power to search and seize foreign government documents, the power to compel foreign nationals to testify, arrest, wiretap, and all the other powers available to a government in pursuit of justice and then we'll discuss your criteria for 'evidence' during the 'trial' Just because you're too blind to see the correlation does not make it less real. And just because you refuse to see what's placed under your nose doesn't make your paranoia real. Paranoia? Which nation went to war on another based on fear and unsupported by evidence the fear was reasonable? None. Paranoia seems to be an accurate description of the reasons for attacking Iraq since no evidence to show they were worthy of fearing has been produced. Tell that to Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the Iraqi people. But again, you change the argument. You made an absolute claim about 'how wars are started these days' and it's a false claim for the reasons I stated (but that you snipped because it was irrefutable). I snip when I see there's no point answering since you've taken a fanatic stance. Snipping what was said so you can make accusations against it is deceitful and dishonest; and there's nothing "fanatic" about showing your broad brush, unsupported, claims to be just that. I'm not here to restate the same obvious points time and time again. Things that are obvious stand on their own without needing you to declare it, or snip it. If you feel that is a victory, by all means bask in the glory. Further, you used it to 'prove' your claim that the administration is doing so (I.E. that's the way it's done these days so they 'must be') but The burden of proof is not on me or the world, but on the US that initiated the war. Nice try, but I suggest you show the evidence that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US at the time the US chose to go to war as opposed to trying to derail the topic. You keep confusing claims you make with where you want to 'end up'. You made a false all encompassing generic claim about 'how wars are started' and I responded to THAT. You now want to shift the topic to a different 'proof' than the claim you made and I'm not going to do that HERE because it's off topic in this section and has been dealt with elsewhere. In fact, most of the world apart from US citizens can see it just fine. 'Most' of the world does not have a widely diverse and free press with access to all the facts. Large parts of the world does, if the template is the geographical and population mass of the US. Much larger parts than the US itself. Not by my standards of widely diverse and free. Irrelevant at any rate as the popularity of a proposition says nothing about the truth of it. That is one of the great myths promulgated by your side. No, the 'technique' Hitler used was absolute control over every means of communication and the material presented. There's nothing even remotely similar to the U.S. After the WTC the american public would've swallowed almost anything if they felt they were giving payback to those that organized the attack. That's a convenient self serving accusation. How about "you'd believe almost anything as long as it was critical of the U.S.?" And I'm sure we can both think up lots more unsubstantiated, self serving, ad hominum opinions to bandy back and forth, not that it accomplishes a blessed thing. Hitler did not have the luxury of such an act to build on. He didn't need anything 'real' as had the luxury of complete control over all media and means of communication. He simply invented one: the persecution of Germans by Poland. Polls prior to the war were heavily in favor of not going to war on Iraq without international support. Not quite. The polls were in favor of international support, and I would have liked more international support too, but that doesn't mean one is "against" it without international support. After the war started the majority supported it to support their troops. Your presumptions are not supported by the polls as the ones I've seen clearly show that the American public solidly thinks the war was the right thing to do, not that it's from simply 'support the troops'. Currently, from what I've seen, it seems to be steadily fading as the administration time and time again fails to produce the evidence they promised. Depends on what, and how, the questions are asked but your interpretations are clearly self serving. Some people are concerned that the 'rebuilding' is not going as well as the major combat operations did but polls do not show erosion about 'the evidence', as you claim. And the moral vapidity comes from the disingenuous attempt to suggest that the two are equivalent. Learning from history has nothing to do with a lack of morals. Attempting to equate a defender with the attacker, or a murderous dictator with the liberator, or the U.S. with Saddam, is morally vapid. Considering the US in this case were very clearly the attacker, that's a ridiculous statement. Whether you think, and it is purely your opinion based on your interpretation of things and not a 'fact', that the U.S. was 'the attacker' has no bearing on the argument I presented. You made a false generic claim and I responded to it in the generic. The US war on Iraq is proactive, not reactive. It's only 'proactive' if one decides to erase their memory of everything preceding it and plead ignorance but, in the real world, history matters. If there were sufficient evidence to support such an action that would've been justifiable. Said evidence is what is lacking however, which is what this is all about. Yes, it's about your denial of the evidence presented. 'The sky is falling' poppycock. It's rather funny you don't realize you just described the US attempt at claiming the same would be true if Iraq wasn't occupied. Make a good sentence of it and maybe it will have some meaning. Not my best sentence ever. But if you retake reading comprehension 101 and you'll work it out I'm sure. If you retake writing 101 it wouldn't need 'interpretation'. If you want to make a point then make it clear. And don't bother 'pointing out' that 'they' are not prisoners of war. The point is that your, again generic, claim that no one can be held without being charged with a 'crime"' is false. I'm not an expert on US law, but I do believe the 5th amendment clearly states you can't be held unless indicted. The exception indeed being if at service while in time of war. This one is great. You make an 'absolute' and then, in the next sentence, provide 'exceptions'. You left out "or public danger." So unless those held are proven members of army or militia and in active service, they can't constitutionally be held without indictment. Not so. And "enemy combatants' are not a U.S. legal 'invention'; they are codified in international law. But just think a moment about your assertion to 'prove'. You're on a battle field and a gaggle of folks are shooting at you with ak-47s. After having captured them you now want them taken to 'court' (who's?) to 'prove' they are "in active service" with an "army or militia?" So the guy says "me no army. I just feel like killing americans." Oh, ok... you can go. LOL No, of course not. You now want a 'civil' trial, right? Where? U.S. 'law' doesn't apply on the battle field in another country. Local law? Oh SURE. THEY will convict the guy for shooting at THEIR enemy. Oh wait, but we'll get 'evidence' he's REALLY in their army, right? Yeah. Say, you guys, Yeah You: the ones in enemy uniforms. Come testify for us against this idiot so we can 'convict' him. Say, just where do you repatriate a terrorist to? Where you found him fighting? Where his terrorist base is? Or where he was born? And, while we're at it, which terrorist 'leader' surrendered their 'army', 'country' (oops, no country)? Who signed the peace terms enabling prisoner exchange? I'm being a little flippant here, for comedic relief, but the gist is quite real and the non battle field case presents similar problems. There are no 'normal' procedures, domestic or international, for the kind of real war the U.S., indeed the free world, is engaged in. Since I'm not a US lawyer, nor want to spend the time reading the entire amendment, Yeah. It's like a whole 3 or 4 sentences. I of course stand ready to be corrected. But if doing so you'll need provide more than "you're wrong". Try common sense, for a starter. track its citizens every move, An absurd claim. But not surprising as I've come to the conclusion that your side is simply incapable of stating facts but are instead compelled to put things in the most inflammatory manner possible regardless of whether it has any relation to reality. As a result, facts themselves are never debated and the discussion is reduced to nothing more than the throwing of wild accusations like "1984 is on the way." - From the Patriot Act: First sentence and you're already misrepresenting things. The following is NOT "from the Patriot Act" but is from a someone's, we know not who, interpretation, and opinion of, the Patriot Act. "FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order." The part missing is that it, as always, requires a court order with the same level of evidentiary suspicion. What is different is not needing to get a new order each time the person under investigation changes the phone he's using. In my opinion this is a reasonable change, in light of technology, as it is the person that is being investigated and not 'the phone'. "The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation." One can whine all one wants about the meaning of "relevant" but that, as was always the case, is under judicial review and requires a judge to agree. That is the case with ANY court order. Internet activity is not any different than phone conversations, except for the technical medium. Why would you expect it to be free from investigation? "Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order." This sounds like the well known "hot pursuit" principle. Someone attacking a computer and the time needed to wait for some court to convene is intolerable. The characterization is a good example of how twisting words alters the meaning. The act says nothing of "suspected" trespassers. That is, apparently, the critic's contribution. He also leaves out the limiting 'details' to make it sound like just anyone falls under it. Tain't so. The title of that section is: "SEC. 217. INTERCEPTION OF COMPUTER TRESPASSER COMMUNICATIONS" and deals with "protected computers." Trespasser is defined: `(21) `computer trespasser'-- `(A) means a person who accesses a protected computer without authorization and thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer; and `(B) does not include a person known by the owner or operator of the protected computer to have an existing contractual relationship with the owner or operator of the protected computer for access to all or part of the protected computer.'; What is says is: `(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if-- `(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser's communications on the protected computer; `(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation; `(III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser's communications will be relevant to the investigation; and `(IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser.'. Now why, in God's name, would you expect that communication traffic from/to a trespasser, on a computer unlawfully broken into, should be 'protected'? Not to mention that even the illegal trespassing act itself is NOT ENOUGH to allow the interception. The list goes on. And that's just the Patriot Act. The problem with your 'list' is you don't consider the reasons (e.g. technology changes), limitations, existing law, or anything else, but simply take inflammatory, end of the world, characterizations as gospel. The TIA's clear and stated goal is to be able to automatically monitor people to such an extent that the system can redflag "dangerous" behaviour. And you have a problem with identifying dangerous behavior? It includes the HumanID program to recognize and catalog people based on facial recognition. The purpose of the program is to identify threats in a crowd and is not dissimilar to what a human agent would do when visually scanning a crowd looking for threats. Combine the Patriot and TIA and you're getting very close to complete surveillance of all, innocent or otherwise. It is rather cute that the T in TIA was changed from Total to Terrorism. Unless you conveniently forget the original meaning of the T its purpose is rather obvious isn't it. The name clearly states it. I have my own concerns with TIA and HID but the point is you don't state any real concern but simply go into a knee jerk tizzy without analysis; relying on nothing more than the adjectives someone uses to characterize it. If I say "it's to find murderers" then it's fine. If I say "it's to track innocent civilians" then you panic. But you don't investigate enough to know whether either is an accurate statement; much less go into any contemplation: such as noting that ANY 'investigation' into a murder can also result, at least occasionally, in an 'innocent civilian' being investigated in the process (not to mention we're ALL 'innocent' till proven 'guilty', aren't we?). After all, if they KNEW who was guilty they wouldn't need an 'investigation'. The question would remain if the tradeoff is reasonable, in light of the threat, and what protections are in place, or proposed, but you don't bother to think about it. The Constitution has always granted reasonable search and seizure rights to government. Yes, reasonable. Covered above. No, it wasn't. You didn't give 2 seconds of thought to whether anything was reasonable or not. Someone simply yelled 'disaster' and you knee jerk panicked. |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
Terrorists have been wantonly murdering people for decades and Saddam,
besides murdering his own population in droves, started two wars, threatened Saudi Arabia, refused to comply with U.N. mandates, and pursued illegal WMD programs. And you are worried we will 'provoke' them? To do what? What they're already doing? Wow you can say alot of ****, But really the big argument is the same, no proof given to the WMD and that's why the USA went to war, and asked the rest of the world to go to war with them.. |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
Frode wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Maynard wrote: Sounds like what the US administration did when it comes to Iraq's WMD programs and their supposed evidence for it. No, they're your "let's pretend we're idiots and don't know a bloody thing" speculations about Saddam. (Added after completing: These posts are taking up more time than they're worth to me so I won't be pursuing this part of the thread any further. Feel free to respond if you like but unless you want to waste your time I recommend you just read it or ignore it as to your preference) Where is the speculation in requiring evidence prior to waging war? That isn't the kind of 'speculation' you were engaged and to which I responded. If they didn't dream it up they shouldn't have had a problem disclosing the evidence by now, should they. the intelligence apparatus and personnel. For example, something as innocuous as disclosing an intercepted message might reveal, to those who might not know, that you can intercept messages on the type of equipment that was used. Then I'm sorry, if you can't disclose your evidence it is useless to you in your case. No, it isn't useless and this is not 'special' to U.S. intelligence. It's the way the real world works. No court passes judgement based on evidence you will not show the court even in closed session. I got news for you, pal. When it comes to U.S. national security YOU ain't 'the court' and neither is the U.N.. The evidence was shown to the 'court of jurisdiction': the U.S. Congress. Disclosing the location of ready to use WMDs hardly compromises the intelligence methods used to reveal the location. All you do is make yourself look foolish by making absurd claims on matters you obviously haven't a clue about. Not to mention that your 'set up' question is invalid as the U.S. never claimed to have specific knowledge of where "ready to use" WMD were located at any point in time. And if it was that big of an issue it could've easily been shown in closed session to neutral and friendly governments. More evidence of your ignorance on how the real world works. As but one publicly known example, Britain can't tell the U.S. where their intelligence on the Africa matter came from because many countries, and apparently that source, have requirements that the source not be disclosed to another party. If you had 10 governments all stating "we've reviewed the evidence, but due to security reasons we cannot divulge the entirety of it nor how it was collected" the case would be infinetly stronger than if all you had on your side was a desperate Blair that keeps getting plastered when confronted with discrepancies in what little evidence has been disclosed. Like I said, your side is compelled to perpetually misrepresent the facts. The fact of the matter is, Britain is NOT "all [the U.S.] had on [their] side. While Britain was the largest military contributor, if you include the newest EU members a majority of the EU was on the U.S. side. Plus others, such as Japan, Australia, and more. Again, it hasn't been proven he's had one since the first gulf war. You miss the point. The cease fire and U.N. terms do not require we 'prove' anything. Saddam was to disclose, destroy, and show that he did. He didn't. And this links him to terrorism, how? Your question is irrelevant as the issue here was the U.N. disarmament mandates. And your disingenuous attempt to characterize his actions as 'reluctant' is like saying Hitler was 'nothing but reluctant' to abandon his desire for world domination. If Saddam was bombing DC at the time of the US attack, you would have a valid point. That is an absurd statement and my point stands that your characterization of Saddam's actions during the 12 years he lied, defied mandatory U.N. resolutions, and did everything conceivable to obstruct the U.N. inspection regime as mere 'reluctance' is disingenuous ka-ka. But that makes it an equal probability of 1) hiding weapons and 2) destroying them. Ridiculous. How so? Because you make claims with no basis for doing so. In particular, that you have a clue what the 'probability' of the only two choice you can think of are and that those are, indeed, the only choices. The WMD may have been moved to another country, which is distinct from hiding them in Iraq. Also, the U.S. may have succeeded in destroying them, or at least a fair amount, in the intensive bombing campaign. Targeting suspected/potential WMD locations WAS a priority, you know. Perhaps you can guess why. If they weren't hidden nor destroyed, why can't you find them when prior to the war your administration claimed they knew exactly where to look? Try to ask a question sometime without basing it on a lie about what the administration said. The 'third time' had come and gone prior to 1998. And the only way "coalition forces" could 'roll in' and 'level a few palaces' was the way it was done this year. But that wasn't the reasons given for doing so. Nor was it done with international support. I was responding to your untenable, impractical, suggestion of absurd 'alternatives'. Of course it 'wasn't the reason given' as no one, but you, would have made the suggestion in the first place. And 12 years later one can't just decide "well, we should've done this 10-12 years ago, Sure you can. Giving 12 years of chances to comply doesn't remove the option of direct remedy. The option, no. The need and justification for it, possibly. That's why you need to re-establish that it is a necessary action. There was nothing to "re-establish." The requirements were the same yesterday as they were 12 years ago. He didn't comply then, or the following year, or the following year, or the following year...... time's up. Unless Saddam was brewing up for war you didn't have any except for "we wanna finish the job". And that's not enough to start a war. You're ability to make up absurdities that were never said and never took place is irrelevant to the matter. Saddam repeatedly claimed to have abandoned ALL nuclear weapons program activity. The 1994 "we found it" incident I refer to was the discovery of the bomb design, and materials, he claimed did not exist. What was located was evidence they had it. There was no evidence it had been active post war. Simply not true. There's obviously no doubt the expertise was still present, and if given free reigns it would resume. But there was no present danger proven. Your 'standard' for 'proven danger' is new piles of dead bodies. We do not agree that is the best one. And the danger of WMDs at the ready along Wrong. The potential for WMD ready enough to be used, or disseminated to others to use, within an unacceptable time frame and the demonstrated propensity to do so was the danger. with a vague reference to terrorist ties is what the US went to war based on. Yes, we all know how 'vague' terrorist ties in the Middle East are. And have been unable to prove before and after. You still do not understand. It was up to SADDAM to 'prove' he was complying. He not only didn't, he didn't even try. In fact, he did everything conceivable to protect and keep his WMD, as every U.N. inspection team has testified and scored of mandatory U.N. resolutions, the last one being UNANIMOUS, agreed. You take one sentence out of context and misinterpret it. They do not state "he's doing nothing now;" they concentrate on the primary point which is that he DOES intend to end up with nuclear weapons, one way or the other. And the sanctions and inspections were effectively preventing him from doing so. You simply cannot know that. All you know is that you're ignorant of there being a 'problem'. The historical record, however, is that every estimate of there 'not being a problem' with Saddam's WMD programs have been later proven, by direct discovery, to be either wrong or a gross under-estimation of how far he had gotten and what he had. There was plenty of time to explore other options apart from outright war. Yes, 12 years of time exploring "other options." Time's up. It does not say that. But even if you wish to claim so, it would be simply 'on faith' that the inspection regime could contain it. As opposed to going to war 'on faith' that the US actually had evidence to indicate it was necessary. Go ahead, beat the dead horse. I've got the UNSCOM/UNMOVIC reports and unanimous U.N. mandates to show. An active program during sanctions and inspections would have been very very hard to keep up. Hogwash. All I need do is not tell you about it while your inspectors inspect bogus locations. And if you get close I take a day off to move the stuff. And I didn't have to think hard about it because UNSCOM documented him doing that over and over. Not to mention disguising trial detonations from surveillance and seismometers. You mean the sensors around, say, the New York 'test site'? You say we'd retaliate? How would we know who carried it into the city? Besides, you'd never accept the 'lack of evidence' and keep demanding 'proof'. But that would be fun, wouldn't it? I mean, if that one worked then the others probably would too. So ya got a nice little nuclear war for Saudi, Kuwait, and Israel to contend with if anyone get's in his way. failed. We sent the troops over and that was when the 'last chance' inspectors were reluctantly allowed back in but you can't keep troops there forever and that is what Saddam was counting on. Just a 'little time' and the U.S. would have to withdraw forces. How so? I don't have the time to teach you how deployment of military forces works. They're still there and likely more money has been spent on the dropped bombs recently than it would've taken to keep them there for considerably longer as a peace keeping force. You make declarations about things you have obviously not put any time into learning about. As I said before, I more than agree on the UN being more than a tad too lenient. And the consequences are just tough luck, eh? However the US has not provided any proof to indicate there was no more time to pursue other options for crushing the regime of Saddam or completely annihilate his nuclear research capability. I've explained it to you but you accept NO criteria. To you this is a 'word game'. It's a bit more important to the U.S. and others. Consider: If you're wrong there are dead bodies all over the place, even without an attack as Saddam had his own population to ravage. If the U.S. is wrong then the consequences are a brutal, mass murdering, maniac is removed and a country of 20 million liberated for 'no good reason' (as you might put it). Oh my, can we live with the shame? The 'imminence' was that, if it was not resolved at that time, the entire inspection regime, and containment, would fall apart; leaving Saddam free to openly and unrestrictedly pursue his WMD. Focus belonged on the inspection and containment, not war. 12 years of 'focus'. Just how long does it take for you to get the picture? If the US was all that worried it could've forced inspections to continue with its own personell. It certainly has the expertise and military power to put behind it as well as the money. LOL. Not a chance, pal. That's called "war." Saddam wasn't going to let U.S. military personnel roam around his country forcing inspections. Are you nuts? It chose war for very dubious reasons however, and claimed to have clear proof the WMD programs were active and dangerous and thus immediate action was needed. That's what remains to be proven. Not the intent of Saddam since that was not the reason given for going to war. No. Saddam was a known killer and a known threat. That's why two wars had already been fought. He was known to have WMD because he USED them. It was known he had more, from what inspections had uncovered. However he refused to comply with any disarmament, including the means to verify anything. Now YOU want to play blind man, forget everything he's ever done, and say "well, maybe he destroyed them anyway. You can't 'prove' he didn't." That is a fool's analysis. But there were certainly options left, apart from war, if given some time. You folks love to say that but never provide even a hint of what those other "options" were. It's because "we folks" take it for granted people have enough brains to see them without prompting. That's clever but hilarious. If it was so 'easy' you'd be listing them off. I recently mentioned one as well. The only things you've mentioned so far are hysterically absurd. That you're unable to imagine any means to hide, for example, artillery shells filled with WMD chemicals from U.N. inspectors, who's movements Of course not. But nor does it mean they did it. The inspection reports show they did. They found missiles with WMD warheads ready to go? They found chemical WMD that Saddam said didn't exist, yes. No problem then is there. Just show everybody the evidence to the loaded weapons ready to fire and everybody's happy. They were. Of course, if what you just said was true we wouldn't be having this conversation. The U.N inspection teams destroyed them when found, that WAS their job you know, and you don't consider anything more than 5 minutes in the past to 'count' as 'evidence', remember? You're going to be very surprised when the report comes out in 6 to 9 months. That's what the US have been saying since day one of the war. First it was "a few days" then "a few weeks" then "a few months" Not so and the 'impressions' and 'feelings' of the talking heads on whatever news propaganda channel you favor doesn't mean the U.S. 'said it'. Whatever else you may think is 'unclear', the one thing the administration and military have NEVER said is any time scale like 'soon'. From day 1 it's always been 'difficult', 'as long as it takes', and "we're a patient people." then "we need to realize we may never find them". Certainly a possibility. We're still waiting for anything but crop dusters to be reported. If you'd ever LISTEN to anything you would have heard about the mobile labs but, oh wait, they're really for weather balloons even though they are identical to the intelligence reports, eh? If Saddam had weapons at the ready chances are every high he would've used them. Even the Iraqi population believed he'd reduce Iraq to rubble using every means at his disposal before abandoning power. Odds are he would have used them at some point in time, if capable of doing so. I realize you probably can't imagine anything that could get in the way but perhaps the lightning advance of coalition forces plus bombing the living daylights out of anything we suspected might harbor WMD could've had a teensy bit to do with it. Not to mention we were in direct contact with many Iraqi commanders and made it clear that if they pushed any of those buttons we would not be happy, and PROVE it when we caught them. direct intercepts from Saddam's central command TO his field commanders ordering them to launch chemical weapons at U.S. forces. Where can I get those intercepts and proof of their origin? Why bother? All indications, including that question, show there is NO way to 'prove' it, or anything else, to you. That it didn't happen is a known fact. Why is another question. But your conclusions are, of necessity, drawn from ignorance as no one, publicly at least, knows. And until they do the US remains the aggressors without having shown just cause. Wrong. That's how it works. No it doesn't, pal. And just because you won't accept the obvious doesn't mean the U.S. is going to jeopardize it's security till you, the unsatisfiable critic, are satisfied. If you honestly believe there are security concerns weighing so heavily that the US would rather take the international and domestic political bounding it has during all this, than show its proof, I think you're overly optimistic. It's not a matter of optimism. It's knowing how the intelligence community, in any country, operates. But I'll be the first to cheer if the proof should ever surface and independently verified to not be US fabrications. It would also go a long way to restoring the US' crumbling credibility. Hell, it has no real effect on U.S. credibility. Those who bash the U.S. will do so regardless. This is just an 'excuse' and if it didn't exist they'd invent something else. Always have and always will. So where are these weapons, all set and ready to fire longrange missiles with WMD warheads? The US administration prior to the war claimed they knew exactly where to find proof. No they didn't. That is another lie promulgated by your side. "My side" is the side that demands the US show clear proof to back its actions before accepting said actions. Nice try at diversion but the issue was the lie, and not the only one, that your side continuously promulgate while claiming to be 'just wanting evidence'. This isn't a religious discussion. It's one of evidence to support actions. It is most certainly a 'religious like' matter for you as you've demonstrated you won't accept any evidence whatsoever that the U.S. presents. You will always claim it's either faked, non-existent, or some other excuse to ignore it. And I base that on the behavior I've seen you exhibit in this discussion. They specifically and repeatedly said the stuff was hidden and perpetually moved around to PREVENT discovery. Indeed. After they first claimed they had certain information that turned out to be false time and time again. Flat wrong. At best it has been proven the US intelligence amounted to complete hogwash. At worst it's been proven the US administration knowingly lied to try to deceive the world. No, that's simply your 'wish' because you 'wish' to discredit the U.S. Wrong. I wish the US to provide proof Iraq either had anything to do with terrorist acts against the US, or had active WMD programs that were ready to launch. Those were the claimed reasons. No they weren't. I won't take your word for it, I want independently verified proof. And that's what the remainder of the world is waiting for as well. I'm satisfied with the unanimous U.N. security council determination, a majority of the EU, and the rest of the coalition, on our side. It's a tricky prospect, of course. However it had worked for 12 years. No it hadn't. Just because he hadn't launched a major tank attack again into Kuwait doesn't mean he was 'harmless' and doing 'nothing'. Prove it. Saddam proved it by his behavior, from the moment he murdered his childhood teacher all the way to the present. After the last war it's been proven beyond any doubt that they did not have a ready capability of launching WMD weapons. And 'proved beyond any doubt' HOW? In your dreams? I've covered this before. If they were ready to be fired they would've either have done so, or been easy to locate since there was very limited time to properly hide or destroy them before the speedy advance reached the Iraqi positions. The problem is your assumptions are naive, flawed, incomplete, and derived from ignorance of military operations, among other things. Not a single long range missile has been located. Hadn't found any buried jet fighters till last week either. And they're a dern sight bigger. Were they too, "ready to use"? Irrelevant as the point is it isn't, as you perpetually claim, 'easy' to find even large things in a large country. long does it take to open a box and slap the chemical shell into an artillery piece? huh? And just how long does it have to take before you, the expert, declare it without "strike capability?" 10 minutes? 2 hours? The fact not a single such weapon was used nor uncovered shortly after the attack is sufficient indication that they were not ready to fire nor stored in a way to make it possible to rapidly deploy them. No, it isn't. Until they're found there is no proof they exist. Which is irrelevant. Always was and still is. It was up to Saddam to show he destroyed them and ended his WMD programs; and the U.N gave him the means to do so. But, failing that, the only proper course is to presume they still exist and act accordingly. If they don't, an unlikely event, then that's just tough for the murdering fool who obstructed the thing that would have saved his ass, and an object lesson on why you should comply with inspection regimes. To use an example. Say you're the guard at some important event. A man, who is known to have murdered 5 people in the past and own gaggles of every type of weapon known to man, comes to the gate. You ask to see his pockets. He says "no." You explain you need to determine if he is armed. He says "I'm not." You ask if he has a boot gun. He says "no." So you ask him to take off his boot and show you. He says "no." And on and on. Now, YOU keep telling me that we must presume he has no weapons and let the guy in, regardless of the fact we know he's a bloody murderer who carries weapons around all the time, because we whine "can't prove it" whine when the REASON we whine "can't prove it" whine is because the SOB won't COMPLY with the blasted inspection. The U.S. will do it's best to prove it but, the FACT of the matter is, there is NOTHING the U.S. need prove. The problem here isn't that Saddam wasn't out to wreck havoc, it's that the US didn't bother taking the time to prove it before attacking. Since you know Saddam as out to wreak havoc, what is to prove? I dislike Saddam as much as the next guy, Obviously not. but I cannot condone wars being started on unfounded premise regardless of how much I dislike the government of that country. So if the 'reason' doesn't meet your 'provable beyond a shadow of a doubt' test then tough doodle for those you know are being raped, tortured, and murdered. They'll just have to enjoy it till someone comes up with something mathematically 'provable' to your standard of absolute perfection. You've become so obsessed with 'technicalities' that you ignore the purpose of things, which isn't to provide mass murderers with a fair shot at murdering people. If going to war with Iraq to free them of Saddam out of humanitarian reasons, there would have to be recent events to trigger it. Like gassing a few cities. That was done before and the US didn't bother reacting then. Nor the rest of the world for that matter. So any level of rape, torture, and murder, short of gassing multiple cities, is acceptable? As for time period, just what seminal event do you propose 'reformed' him from a mass murdering maniac into a benign teddy bear? There you go again with the pollyanna 'but there was another way' whine without coming UP with any other way. I've already covered this. There was plenty of area between the UN impotence and the US viagra route. You've never suggested a thing other than patently absurd ideas, such as the U.S. military performing, and 'forcing', their own inspections, that are the equivalent of war. And that doesn't even count, in your 'cost estimate', the 'expense' suffered by thousands upon thousands of Iraqis under Saddam, of the lives lost to his sponsorship of suicide bombers, and on and on, Again, prove it. Prove what? That Iraqis suffered? You REALLY want to argue that one? Prove that he sponsored suicide bombers striking US targets. Why would I try to prove things you just make up out of the blue? Internal Iraqi suffering was not why the US declared war on Iraq, This has NOTHING to do with the topic that was being discussed. I'd keel over from shock if you ever stayed on a logic thread for more than two sentences. although they do very much want to be seen as "they great humanitarian liberators" now that the previously stated reasons seem to have fallen apart. It's because we're good at it. I'd say ask France but they have poor memories. The suicide bombers? Everyone knows he paid the families of suicide "Everyone knows". That'll hold up in court. This is not just a 'U.S. claim' and everyone, who pays attention anyway, DOES know about it, but go ahead and play the fool for all I care. The US administration is behaving like a teenager. Quick to judge, quick to action, completely ignorant of any possibility of anybody older knowing better. 12 years is not "quick." The US haven't been asking for war with Iraq since '91. Right. We tried everything else first. That's why it's called an option of "last resort." They've been doing it since finishing off Afghanistan after 9/11. That's nowhere near 12 years. It's the end of 12 years. And the end always comes after something else. Gah this is taking up too much time and is of rather limited interest. I'll leave these as my last words. Of course fully aware you'll claim some form of victory because I don't want to invest the time in page long circular threads. No, you're describing what you'd do. I'd never presume to have 'won' anything. |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody® wrote: Sure as hell doesn't take long for a well meaning post to get wrecked by idiots like Daemon Rose & neopolaris, not to mention SST, the originator, even if it is wayyyyy off-topic......... blow me |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Happy Thanksgiving Day America | SST | Overclocking | 13 | December 1st 03 06:14 PM |
Happy Thanksgiving Day America | SST | Ati Videocards | 5 | November 28th 03 05:35 PM |
Happy Birthday America | SST | Overclocking | 333 | November 27th 03 07:54 PM |
Happy Birthday America | SST | Overclocking AMD Processors | 326 | November 27th 03 07:54 PM |
Happy Birthday America | SST | Ati Videocards | 336 | November 27th 03 07:54 PM |