[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[teal]

Ok. The question.

1)Did Gore make a mistatement?

The rules of the game.

2) Gore shall be considered to not have made a mistatement unless shown to have made a mistatement *beyond a reasonable doubt*. i.e. He is innocent until proven guilty.

The verdict.

3) Geoschmo and the entire republican attack machine have failed to show number 2 because reasonable people can read Gore's entire interview and not think that he made a mistatement (myself included and many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many other people).

Any questions? I presumb that you disagree with part number 3 of the argument that you have shown it beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't see how you can consistently maintain that point of view in that given similar situations with the tables reversed you would surely believe that someone was being smeared rather than that they made a mistatement. I believe this about Bush, I don't see why you have such a problem believing this about Gore.

And what do we mean about mistatement anyways? If you are merely implying that the statement is badly worded in the sense that it can be easily misinterpreted then I certainly agree. Gore is guilty as charged, he failed to act like a perfect mathmatically correct robot in every conceivable situation including an interview where he was answering with spoken language and not even in complete sentences always. If on the other hand you imply that the sentence was intended to convey the idea that Gore did physically make the internet then I certainly disagree. That was not Gore's intention and as reasonable people we should give him the benefit of the doubt and try to see things from his point of view rather than attacking him for something that he is not really responsible for.

Lastly about the word create. Say that your company has a web page that is very basic and just lists your company address and phone number and maybe a picture of your building. Then say you are assigned to upgrade your company web page along with a team of other people and you work hard on this project all day and at the end you put up a new company web page, using much of the code of the original web page I might ad, that is much improved with pictures of your co-workers and stuff. Then when you get home and your wife asks you, "what did you do today." It would be perfectly natural to answer, "I *created* a web page". QED. If you can't see the difference between this Version of the word create and the Version championed by a literal reading of the dictionary (making something that did not exist before because technically there *was* a web page there before) then I can't help you.

[Edited to remove a logical hole that others could distort for their purposes].

[ May 30, 2003, 16:02: Message edited by: teal ]

[teal]

I'm not really from Germany. I'm just here for a few months. I grew up in Idaho (probably why I slanted liberal, if you had to grow up in a one party communist state then you would probably reject the ruling party as well... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Baron Munchausen]

Let's get our own facts straight before we accuse people of lying, ok?

Al Gore did not claim to have invented the Internet.

Fact.


From March 1999 CNN Interview:

BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.
Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

GORE: Well, I will be offering - I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the Last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All he is saying, though unfortunately phrased in a way that sound-bite artists could twist it as they inevitably did, is that he was involved in the legislation that enabled and expanded the commercial Internet. Which is true. But once the media-machine gets hold of some cutely distorted idea they repeat it until no one remembers the truth anymore.

What is it about human conversations that they can never stay on a focus? We've got the SE V thread yammering about lawsuits and a stupid legal system while this thread has drifted from Iraq to US world relations and internal politics to... wait for it... the originality of the SE series and comparisons to Al Gore's 'creativity' or lack thereof over something he didn't say. Hmm.

[ May 30, 2003, 15:43: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[geoschmo]

Baron, your post was kind of ironic. You end it by complaining about the thread not staying on focus, but the first half of it was rehashing points of the debate that have been throughly covered in the Last couple days. You didn't add anything new to the conversation at all.

As far as the SEV thread being off on a tangent, I can't argue with you there but this thread long ago left the narrow bonds of it's original purpose. It has been used for nummerous and diverse discussions, all loosely related to a political theme. So this discussion is quite appropriate for this venue.

Geoschmo

[Suicide Junkie]

he was involved in the legislation that enabled and expanded the commercial Internet<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dosen't look like that to me. There are no qualifiers in his statement there.

He took the initiative in creating the internet.

That is a far cry from being just ... involved ... in legislation ... that made it easier ... for companies to sell stuff ... on the internet.

While you could technically say he helped create the internet as it is today, that is kind of sad.
You could also say that poor, globally hated butterfly technically helped create the horrible hurricane that devastated the coast a while ago. (Take your pick from the many storms and coasts)

*****
During my years as a modder I took the initiative in creating Space Empires IV.
*****

[Baron Munchausen]

Actually, Geo, what I posted has not been covered previously. That's why I posted it. As with almost every other discussion of Gore's supposed claim his actual words were NOT part of the discussion! I posted those words so people could know what they were talking about.

I agree it's a confused mess, but it's not the claim that the media has told and told and told everyone that it is. The power of repetition is real, though. It's been proven in psychological studies. The more you repeat something at someone the more likely they are to believe it. That's why advertising works.

[ May 30, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[dogscoff]

hat is it about human conversations that they can never stay on a focus?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a very good point.

Has anyone noticed how you throw cheese out when it gets mouldy? I mean cheese is just mould anyway, isn't it, so isn't mouldy cheese just mouldy mould? You wouldn't refuse to drink wet water, so why do we throw out mouldy cheese?

(Actually, I usually just cut the mouldy bits off and eat the rest=-)

[Narrew]

ohh, nothing like a good chuckle when I first get up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif now I need to get my coffee

[teal]

BM: (gritts teeth) I'm afraid that I must agree with Geo here... I posted the paragraph that Gore said a while ago, you added the question and a further paragraph, but that wasn't strictly necessary for anyone who wanted to wade back through too many Posts of Geo and I sniping at each other... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You however did support my claim that reasonable people can read Gore's words and not come to the conclusion that he made a misstatement and for that I thank you immensely. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Reasonable people can also read it and arrive at the conclusion that he did make a misstatement. However, (and this is the super big gigantic key point which Geo has failed to address in any of his Posts) the default position is that someone is innocent until proven guilty. i.e. In a messy and muddled situation Gore should be given the benefit of the doubt and be considered to have told the truth not the other way around. If we were to believe that the accused were always guilty before being proven guilty or that all that was necessary to prove someone guilty was to find a couple of reasonable people who thought them guilty then that would be a messed up world indeed.

Edit: Oh yeah I totally agree with BM about the Space Empires V thread being totally off topic and regret my small roll in that derailment... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif This thread however is clearly the general off topic political heated discussions and don't really feel like we are wandering off topic here. Hopefully just having a good old fashioned disagreement which I hope everyone is enjoying... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 30, 2003, 16:54: Message edited by: teal ]

[Erax]

Originally posted by dogscoff:


Has anyone noticed how you throw cheese out when it gets mouldy? I mean cheese is just mould anyway, isn't it, so isn't mouldy cheese just mouldy mould? You wouldn't refuse to drink wet water, so why do we throw out mouldy cheese?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, no it isn't. Cheese is the fat and protein content of milk, plus salt and calcium, coagulated by an enzyme extracted from a calf's stomach (anyone grossed out yet ?)

Mould is a fungus that feeds off the cheese, often making it taste better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

i.e. In a messy and muddled situation Gore should be given the benefit of the doubt and be considered to have told the truth not the other way around. If we were to believe that the accused were always guilty before being proven guilty or that all that was necessary to prove someone guilty was to find a couple of reasonable people who thought them guilty then that would be a messed up world indeed.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It seems quite clear from that quote that what he said was definitely not true.

I can easily believe that it was not intentional, and there were no serious consequences of it. The public ridicule was also surely worse than he deserved.

However, his statement is still absurd, and we enjoy a good laugh at the situation.

---

Also, note that while what he said is definitely not true, that does not nessesarily make it a lie.

[geoschmo]

Exactly SJ. And that is exactly what I said, but I still have yet to find very many people who will admit to that which is patetnly obvious. Instead they insist on claiming his words were misquoted or taken out of context, or try to redefine the words he used to make them fit some set of facts that may be accurate. When all that fails they try to change the subject to Bush, or Afganistan, or moldy cheeze. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

BM, you obviously just didn't read any of our Posts prior to your post or you could not have come to the conclusions you did. I posted the link to the same interview, and I made the point that Gore was most assuradly not lying, but had merely mistated the facts before you did. My only reason for continuing the debate is I am still waiting to hear Teal admit that that is the case rather then twist the facts or change the subject. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[teal]

I wasn't trying to change the subject. My only off subject post was the one about Afghanistan complete with many smiles to indicate that I was worried perhaps that others were getting tired of this discussion. Others have been trying to change the subject, perhaps because they are getting tired of this... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You have failed to address my point that people are innocent until proven guilty. People with a different mindset will read that quote differently and not find anything strange about it at all (me and BM). You and SJ read the quote differently. Fine. We still come back to the point that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on YOU. I have great difficutly proving a truthhood because its very hard to do in any slightly muddled situation. I would have great difficulty proving that I had yogurt for breakfast this morning if you chose to be contrarian about the issue... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That's why people are innocent until *proven* guilty. The benefit of the doubt rests with the defense *not* the prosecution. You have failed to make your case so that *any* reasonable person would agree with you. Largely because the issue is muddled and reasonable people *will* disagree. This proves my point as I represent the defense in this situation. Once again the ball is in your court or do you have some problem with people being innocent until proven guilty?

[teal]

Oh yeah. And what exactly are we disagreeing about here? What do you mean by "misstatement" anyways? I'll agree that the statement was rather unfortunate and could easily be taken out of context (surely a "misstatement" in that point of view). But will not agree that the statement represents either a lie or a verbal gaffe but rather is something that any reasonable person could say.

[geoschmo]

When I say he made a mistatement I do not mean he made a statement that was technically true but was worded poorly so that taken out of context could appear to mean something it did not. This appears to me to be your and BM's impression of the comment in question. That's what I would call a poor choice of words. A comment that is technically correct but constucted in such a way as to be possibly unclear in it's meaning.

By mistatement I mean that the comment was factually incorrect as he stated it in the context that he meant it. I disagree that it could reasonably be taken any other way. I suppose this means I am saying you and BM are being unreasonable on this point, but I don't have a problem with that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

However a mistatement does not have to be an intentional comment contrary to the facts. That would be what I would define as a lie.

Geoschmo

[teal]

Fine. If you do not share my belief that I am a reasonable human being then there is little that I can do to convince you otherwise. I'm sorry that you can't see what probably a good 15-20% of America would agree with (the percentage of people who voted for Gore minus a few who would agree with you, but still voted for Gore). I think that's your problem. I try often and hard to understand those who support Bush and the right wing to the point of often playing devils advocate for his policies at debating sessions. I do not find that point of view unreasonable, just wrong... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I do feel truly sad that the other side does not feel fit to extend the same courtesy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Over and Out

Teal

Edit: and by your definition I would classify Gore's comment as a "poor choice of words."

[ May 30, 2003, 19:09: Message edited by: teal ]

[Narrew]

I have come to believe that the "TRUTH" is all in the beholder (or point of view or bias). We all see the same thing, but come to different conclusion. Glass half full/empty kind of thing.

My view of that comment from Gore is that he was a politician and he tried to get brownie points by stretching the truth and got caught. But it all comes down to what you think he was getting at, was he smoozing or was he just having a bad day?

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
hat is it about human conversations that they can never stay on a focus?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a very good point.

Has anyone noticed how you throw cheese out when it gets mouldy? I mean cheese is just mould anyway, isn't it, so isn't mouldy cheese just mouldy mould? You wouldn't refuse to drink wet water, so why do we throw out mouldy cheese?

(Actually, I usually just cut the mouldy bits off and eat the rest=-)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey, why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

[geoschmo]

Teal. I didn't say you were an unreasonable human being. I just think you are being unreasonable on this point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif That was a poor choice of words on my part. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I would guess the great majority of the people on both sides haven't actually heard what he said to begin with. They are told he said he invented the internet, and so they think he is a liar. Or they are told people say that he said he invented the internet but he didn't really say that, so they believe it's all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

It just suprises me that otherwise reasonable logical people such as yourself can see what he said and some how come up with a scenario where it is a factual statement if taken in the correct context. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Geoschmo

[ May 30, 2003, 19:21: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Hey, why don't sheep shrink when it rains?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Their wool shinks, but the sheep thenselves swell up when wet, so the net effect is no change. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[primitive]

Yawn, Zzzzzzzzzz

Edit:
Oups, Geo snuck in a funny post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 30, 2003, 19:26: Message edited by: primitive ]

[Fyron]

The fact of the matter is that Gore specifically said that he created the internet. He did not say that he took part in shaping it through legislation, he said that he created it. I can spell it out from the text if you really want me to. This is probabably not what he meant to say, but it is indeed what he said. This is what makes it a "mistatement" or a "verbal gaffe". You are only showing hypocrisy when you consistently deny this. Noone has to prove that he did not create the internet (in any form, the physical connection or the web, surfing, email, IM, etc.), because everyone knows that is not true (even you have stated as much). He had absolutely no part in the creation of any of it. Perhaps in the popularization of it (I am not sure on this point), but that certainly does not allow him to say that he created it by any logical standard. Geo or SJ can not logically say that they created SE4, after all. So, a reasonable line of reasoning would lead a person to the conclusion that Gore either messed up (accidental lie) or he deliberately set out to deceive. Everyone that has been posting here that has not unreasonably denied logic has said that it was most likely an accidental lie, not a deliberate one.

[rextorres]

Gore is old news. I don't know what he meant by the internet statement although it was a good way, during the campaign, to divert from all of W's gaffes.

Anyway now even Wolfowitz a Senior Administration official is admitting that "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." I'd rather argue about what that means and conveniently is more relevant to this topic.

[Aloofi]

You guys still discussing Al gore??!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I went out for lunch, the lunch got overextended with a couple beers and political conversation, and I got back and you still discussing the same?! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Alpha Kodiak]

The humorous part of this whole discussion is that it started with my point that it is easy to take someone out of context and make them look stupid. Apparently, politicians deserve the benefit of the doubt unless they are Republicans.

I had never read Gore's comments about the Internet, and I assumed they were taken wildly out of context. It turns out they were more ridiculous in context than I had believed. Certainly, however one takes the comments, they were more indicative of poor judgment than:

"{waves hello}"- G.W. Bush waves to the blind musician, Stevie Wonder, as reported by the Washington Post, March 6th, 2002<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would wager that almost anyone on this forum would gesture to a blind person when greeting them, as it is an action that is ingrained, rather than premeditated. It is the same thing as making hand gestures while talking on the phone to someone. Yet that is used to ridicule the President. Surely people can find juicier material than that on just about anyone.

[geoschmo]

By honest accounts what Gore did during his time in Congress was help to spur the growth of the internet by encouraging government agencies that he was involved in create and maitain a presence on the world wide web. But the fact is he had absolutly no part in creating the internet as he was still attending Yale university at the time it was created. So no matter how you massage the words he said or the context he said them in it was one of two things. A lie, or a significant verbal gaffe. It can't be neither, no matter how much Gore supporters would like it to be neither.

Geoschmo

[teal]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
By honest accounts what Gore did during his time in Congress was help to spur the growth of the internet by encouraging government agencies that he was involved in create and maitain a presence on the world wide web. But the fact is he had absolutly no part in creating the internet as he was still attending Yale university at the time it was created. So no matter how you massage the words he said or the context he said them in it was one of two things. A lie, or a significant verbal gaffe. It can't be neither, no matter how much Gore supporters would like it to be neither.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems to be a misunderstanding about the word create. You maintain that the word create can only mean one thing. Namely the initial construction of something. I don't think that is correct. (and further I don't think that you maintain that except when it is politically convenient for you to slam someone you already don't like with it). Say at some point in the future that Space Empires takes off and becomes the biggest game since Monopoly and further assume that I give substantial assistance to its growth. I might then say in perfectly natural language that "I took the initiative in creating the Space Empires phenomenon." Now the Space Empires phenomon certainly existed before I came along but that does not make my statement either a verbal gaffe or a lie. It is just me using natural language to express the idea that I helped something to rise in stature. The analogy is almost perfect. The internet existed before Gore came along but wasn't very big and he did provide some assistance in its growth. Whether this assitance merits the self congradulation he gave himself is another question but humble politicians tend to go nowhere fast and I would challenge you to find one. It was neither a lie or a verbal gafe but an honest, if somewhat overly proud, statement that had the unfortunate trait that it was easy for unscrupulus and willfully destructive people to take out of context much like the crazy Michael Moore likes to do.

Your welcome to try again with another one of Gore's so called lies. I think we have exhausted the internet one clearly in Gore's favor.

[teal]

I did some informal surveying to make sure I wasn't completely crazy... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Turns out I'm not. If you think I am either crazy or just crazy on this point then you can ask yourself long and hard why do you think both me and BM posted the entire paragraph of the interview and then said, "see, its perfectly obvious there was no misstatement here." Either we were so completely wacko as to actually hand the other side complete text that they could use to hang us with a great big glowing sign or else we were completely reasonable human being approaching the quote from a different point of view and reached a reasonable conclusion which we are then somewhat flabbergasted to learn that other reasonable people disagree with us about...

My favorite answer is from my survey is, "Gore was trying to say as little as possible". Now *that* is something we can agree on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Cheers!

Teal

[Fyron]

Point of view has little to do with what the statements Gore made mean. It is irrelevant what he meant to say, all that matters for purposes of this argument is what he said. And what he said indicates that he had a large hand in the creation of the internet (take the internet to mean whatever the heck you want, it doesn't matter). Which of course he did not. In all probability it was a mistatement (an error), but of course Gore can never make errors. Its always taken out of context. This is the picture you are painting by essentially ignoring the only reasonable meaning of his statement and creating new meanings that show that Gore did not make a verbal gaffe.

[ May 31, 2003, 11:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by teal:
I did some informal surveying to make sure I wasn't completely crazy... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Turns out I'm not. If you think I am either crazy or just crazy on this point then you can ask yourself long and hard why do you think both me and BM posted the entire paragraph of the interview and then said, "see, its perfectly obvious there was no misstatement here." Either we were so completely wacko as to actually hand the other side complete text that they could use to hang us with a great big glowing sign or else we were completely reasonable human being approaching the quote from a different point of view and reached a reasonable conclusion which we are then somewhat flabbergasted to learn that other reasonable people disagree with us about...

My favorite answer is from my survey is, "Gore was trying to say as little as possible". Now *that* is something we can agree on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Cheers!

Teal<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, he was trying to say as much as possible not as little as possible. If he had just taken the extra second to say 'I took the initiative in the legislation that created the internet." he'd have been completely correct -- he was a primary sponsor on both major 1970s and 1980s bills that made the Internet what it is today. In that case this ridiculous controversy would never have occured. But he is a politician, after all, and politicians are professional advertizers who advertize themselves for a living. So he over-reached while thinking on his feet and trying to make himself look as good as possible.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Actually, he was trying to say as much as possible not as little as possible. If he had just taken the extra second to say 'I took the initiative in the legislation that created the internet." he'd have been completely correct -- he was a primary sponsor on both major 1970s and 1980s bills that made the Internet what it is today. In that case this ridiculous controversy would never have occured.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think that is correct Baron. I have looked, because I do try to be as accurate as possible on these things rather then just spouting off conservative propaganda. The only Internet related bill I can find that he sponsered and became law was the US High Performance Computing Act in 1991. I am sure this bill had an impact on the development and expansion of the internet, particularly the establishment of several governmental agency websites. But does it give Gore the right to claim that he took the iniative in creating the internet?

Geoschmo

[Fyron]

That is a nice rant Teal, but no. I did not say that point of view never has anything to do with interpreting language. I said in this case it does not. Gore directly stated he created the internet (take the internet to mean whatever you want it to). That does not mean several different things, it means that he created the internet. He had no part in creating the internet, so his statement is wrong. Some legislation, sure. But not any part of the internet itself.

[Wardad]

"Create" was the wrong word for Gore to use.

Gore was a facilitator and a sponsor.

The cealing if the Sisten Chapel was commissioned, sponsered, and even initiated by the clergy. The actual art was created by the artist.

[Fyron]

Yes, create was the wrong word to use. Teal just will not admit that Gore made a mistake in his speech.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That is a nice rant Teal, but no. I did not say that point of view never has anything to do with interpreting language. I said in this case it does not. Gore directly stated he created the internet (take the internet to mean whatever you want it to). That does not mean several different things, it means that he created the internet. He had no part in creating the internet, so his statement is wrong. Some legislation, sure. But not any part of the internet itself.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think it is right to characterize Teal's statements as a rant. Personally, I found his statements to be reasoned and well-expressed in putting forth a view that may differ from that taken by most people

And I agree with Wardad that a beter word could have been used.

[Fyron]

It was a rant because it was long, and completely filled with statements that he had already made that had had counters posted against them. And, it was going off on tangents, which makes it more of a rant. Rants are not required to be illogical or anything like that. Most of them aren't.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It was a rant because it was long, and completely filled with statements that he had already made that had had counters posted against them. And, it was going off on tangents, which makes it more of a rant. Rants are not required to be illogical or anything like that. Most of them aren't.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No Fyron it was anything but a rant.

The New Webster's Collegiate Dictionary describes a rant as:
1. to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2. to scold vehemently: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

He did none of these. The fact that you think he repeated himself or that you think it was long, or that you think it was off tangent or that you may think it is illogical has little or no bearing on whether it is a rant or not.

He was stating his opinion in a very calm and collected manner which is the very opposite of the rant you accuse him of.

Right or wrong, he is entitled to his opinion and shouldn't be put down for it. It is immorally wrong to characterize what he has said as a rant.

[Baron Munchausen]

Al Gore and the Internet (Sept. 28, 2000)

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

---

Vin Cerf is one of the people who really can claim to have invented the Internet, btw. And he understood what Gore meant.

Some of the specific legislation that Al Gore supported:

1986 - National Science Foundation Authorization Act
1986 - Supercomputer Network Study Act
1988 - National High-Performance Computer Technology Act
1991 - High Performance Computing Act

And he was Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space for several years before he joined Clinton to run for VP.

[teal]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Point of view has little to do with what the statements Gore made mean. It is irrelevant what he meant to say, all that matters for purposes of this argument is what he said. And what he said indicates that he had a large hand in the creation of the internet (take the internet to mean whatever the heck you want, it doesn't matter). Which of course he did not. In all probability it was a mistatement (an error), but of course Gore can never make errors. Its always taken out of context. This is the picture you are painting by essentially ignoring the only reasonable meaning of his statement and creating new meanings that show that Gore did not make a verbal gaffe.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh boy here we go again... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif IF: You make a fundamental logical error when you assume that a statement can only mean one reasonable thing. That is not true. Any statement in natural language above the complexity of "run spot run" can be interpreted in a number of different ways (probably infinite and come to think of it I can interpret run spot run in at least two different ways... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). This is why translation programs have such difficulty, language is a hell of a lot more than just some definitions and word replacements that you can string together. If your view of language was correct (that point of view doesn't matter when interpreting language) then translation programs would all work flawlessly and we know they don't. The point is that given multiple different ways of interpreting a statement we look to context and our personal life experience and redundancy to figure out what the hell someone means. The context of this particular statement is important that's why Gore supporters tend to quote the whole thing while Gore detractors tend to quote just the particular sentence under consideration. As Geo has shown me, life experience is also very important in interpreting this particular quote. Different peoples amongst the vastly different sub cultures of America will interpret the quote differently even under context.

What Geo and I are arguing about is actually a very very subtle difference in opinion. Alien beings watching this, and probably several forum lurkers are probably scratching their heads and going... WTF? those two don't actually disagree about anything at all... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That's why I asked him to define his terms a while back. The term verbal gaffe in the context of this argument means a *serious* verbal misstatement not its more general meaning of simply a statement that can be interpreted wrongly out of context. I maintain that Gore's statment is on the order of magnitude of AK's example of Bush waving to Stevie Wonder (in one point of view that's dumb bc/ SW is blind, from another point of view that's perfectly reasonable because the other people watching are not blind and like for certain social norms to be observed even when they are somewhat silly in that particular context i.e. *nothing* about Bush's action was the slightest bit weird or wrong). Given these two points of view I'm sure reasonable people will choose both, since the issue is muddied we give Bush the benefit of the doubt and move on. That's the level of verbal gaffe that I would classify Gore's statement as, there isn't anything at all wrong about it (ala Bush's waving to SW) but people predisposed to a certain mindset can certainly interpret it that way. Geo seems to be mainting something far more serious, that Gore's statement was factually incorrect and that *NO* reasonable case can possibly be presented otherwise. I find this point of view perplexing.

Lastly you guys can try to hang me with the rabid Gore fanboy label who thinks Gore can do no wrong all you want. It won't stick. The guy did some incredibly dumb things during the course of the campaign. Serious strategic errors and the like and probably even made many verbal gaffes (of the garden variety not the *serious* variety). I'm no Gore fanboy and I maintain that this particular statement is not a *serious* verbal gaffe but merely a "poor choice of words" as defined earlier by Geo.

Cheers!

Teal

[Fyron]

Tbontob, a rant in the forum sense of the word is exactly what Teal's post was. There are many words that have more meanings than a dictionary has in them, especially when it comes to popular culture (such as the internet). Rant is one such word, which can mean a lot more than your basic dictionary definition.

[teal]

Ok to restate my point of view (and I am restating because there seems to be some misconception about what I said, apparently my post was too long to read... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Most of the people jumping in and taking me to task are taking me to task for the wrong reason. They say that create was, strictly speaking, the wrong word to use in this context. They are correct. As I have stated before my interpretation of this comment is that it is on the same level as Bush's waving at Stevie Wonder. That is that some people, if predisposed to do so, can reasonably slam the actor and say that they acted like an idiot. But I also maintain that reasonable people can see *nothing* wrong with what the actor did and not see any reason to slam them at all.

So please, before you see fit to think me an idiot for thinking that the word create can not mean "to bring something into existence which did not exist before" realize that is not my position. I maintain that create can mean that *and* it can also mean "to improve or make better something which did exist before". Strictly speaking this is gramatically incorrect, but I have strong problems with "grammer Nazi's" and you should to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It is still natural language and people can and do use the word this way. I have already posted one example which was not refuted and here's another:

If someone goes out and looks at their backyard treehous and thinks (boy that could use a new wing and a kitchenette) and then goes and adds a new wing and a kitchenette then they could using natural language say that they created a treehouse. They would be gramatically incorrect in doing so, but we should not pretend that we did not know what they meant and that they were an idiot for saying so.

Teal, who knows he should not write anything longer than a paragraph on a forum, but does so anyways because he can't help but think in paragraphs... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[teal]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Tbontob, a rant in the forum sense of the word is exactly what Teal's post was. There are many words that have more meanings than a dictionary has in them, especially when it comes to popular culture (such as the internet). Rant is one such word, which can mean a lot more than your basic dictionary definition.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does anyone but me find this post *extremely* ironic?

[tbontob]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Tbontob, a rant in the forum sense of the word is exactly what Teal's post was. There are many words that have more meanings than a dictionary has in them, especially when it comes to popular culture (such as the internet). Rant is one such word, which can mean a lot more than your basic dictionary definition.[/QUOTE]

No Fyron, the internet is not a popular culture. The people on the internet have many diverse interests, hobbies, philosophies and concerns.

More importantly, their home language may not be English and as a consequence they may not be very familiar with English.

Maybe, rant has a secondary meaning in California.

Or maybe you have just made up that meaning to suit your own purposes.

These meanings are not likely to be known to those who whose first language is not English.

And to use it in such a manner is very disrespectful.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by teal:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Tbontob, a rant in the forum sense of the word is exactly what Teal's post was. There are many words that have more meanings than a dictionary has in them, especially when it comes to popular culture (such as the internet). Rant is one such word, which can mean a lot more than your basic dictionary definition.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does anyone but me find this post *extremely* ironic?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You forgot to also quote the one where he accuses people who try to accord Gore the same leeway of hypocrisy. This is beyond 'ironic' it's Fyronic.

[tbontob]

LOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

New definition for Websters New Collegiate Dictionary.

Fyronic n (2003): beyond ironic.

ROFLOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Tbontob, I made up nothing about the word rant. It is a very commonly used term on internet forums, known by many people who are not from California and who do not speak English as a native tongue. Just because you do not know what it means does not mean that noone else does.

[Aloofi]

Well, I don't wanna be on Fyron's side here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif , but I have seen the word rant used Online to describe anything that its said twice.
Very fyronic indeed.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Rigelian]

I'm with Fyron there too. Unlike a lot of internet language, such as 'flame' or 'troll' for example, the intended meaning can be derived from its dictionary definition; the sense is not quite as strong though.

In general, 'internet language' is considered acceptable in forums, whether the poster is from California or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . And although a lot of the original terminology might have been consistent with Californian English for historical reasons, I think that recently a lot of 'European texting conventions' have made their way onto the general internet. PITA for anyone under 20 though..

[Rigelian]

...but actually looking back at the original Posts (damn this thread is long!), I don't think what was said qualified as a 'rant' in either the dictionary or 'internet' senses...

A long argument making many points is just that, surely? Even if you disagree with it - to use the term 'rant' is perjorative, in either sense.

For what it's worth, my personal take on 'netiquette' would be:

- avoid use of colloquial English. This does not mean using a restricted vocabulary. If I use an uncommon but correct term, it can be looked up in the dictionary, whereas colloquial/slang terms usually can not.
- only correct grammatical mistakes when the poster has previously criticised someone elses - then they are a fair target http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
- if replying to someone who does not have English as a first language, only correct them if their meaning is unclear or if they specifically ask. To do otherwise is plain rude, given that their English is usually far better than my command of their language.
- definitely avoid pointless US-versus-British English flame wars. Two valid derivatives of Elizabethan English I say... but doubtless confusing for the non-native speaker.

[Fyron]

I said it was a rant because it was essentially a rehashing of what he said before, and it was an attempt to overwhelm my point with potentially (though not necessarily) true statements that did not actually contradict the point.

[ June 02, 2003, 19:13: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Rigelian]

I said it was a rant because it was essentially a rehashing of what he said before, and it was an attempt to overwhelm my point with potentially (though not necessarily) true statements that did not actually contradict the point.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not what I would understand by 'rant' then - actually it sounds more like legal cross-examination technique to me.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[tesco samoa]

Standard Operating Procedure
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s.

And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence.

In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else."

Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which - to an extent never before seen in U.S. history - systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.

Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a Last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households - including a majority of those with members over 65 - get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.

And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to energy and the environment. So why should we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy?

It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the Last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters - a group that includes a large segment of the news media - obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.

If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent - who supported Britain's participation in the war - writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."

It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/opinion/03KRUG.html

p.s. still no real news on the WMD find in DC

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I said it was a rant because it was essentially a rehashing of what he said before, and it was an attempt to overwhelm my point with potentially (though not necessarily) true statements that did not actually contradict the point.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No Fyron, if anything, my feelings are you were trying to embarrass him by calling it a rant.

You are the only person on this forum, that I know of, who consistently declares that another person's comments are a rant.

The fact that you are unable to come up with a source which validates your definition leads me to suspect:
a) it is not true
b) if it is true it is colloquial/slang.

My own searches have not come up with a definition which matches yours.

And until you can come up with a definition from a valid and accepted source like Webster’s, Oxford or Cambridge, for your so-called definition, it is at most colloquial/slang.

It is rude and disrespectful to characterize someone’s comments as a rant because you think he has repeated himself.

[ June 03, 2003, 16:29: Message edited by: tbontob ]

[tesco samoa]

you posters should take this off-line. not here

[teal]

I agree wholeheartidly. Whatever happened to the interesting "OT:Politics" thread? I'm very sorry for my role in derailing it into the realm of polemics. Isn't it interesting how the big issues can result in well mannered discussions, but on little things people tend to hold the line and not give up an inch?

[kalthalior]

Byron York, reply to Krugman's WMD NYT article:

WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION?
"To the president's opponents, the mother of all Bush "lies" is the administration's case for going to war in Iraq, specifically the president's claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. "So whose books were more cooked — Enron's accounts of its financial doings or the administration's prewar reports on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?" asked Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect, in a column published in the Washington Post. The administration's position, Meyerson concluded, was "as phony a casus belli as the destruction of the Maine in Havana Harbor."

It's an argument that's been heard more and more in recent weeks. "Does it matter that we were misled into war?" asked the New York Times's Paul Krugman. Bush's statements about weapons of mass destruction were "one of the administration's Big Lies of the war on Iraq," wrote The Nation's David Corn. And Democratic senator Robert Byrd has issued almost daily allegations that Bush lied about Iraq.

Such accusations are risky — after all, the search for Iraqi weapons is ongoing, and any day might bring a significant discovery, or evidence that weapons have been destroyed. Still, for the sake of argument, assume there is no discovery. Does that mean Bush was lying?

In the months leading up to the war, there was a bipartisan consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; the real debate was between those who believed that Saddam would have to be disarmed by force and those who wanted to rely on U.N. inspectors to contain him. The world knew from those inspectors that, when Last checked, Iraq had large stores of anthrax and nerve gas. The world also knew that before the first Gulf War, Iraq had an aggressive nuclear-weapons program. Last December, there was general agreement that Iraq's 12,000-page declaration of its weapons programs was grossly incomplete. And in January of this year, former Clinton administration officials Kenneth Pollack and Martin Indyk wrote in the New York Times that Iraq "must be made to account for the thousands of tons of chemical precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison that the United Nations has itself declared missing."

Such a consensus makes it extremely difficult to argue that the president lied about Iraq and WMD; if the administration's case was a lie, then everybody, including much of the political opposition, was in on it. Just as importantly, if it turns out that prewar estimates of Iraq's capabilities were incorrect, the Bush administration can say — truthfully — that it erred on the side of protecting American national security. One could argue that the White House paid insufficient attention to intelligence indicating a threat to American security before September 11. One could also argue that this administration was therefore determined not to underestimate future threats. "What 9/11 did was teach a generation of policymakers to interpret things in an alarmed rather than a relaxed way," says one former administration official.

Did that make the Iraq campaign a lie? The equivalent of Enron bookkeeping? Only the president's most fevered enemies would try to make that case."

I wouldn't describe Krugman, and the paper he works for, as exactly the most fair & unbiased source for information.

[tesco samoa]

The original charges against Iraq, presented to the United Nations and the American public, were explicitly about the weapons themselves.

On Aug. 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney told the VFW National Convention: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

On Sept. 12, 2002, Bush told the U.N. General Assembly: "United Nations inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons."

On Dec. 2, 2002, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Hussein would be "misleading the world" if he denied having the Banned weapons. A month later, on Jan. 9, Fleischer asserted: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28, he cited evidence that Hussein had enough materials to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in the same speech to the U.N. on Feb. 5 in which he discussed evidence of the mobile weapons labs Bush referred to Last week, argued: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, he's determined to make more."

A month later, on March 7, Powell told the United Nations that Hussein has "clearly not" made a decision to "disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction."

In his Feb. 8 radio address, the president asserted: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

On March 30 on ABC News's "This Week," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said of the prohibited weapons: "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the Last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003

First -- and this is really the overarching principle -- the United States seeks to liberate Iraq, not occupy Iraq . . . If the President should decide to use force, let me assure you again that the United States would be committed to liberating the people of Iraq, not becoming an occupation force.

Paul Wolfowitz
Speech to Iraqi-American Community
February 23, 2003

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government . . .

George W. Bush
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
February 26, 2003

We will help the Iraqi people to find the benefits and assume the duties of self-government. The form of those institutions will arise from Iraq's own culture and its own choices.

George W. Bush
Speech at MacDill AFB
March 26, 2003

But as soon as possible, we want to have working alongside the commander an interim Iraqi authority, people representing the people of Iraq. And, as that authority grows and gets greater credibility from the people of Iraq, we want to turn over more and more responsibilities to them.

Colin Powell
Press Conference
March 26, 2003

The goal is an Iraq that stands on its own feet and that governs itself in freedom and in unity and with respect for the rights of all its citizens. We'd like to get to that goal as quickly as possible.

Paul Wolfowitz
Interview with 60 Minutes II
April 1, 2003

I can assure you that we all want to end this as soon as possible, so we can get on with the task of allowing the Iraqi people to form a new government.

Colin Powell
Press Conference in Belgrade
April 2, 2003

We will leave Iraq completely in the hands of Iraqis as quickly as possible.

Condoleeza Rice
Press Briefing
April 4, 2003

We want to see a situation where power and responsibility is transferred as quickly as possible to the Iraqis themselves, with as much international assistance as possible . . .We have no desire to occupy Iraq . . .

Paul Wolfowitz
Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
April 10, 2003

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could you give us an idea of your views of the interim administration (of Iraq), how quickly it might be set up . . . ?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are anxious to move quickly now that the day of liberation is drawing near. I don't know when it will happen. But, certainly, we can see what's going to happen in the not-too-distant future, we hope.

Colin Powell
Press Conference
April 4, 2003

The task is to create an environment that is sufficiently permissive that the Iraqi people can fashion a new government. And what they will do is come together in one way or another and select an interim authority of some kind. Then that group will propose a constitution and a more permanent authority of some kind. And over some period of months, the Iraqis will have their government selected by Iraqi people.

Donald Rumsfeld
Meet the Press
April 13, 2003

After (Gen. Jay Garner) finishes his job of restoring basic services, the interim Iraqi authority will be established. And that interim authority will be an authority of Iraqis, chosen by Iraqis. And it will be able to function as an authority in the country immediately after Gen. Garner's job is finished, which should be only a few weeks.

Ahmed Chalabi, Chairman of the Iraqi National Congress
Meet the Press
April 13, 2003

I think what we are so proud of is governments which permit their populace to be involved in a process that provides them freedom, provides them liberty. And I think what we will see in the months and years ahead in Iraq will provide a bit of a model for how that can be done . . . . because, Tony, it will be the Iraqi people who decide how to do that, and they will do it on their terms.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Fox News Interview
April 13, 2003

Soon Iraqis will be able to give us guidance about how to move forward and create an Iraqi interim authority. And that authority will begin to allow Iraqis to have sovereignty over their country and in a way that Iraqis will choose; they will create an Iraqi Government.

Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Interview with Free Iraqi Television
April 16, 2003

The coalition supports the formation, as soon as possible, of the Iraqi Interim Authority -- a transitional administration, run by Iraqis, until a government is established by the people of Iraq through elections. The Interim Authority should be broad-based and fully representative.

Zalmay Khalilzad, Special U.S. Envoy to Iraq
Wall Street Journal op-ed
April 17, 2003

The new ruler of Iraq is going to be an Iraqi. I don't rule anything.

Gen. Jay Garner
Press Interview
April 21, 2003

I think you'll begin to see the governmental process start next week, by the end of next week. It will have Iraqi faces on it. It will be governed by the Iraqis.

Gen. Jay Garner
Press Conference in Baghdad
April 24, 2003

If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen.

Donald Rumsfield
Interview with Associated Press
April 24, 2003

As freedom takes hold in Iraq, the Iraqi people will choose their own leaders and their own government. America has no intention of imposing our form of government or our culture. Yet, we will ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government . . .

George W. Bush
Speech in Dearborne, Michigan
April 28, 2003

By the middle of (this) month, you'll really see a beginning of a nucleus of an Iraqi government with an Iraqi face on it that is dealing with the coalition.

Gen. Jay Garner
Press Conference
May 5, 2003

Soon, Iraqis from every ethnic group will choose members of an interim authority. The people of Iraq are building a free society from the ground up, and they are able to do so because the dictator and his regime are no more.

George W. Bush
Address at the University of South Carolina
May 9, 2003

We will provide the conditions for Iraqis to govern themselves in the future. To that end, the Coalition Provisional Authority will work with responsible Iraqis to begin the process of establishing a government representative of all the Iraqi people.

L. Paul Bremer, Special Envoy to Iraq
Press Conference in Baghdad
May 15, 2003

When Iraqi officials are in a position to shoulder their country's responsibilities, when they have in place the necessary political and other structures to provide food, security and the other necessities, the coalition will have a strong interest in seeing them run their own affairs.

Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee
May 15, 2003

We are interested in the quick creation of an Iraqi interim authority and in Iraq's democracy.
Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State
Interview with China Phoenix TV
May 16, 2003

I've read a report in the American press about a delay (in the transitional authority). I don't know where these stories are coming from because we haven't delayed anything.

L. Paul Bremer
Remarks to Press in Mosul
May 18, 2003

I would think we are talking about more like sometime in July to get a national conference put together.

L. Paul Bremer
Remarks to Reporters in Baghdad
May 21, 2003

As Thomas Jefferson put it, "we are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed." It took time and patience, but eventually our Founders got it right -- and we hope so will the people of Iraq -- over time.

Donald Rumsfeld
Wall Street Journal op-ed
May 27, 2003

While our goal is to put functional and political authority in the hands of Iraqis as soon as possible, the Coalition Provisional Authority has the responsibility to fill the vacuum of power . . . by asserting temporary authority over the country. The coalition will do so. It will not tolerate self-appointed "leaders."

Donald Rumsfeld
Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

It will be difficult for a free political life in Iraq to flourish until the conditions are set, but it is a project that we're working on.

Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense
Foreign Press Briefing
May 28, 2003

They told us, "Liberation now," and then they made it occupation. Bush said he was a liberator, not an occupier, and we supported the United States on this basis.

Ahmed Chalabi, Chairman of the Iraqi National Congress
Interview with Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist
May 29, 2003

Question: When do you think there might be a government in place, even a provisional government in place in Iraq?

Rumsfeld: I don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld
Infinity Radio Town Hall
May 29, 2003

The CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) is going to be in charge until there is a sovereign representative, democratic Iraqi government chosen.

Anonymous CPA Official
Interview with The Washington Times
June 2, 2003

just some quotes... they tell their own story quite well.

[tesco samoa]

one Last interesting article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63017-2003May31.html?nav=hptop_ts

[Narrew]

just some quotes... they tell their own story quite well.

Tesco, true. I doubt that all the nay-sayers will ever be satisfied, and if it is proven that there are WMDs will they apologise? I doubt it.

I would think we all would admit that Saddam SAID he HAD WMDs. Previous inspectors SAID they had them. The Iraqies were very good at hiding things, the chem labs on the trucks were NOT remote baby milk factories.

I don't believe that Saddam destroyed his WMDs, if so, all he had to do was let the U.N. Inspectors back in and he would still be in power.
Bush and Company did tell Saddam thats all he had to do and he would live...NOW

Just as France, Germany and Russia didn't think Bush would follow through with his ultimatium, Saddam (I am sure) was assured that Bush wouldn't follow through either. But supprise, supprise, a politition did what he said. Caught off guard, why would Saddam use his WMDs against a professional army that is prepared for them. Why not take you losses and live another day. Try and move the WMDs out of the country (to Syria more likely) and make the heathens pay.

Turkey screwed us up, if we could have went through Turkey, we might have been able to get troops to the main trails into Syria. Also, I heard that freeze drying these bio-weapons, you can have enough matieral (size of a small envelope) for restarting manufacturing.

In the U.S. if there are no more WMDs are found, the public wont get bent out of shape. We have seen the mass graves, the children that was in prision ect...I am sure many Americans would say that Saddam and his son's were WMDs. The big thing though, we need to find more WMDs for our foreigen "friends". If we don't, then there will be problem.

I say in the next 6 months we will know for sure. Unlike all the anti-Iraq war people, I know that things will not be found overnight. We will, and when we do, I am sure all the media that was against this war will not say a peep. Also, I hope in the next 6 months the new Iraqi goverment will be picking up steam. If I remember correctly, it took over 2 years to get Japans new goverment up to speed. And I would think that there are some similuaries between Imperial Japan and Dictatorship Iraq. So if we couldn't fast track a goverment in Japan, do not expect us to be able to do it in Iraq.

whew, my fingers hurt http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[teal]

*If* I remember my history correctly... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In world war II justification for making nuclear weapons was that Hitler was making them. At end of the war is was discovered that Nazi nuclear weapons project was a complete joke. Then many people felt bad about making nuclear weapons, many other people felt good about it.

No point. I just find the parallel somewhat interesting to think about.

[teal]

Scott Ritter (a previous inspector) was very active in saying that the Iraqi's did NOT have WMDs (or at least that they could not possibly be a threat to the U.S.). i.e. the point of view was out there that Iraq was not a threat well before the war. If Bush was not aware of these arguments how come? Isn't it his job to be aware of what is going on and the arguments pro and con? Being ignorant about the arguments is almost as bad as lying about them, to my mind far worse. If Bush was aware of the arguments and *if* they are later shown to be correct (as early indications are that they will) how come he didn't believe them? To my mind being biased against arguments that are later shown to be completely and utterly correct is also a troubling trait.

Ritter's speech in which he outlines his case is also quite interesting in another point. He says that just before the inspectors left the first time that the U.S. tried to assasinate Hussein. They did so by using the inspections as an intelligence gathering mission to try and pin down where he was and then nail him with cruise missles. So the inspections were a vital part of the U.S. assasination attempt. Now ask yourself this. The people you are dealing with have tried to kill you in the past and they have used inspections as a tool with which to make it easier for them to do so. Now do you cooperate fully with these people when they ask for inspections again?

Before people jump on me, this says *nothing* about whether such an assasination attempt was a good thing or not. It does however go a long way to explaining why a Hussein who did not have WMDs would still not cooperate fully with the inspections.

[Narrew]

ok, ok, if I remember my history http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Englands PM Chamberlin (the appeaser) let Hitler build up his military (against the WWI treaty), take over Austria, well Hitler said it was not an invasion, it was bringing the german people home. It wasn't until it was too late that the Europeans figured that Hitler was a bad guy.

Many corralations here, the appeaser (the UN) let Hitler (Saddam) do many things against the resulotion that THEY passed but refused to enforce (and Iraq is not the only example of refusing to enforce resulotions). Hell the appeasers were in bed with Saddam, the Oil for Food was never ran the way it was supposed to be ran, and UN did nothing to right the wrongs their either.

About the Nukes, yes it was a joke, but Hitler didn't fund it like he did other things, he even didnt fund "Jets" because he thought the prop planes were good enough. If he had known what his jets were capable of and funded them much earlier, WWII would have been very different, if anything it would have taken years longer to finish.

When a bully is on the play ground beating on kids, sometimes someone needs to do the right thing and go take that bully down a notch or 2. Even if that someone gets suspended for fighting, the play ground is better off with the bully gone.

[Narrew]

Scott Ritter is a joke. Besides having a political axe to grind. At one point he was saying there were WMDs and now he says there are not. There are reports that he has received money (aka bribes). I have to go to class now, but I will look for those facts to back up what I say when I get home.

I am sure there have been many attempts on Saddam.

[tesco samoa]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,455828,00.html

WMD is very important. Reguardless of what spin is placed on it.

As is the occupation of Iraq.

This coliation of willing who helped bring Iraq from Dictatorship to Anarchy have some members who are just as 'evil' to their own people. As is the eradication of western media to report the story and its corperate idology.

I have always felt that this war was a mistake. As it basically destroyed the international war on terrorism and all the positive gains from that concept.
I wish to thank everyone in this thread for helping me come to this conculsion.

I will still keep posting links to stuff I find interesting and reading peoples opinions and their links to articles of interest.
For it is very fasinating how we can read and read and read from all sides and all view points.

[kalthalior]

Tesco, I would agree with you that the WMD issue is very important -- and that the discussion about it is also very interesting.

From Rich Lowery:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," the president of the United States warned. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

The secretary of state loyally followed this hard line, defending the U.N. sanctions on Saddam Hussein: "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Leveraging U.N. resolutions to support military action, the secretary of defense said: "The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration."

The officials argued that U.N. inspections weren't enough. "It is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment," the president's national security adviser said of the U.N. inspections regime. "It doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity."

The president's congressional loyalists stood behind him. "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction," said a prominent senator, sounding a familiar theme, "but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."

"For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description," said another hawk, taking aim at the split in the international community. "France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach."

Who were the political leaders who, according to critics of the Iraq war, perpetrated this fraud on the American people by making overblown warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Respectively, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John Kerry. (BOLDFACE MINE)
They were all speaking in the late 1990s when Clinton bombed Iraq to "degrade" an Iraqi WMD capacity that we are supposed to believe disappeared in the inspection-free years that ensued, only to be resurrected as a false justification for war by the Bush administration.

The failure so far to find WMD in Iraq is a major embarrassment for President Bush, and congressional hearings into the intelligence prior to the Iraq War are welcome. But the post-Iraq debate shouldn't proceed on false pretenses: Everyone this side of famed Iraqi prevaricator Baghdad Bob believed that Iraq had WMD. In the run-up to the war, the United Nations, the "axis of weasel" (France and Germany) and high-profile Democrats all agreed about WMD.

The specific figures in Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. presentation about Iraq's unaccounted-for WMD came from U.N. inspectors. France and Germany didn't argue that Saddam had no WMD, but inspections could rid him of them. Clinton and Al Gore dissented from aspects of Bush's policy, but agreed about WMD. "We know," Gore said, "he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons."

The question was what to do about a dictator with ties to terrorism who for 12 years had defied the procedures set out by the world to confirm that he no longer had dangerous weapons. For the Bush administration, Sept. 11 meant erring on the side of safety, and so continuing to accept Saddam's denials and defiance wasn't an option.

As someone once warned: "This is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of the reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century." Even if the rhetoric was shrill, Bill Clinton had a point.

EDIT: I just found an interesting article about Paul Wolfowitz addressing a convention of North American Shia Muslims:
NY Post article (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05312003/postopinion/opedcolumnists/35893.htm)

[ June 03, 2003, 20:47: Message edited by: kalthalior ]

[tbontob]

Originally posted by teal:
*If* I remember my history correctly... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In world war II justification for making nuclear weapons was that Hitler was making them. At end of the war is was discovered that Nazi nuclear weapons project was a complete joke. Then many people felt bad about making nuclear weapons, many other people felt good about it.

No point. I just find the parallel somewhat interesting to think about.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but I am not convinced it was a complete joke.

Apprently Germany was taking all the heavy water Norway could produce and wanted more. The allies knew this and feared that Germany would get the bomb first.

At war's end they discovered that Germany was not nearly advanced as they had thought.

I've also read that Germany's research program was somewhat chaotic. There was a tendancy to improve existing models of equipement rather than come up with completely new designs.

Also research projects would be started and then put on the backburner.

This changed in late 1942, but by then it was too late.

It was a change sponsored by necessity as their equipement was becoming increasingly out of date. For example, the Russian T4 sponored a major research program into new tanks.

Or the allies air superiority sponsored final research into the V1, V2 and the jet.

[Narrew]

kalthalior, nice link.

He described the reception for Wolfowitz as "very warm." He added: "We should thank the Bush administration for liberating the Shias of Iraq. I think Dr. Wolfowitz understands our viewpoint and our deep opposition to extremism. We were thrilled to have him attend and to hear his words."

Others, including non-Muslims, who attended the event were struck by the enthusiasm shown to Paul Wolfowitz. But Jafri put the emphasis in the right place: "The convention inaugurated a new period in the history of American Muslims, of heightened awareness of our responsibilities to the country we live in and hope for the future flourishing of Islam and democracy. At our convention next year, we would like to have President Bush as a guest."

And why did a story like this go unreported in the rest of our media?

The reason that this was not reported...Contary to belief, the majority of the US media is still biased to the left, and any information like this is just ignored by the anti war people (and anyone that has made their mind up). So, though it is very easy to copy/paste information that supports the anti war view it is very hard to find (in the media) positive information.

Its like the story of the boy yelling WOLF, but in this case we have the whole village yelling WOLF, while the boy is trying to explain that the wolf is actually a dog. But everyone in the village is unwilling to see the truth, because all they hear is the village people screaming.

I contend many of the anti war people are not held accountable for their spin. Yet expect the pro war people to be held to strict accountably. I will admit that is politics, and just the way things are.

An example would be the intellengce report that was found to be fabricated by the French. Then the colalition was crucifed for relying on it. Instead, one (a reasonable person) would wonder WHY France fabricated that report? WHY would a so called ally go out of their way to mislead us? Well, I didn't read any of the crucifiers apologizing or at least NAIL France to the same cross. Nope, nada...

[Narrew]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As is the occupation of Iraq.

This coliation of willing who helped bring Iraq from Dictatorship to Anarchy have some members who are just as 'evil' to their own people.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anarchy? How fast do you expect things to change?

I might be reading this wrong, and if so I apologise. It seems you are saying that there are members of the "Coliation of the Willing" who are just as evil as Saddam? If so, tell me who is more evil than Saddam? Who has killed millions of their OWN people? Who has put children in jail? Who has supported terrorism? Who has killed people because of their religion?

So if I am following you, you think that Saddam still in power would be a good thing. And if that is the fact, then I am glad I live in the world I live in and not yours. All Saddam had to do is say, come back in the country and I will prove to you that there were no WMDs and he would still be in power.

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
I have always felt that this war was a mistake.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And like many others that feel the same as you, there will be no amount of information that will change your mind.

Granted I am biased also. I also think we need to find those WMDs (but I will give them 6 more months) and help the Iraqi people get their goverment going, again it will take a long time (from what I have heard, min of 2 years) but I hope that there is some form of interm Iraqi control within 6 months.

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As it basically destroyed the international war on terrorism and all the positive gains from that concept.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, how do you see that. Have you failed to see that North Korea are talking about concessions. The Saudi's starting to realize that supporting terror will bite them in the butt. That we have been catching the terorists before they strike? That perhaps the Arab countries will marginalize Arafat (about damn time if you ask me)?

True, there have been attacks, but I still see more positive things since the war on Iraq, than before the war. Back to the glass half full again.

[tesco samoa]

lets look at the Coalition's countries that have clean human rights records

Afghanistan , Albania , Angola , Azerbaijan , Colombia, Dominican Republic ,El Salvador , Eritrea ,Ethiopia ,Georgia ,Honduras ,Kuwait ,Nicaragua , Philippines ,Rwanda ,Turkey ,Uganda ,Uzbekistan

You did read me wrong. I believe they should have removed him in 90 when he was doing these mass killings..

And it is the information that has helped me think that the conflict was wrong. I have yet to see a reason why it was nessary.

The french asked for 3 more weeks....

Time will tell if this was correct.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As is the occupation of Iraq.

This coliation of willing who helped bring Iraq from Dictatorship to Anarchy have some members who are just as 'evil' to their own people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anarchy? How fast do you expect things to change?

I might be reading this wrong, and if so I apologise. It seems you are saying that there are members of the "Coliation of the Willing" who are just as evil as Saddam? If so, tell me who is more evil than Saddam? Who has killed millions of their OWN people? Who has put children in jail? Who has supported terrorism? Who has killed people because of their religion?

So if I am following you, you think that Saddam still in power would be a good thing. And if that is the fact, then I am glad I live in the world I live in and not yours. All Saddam had to do is say, come back in the country and I will prove to you that there were no WMDs and he would still be in power.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tesco samoa:
I have always felt that this war was a mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And like many others that feel the same as you, there will be no amount of information that will change your mind.

Granted I am biased also. I also think we need to find those WMDs (but I will give them 6 more months) and help the Iraqi people get their goverment going, again it will take a long time (from what I have heard, min of 2 years) but I hope that there is some form of interm Iraqi control within 6 months.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As it basically destroyed the international war on terrorism and all the positive gains from that concept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, how do you see that. Have you failed to see that North Korea are talking about concessions. The Saudi's starting to realize that supporting terror will bite them in the butt. That we have been catching the terorists before they strike? That perhaps the Arab countries will marginalize Arafat (about damn time if you ask me)?

True, there have been attacks, but I still see more positive things since the war on Iraq, than before the war. Back to the glass half full again.

[Andrés]

It's not a question of why WMDs haven't been found yet.
But if he had them, why didn't Saddam used them in his most desperate hour?
He may be as evil as you paint him, but he is no fool, he knew his troops couldn't defeat coalition forces by conventional means.
Wouldn't it have been good for him to use WMDs againt the invading forces? or retaliate if coalition countries were out of range at least at their nearer allies?
There were obviouly no WMD were it was "known" they were.
I grant that there's still a posibility that there's something that remains hidden. But something that can be so well hidden canot be a very big facility. And would probably need years of research before it can become an efective weapon.
A part of me believes that Bush's men attacked becasuse they feared no retaliation with WMDs.

And BTW I never understood why it's claimed that Saddam was willing to use the WMDs while other countries that have WMDs are not.
This has always been used as a known fact and as one of the justifications of the war. So please enlighten me.
And, no, saying he's used WMDs against his own people is two exagerated facts added up to make a biased lie. I'm not saying it was not brutal, but from his POV they were not his people but a rebel minority that seized some of the richest oil fields and threatened his country, and it's an exageration to talk about WMDs here.

[Phoenix-D]

"And BTW I never understood why it's claimed that Saddam was willing to use the WMDs while other countries that have WMDs are not."

Because he used gas during the Iranian war perhaps?

[tesco samoa]

i believe that a cluster bomb is a greater 'wmd' than gas.

Also the depleted uraniam casings that are cast aside are a 'wmd'.

Tell me why it is ok for one nation to cluster bomb cities this year and why it very bad for a gas attack in 89. Is 89 the year we draw the line on when one was good and when one was bad. I never quite understood that ?

when do we invade congo ? that country needs help.

[Narrew]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
lets look at the Coalition's countries that have clean human rights records

Afghanistan , Albania , Angola , Azerbaijan , Colombia, Dominican Republic ,El Salvador , Eritrea ,Ethiopia ,Georgia ,Honduras ,Kuwait ,Nicaragua , Philippines ,Rwanda ,Turkey ,Uganda ,Uzbekistan
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bah http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif , when people think of the Coalition they think of 3 countries, US, UK and Spain. True these hanger on countries have alot of problems. I could debate you on Afghanistan (US forces are still there and there is yet a stable goverment, we can flip a coin), Turkey? bah, they shouldn't be considered since they didn't allow US forces through their country. African countries? Well, there is alot of issues there. Former Soviet Union countries, I would think they are trying to right wrongs, but then again it will take time. The other countries, yea they have issues.

As you can see when you said Coliation, the first thing I think of is those 3 (main) countries. Those are the 3 countries put their kahunas on the chopping block, the other countries have no vested interest either way. When we read all the negative stories in the media, we see things that start with "Bush and his coliation of evil doers", we do not read "Ethiopian troops march on the defensless Iraqis".

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
You did read me wrong. I believe they should have removed him in 90 when he was doing these mass killings..<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That we can agree with, we should have been there for the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south. But we didn't, we screwed up then. But, Saddam had over 12 years, how many more years would you have us wait?

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The french asked for 3 more weeks....
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The French? Oh, there is a great example of moral superiority http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif (yes, that is sarcasim), why did they want 3 more weeks? It sure as heck wasn't for 3 more weeks of WMD search, even if that is what was said. 12 years waiting for Saddam should have been enough. So what did the French want the 3 weeks for? Maybe they wanted more time for making false documents? Or perhaps they wanted 3 more weeks of skimming off more money from the Food for Oil? How about 3 more weeks helping get Iraqi officials fake passports? And finally, how about 3 more weeks to give Saddam time to get the WMDs out of the country?

I saw a report tonight that the UN thinks that Saddam had 7k to 20k liters of Anthrax. How easy would it be to get some of it out of the country in 1 or 2 liter bottles? Now I don't know what 1 liter of anthrax could do, but I doubt that it would be good.

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Time will tell if this was correct.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Ok, I swear I am not picking on you. But I got a chuckle on that Last comment (hopefully your chuckling at me also). Because I read your comment like this..."Time will tell if I was correct, and if I am proved wrong, well I sure as heck ain't going to admit it, because all that info was planted by the evil doers or aliens". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Hopefully I have got accross the point that I admit I am BIASED, I know that. And if after the 6 months we find no more WMDs than we have so far, I will admit that there was an intelligence failure, and as I said before I think Bush will take full accountability for that failure, he will not pass the buck. I will also be worried about where the WMDs went to, because I don't know of any agency that says there NEVER were any WMDs, just whether or not were they still around in his control.

Ok, group hug time...

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The french asked for 3 more weeks....
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No no no. I am not sure where you are getting this information but it is patently false. If the price for Franch joining the coalition had been three more weeks then three more weeks would have been gladly given. The fact is the French flatly and unequivically refused to accept ANY deadline that had the threat of military action at the end of it, period.

You can debate whether that was the correct course or not in retrospect. But don't try to say they simply wanted a little more time.

EDIT: I think you might be getting confused over a suggestion floated by the British during the effort to get another UN resolution at the end. It was shot down by the French.

Geoschmo

[ June 04, 2003, 02:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Phoenix-D]

"i believe that a cluster bomb is a greater 'wmd' than gas."

Cluster bombs are no different than regular bombs, except they're more OF them per bomber. Gas is considered different.

"Also the depleted uraniam casings that are cast aside are a 'wmd'."

Bzzt. Just based on the levels of radioactivity they might have, it would take years to kill anyone. Leftover mines, unexploded ordinance and such are a bigger hazard than uranium dust that probably settles quickly after being ejected, uranium being dense.

"Tell me why it is ok for one nation to cluster bomb cities this year and why it very bad for a gas attack in 89. Is 89 the year we draw the line on when one was good and when one was bad. I never quite understood that ?"

Two different weapons, for one. And you make it sound like we carpet bombed Bagdad; we didn't. If we had there wouldn't have been a museum for the Iraqis to loot, for one.

[tbontob]

Narrew, I agree with you when the dictator is a half-way sane individual.

I shudder to think what a insane dictator would do with WMD.

Many writers say that Hitler was not in his right mind at the end of the war. He blamed the German people for failing him in winning the war and was apparently so enraged by it that he didn't care if Germany was completely destroyed.

The reason given for Hitler not using mustard gas and other gases is that he was apparently gassed as a soldier (corporal?) in WWI. He found the experience so unpleasant, that he didn't amass any great amount of it in WW2.

But suppose he did amass a lot of mustard gas or had access to large quantities of WMD, would he have refrained from using them? We can only guess. He certainly didn't love the German people in the end because if he did, he would have surrendered months earlier in December when it became obvious the Battle of the Bulge would not succeed and he had little resources left to take the offensive.

In not surrending, he exposed the German people to untold privations. Only the intervention of the allies prevented a complete collapse. Later, the Marshall plan sponsored by the U.S. was instrumental in the economic recovery of Germany and other devastated countries.

It is scary when a person is so full of hate. When a person no longer cares, he is capable of anything.

[Aloofi]

In the 2004 elections I'm going to vote for ANYONE but Bush. That's for sure.

[dogscoff]

In the 2004 elections I'm going to vote for ANYONE but Bush. That's for sure.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Same here with Blair. (well, not anyone, but...)

What's more they'll both stay well away from me if they know what's good for 'em.

[geoschmo]

D, I didn't think you got to vote for PM over there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[dogscoff]

D, I didn't think you got to vote for PM over there.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What? Yeah we did, and now we're regretting it.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
D, I didn't think you got to vote for PM over there.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What? Yeah we did, and now we're regretting it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, I must have misunderstood your system. I didn't think you had direct elections for PM. I thought you elected representatives and whichever party had the majority got to pick the PM.

[Erax]

Originally posted by tbontob:
Many writers say that Hitler was not in his right mind at the end of the war. He blamed the German people for failing him in winning the war and was apparently so enraged by it that he didn't care if Germany was completely destroyed.

The reason given for Hitler not using mustard gas and other gases is that he was apparently gassed as a soldier (corporal?) in WWI. He found the experience so unpleasant, that he didn't amass any great amount of it in WW2.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now these are two topics I know something about. There is some evidence that Hitler became insane during the course of the war, as a result of an ill-cured case of syphilis, which he contracted as a young man in Vienna. If this is true, it would have been hushed up by the Nazis, so the chances of proving it conclusively (other than getting the KGB to hand over Hitler's body for a forensic examination, assuming they do have it) are scarce. Aside from this, it is well known that he was addicted to morphine towards the end of the war, which contributed to his mental instability.

Now for the gas. Yes, Hitler was gassed when he was a corporal in WWI and that is one reason why the Nazis never employed chemical weapons. But another important reason is that a German scientist had discovered the first nerve gas (by accident, and it nearly killed him) in the inter-war period. The Germans knew American scientists had been doing research with similar chemical compounds, and they knew the US had discovered something and were keeping it secret. They assumed the US also had nerve gas, but in fact the Americans had discovered DDT. The Nazis did manufacture nerve gas during the war, but never used it because they believed the Allies also had it and would use it back on them.

Edit : The two paragraphs above are about WW TWO. The next paragraph is about WW ONE. My original post was unintentionally misleading and might have caused some confusion.

An interesting side note : while the Germans were the first to use gas (chlorine gas, in fact) during WWI, they did not violate the Geneva Convention. That treaty prohibited the member nations from shooting projectiles or artillery shells with a gas payload. What the Germans did was to open the gas containers and let the wind carry the chlorine to the Allied trenches. Of course, this did not prevent the British and French from claiming the treaty had been violated and loading shells with gas to use against the Germans. If the Germans had won, you can bet it would be claimed that it was the Western Allies who broke the treaty (which is technically correct, I may add).

[ June 04, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: Chief Engineer Erax ]

[dogscoff]

while the Germans were the first to use gas (chlorine gas, in fact) during WWI, they did not violate the Geneva Convention
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not on that point anyway. However I'm fairly sure that the massacre millions of jews, gypsies, gays, mentally/physically handicapped and whoever the hell else they wanted rid of would be in contravention of the GC.

[/nitpick]

[Phoenix-D]

Wrong war scoff. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[tesco samoa]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3921/bush_visits_uss_truman.html

[Erax]

I've edited my post to eliminate any possible misunderstanding. I should have made it clear that I was 'changing wars' between the second and third paragraph.

[rextorres]

Wolfowitz: "Iraq war was about oil"

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,970334,00.html

[Erax]

It's almost as if he (Wolfowitz) were playing against his own team.

However, if Bush resigns, Cheney becomes president.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Edit : Although it is far more likely that his 'oil' remark was taken out of context.

[ June 04, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Chief Engineer Erax ]

[tesco samoa]

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html

document of that meeting rex.

: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had Banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other Banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

Nice....

tie that in with the Wolfowitz claim that WMD was just an excuse...

Nice....

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Wolfowitz: "Iraq war was about oil"

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,970334,00.html<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, not to get into another case of he said/she said, but there are sources that indicate the Guardian did a little "creative editing" on that quote.

Regarding North Korea:

"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage."

"The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8179271&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id =465812&rfi=6 (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8179271&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6)

Puts the comment in a totally different, and less diabolical light for sure.

That being said, Wolfowitz is a punk. I wouldn't shed a tear if the Administration fragged him even over a misquote. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

EDIT: Looks like Tesco beat me to the complete context quote. Although he doesn't appear to be getting the same interpretation out of it that I do. Cest la vie.

[ June 04, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[kalthalior]

Once again, Rex Posts a link to a secondary source that takes a statement out of context and puts its own spin on a perfectly innoculous statement. The situations, while having some similiarities, have very different cirumstances, which the speaker is pointing out. We have economic and political leverage on N. Korea that did not exist in the Iraq scenario.

Link to Full Q & A session: Wolfowitz transcript (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html)

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. (Italics mine) The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

EDIT: Wow, everybody is quick on the trigger today.
2nd Edit: Note the first question from the Japanese press Wolfowitz in Tokyo (http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030603-depsecdef0242.html)

[ June 04, 2003, 20:50: Message edited by: kalthalior ]

[Jack Simth]

Dislaimer: I say "Could," "Might," "if," and "had" on these. The article simply doesn't quote sufficiently to preclude mis-quoting, and so I am simply showing a way that things could have been warped; after all, I encounter such warps fairly frequently in my local paper; I can be suspicious of something Online. The article might be fairly representing things; but there isn't any way to tell. Likewise, I have no particular reason to believe what I have been typing here is necessarily true; the point is that Wolfowitz may not be fairly represented, and there is no way to tell if he is or not.

Edit: Oh, I guess there is a way to tell - find the transcript of the session the quotes come from. My bad....

Originally posted by rextorres:
Wolfowitz: "Iraq war was about oil"

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,970334,00.html<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only place the 'Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil' part appears in the linked article is in the title - and it is missing the quotes. The article quotes Wolfowitz only a five times, and they are single-word quotes on three of them:
1) "bureaucratic",
2) "swimming",
3) "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.",
4) "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction.",
5) "end"

1, 2, and 5 were used in what the reader will assume are paraphrasings of what Wolfowitz said; it would be very easy for these to have been taken out of context, as they are single-word quotes.

3 is odd, but it is of note that it doesn't say exactly what was asked, just "Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found". Had the exact question been "Why is North Korea being treated differently from Iraq?" with the part about nuclear power and WMD's being added later, then 3 could simply be a portion on a cognizant essay on why a regeme change in NK wouldn't work well - NK doesn't have much in the way of resources that would be necessary for rebuilding the economy, while Iraq does.

4 Isn't necessarily condeming. It could readily have been a matter of some people not thinking that Human Rights violations weren't enough to warrent intervention while others thought that treaty violations weren't enough to warrent intervention so they settled on WMD's. All the options listed here could have been cases made, and all could have been true (in that Iraq was doing Human Rights violations, violating the treaty, and holding WMD's); however, if everyone involved disagreed on what exactly constitued sufficent cause, but everyone agreed on the WMD's as being sufficent cause, then 4 would still make perfect sense to utter.

[ June 04, 2003, 20:54: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[kalthalior]

I also found this interesting seeing as how I was on the DoD site anyway.

DoD reply to intel questions raised in the press (http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030603-depsecdef0242.html)

[rextorres]

Originally posted by kalthalior:
Once again, Rex Posts a link to a secondary source that takes a statement out of context and puts its own spin on a perfectly innoculous statement.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I just posted the link without any comment. You can believe what you want. The first place the troops went, though, when they invaded Iraq were the oil fields. I guess that's just a coincidence.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by rextorres:
I just posted the link without any comment. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Kalthalior didn't say you commented on it. Why this sentence now? Originally posted by rextorres:
You can believe what you want. The first place the troops went, though, when they invaded Iraq were the oil fields. I guess that's just a coincidence.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even if it isn't a coincidence, it doesn't imply anything nefarious. It could simply be a matter of safegaurding the area's most economically valuable resource to make certain it will be there when the country needs rebuilding. Besides, as I recal, Saddam had set them on fire, and they were covering the countryside in noxious (but not fatal) smoke; they needed to be put out, and Saddam wasn't going to do so, as he had ordered the fires set in the first place.

[ June 04, 2003, 21:21: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[tesco samoa]

narrew. time will tell if this is correct *** usa's foreign policy***

P-D.

Lets take a busy street conor.

Now lets let off some gas. ( gas has been proven to be a very inefficent means of combat, more for terror than any thing else )
Now lets let off a cluster bomb
You tell tell me what is a 'wmd' in this situation.

[tesco samoa]

Geo... you have to come and work in a stamping plant. When it is quiet... It is really quiet... Then all hell breaks loose... ( like the venom song http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) then quiet.... Then code away and then when you have to document the stuff... you look at web sites... Any thing to avoid documentation... ( p.s. I know that this is typing as well ... Irony yes. CMM and Iso No. )

His quotes are quite classic....

If SNL was in its hey days... there would some fun at his expense... I know this is ot... But I always loved the Ronald Regan ones where he is running everything...

[Fyron]

If SNL was in its hey days... there would some fun at his expense... I know this is ot... But I always loved the Ronald Regan ones where he is running everything...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think I have ever seen a rerun of SNL that had a skit with Reagen in it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif They must not like playing those episodes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by rextorres:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by kalthalior:
Once again, Rex Posts a link to a secondary source that takes a statement out of context and puts its own spin on a perfectly innoculous statement.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I just posted the link without any comment. You can believe what you want. The first place the troops went, though, when they invaded Iraq were the oil fields. I guess that's just a coincidence.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's see... there are oil fields in southeast Iraq, and troops from Kuwait (roughly SE of Iraq) had to go northwest (and through those oil fields) to get to Baghdad. Yeah, must be a conspiracy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Do you truly believe what you say, or are you just trying to get reactions?

[oleg]

The only building guarded by US first week in Bahdad was the oil ministery. Practically across the street mob looted Bahdad national museum and hospitals. No US troops were posted there. That set priorities right.

[rextorres]

Actually they sent special forces into the oil fields to guard them before the bombing started - that's how they were able to disable the boobie traps.

A senior administration official admits that Iraq was important because of the oil. Bush and Cheney are oil men and most of their political contributions came from the energy industry which has a huge interest in getting Iraqi oil contract.

It's been admitted that WMD were just an excuse - they've caught most of the senior people that would know of the weapons plus all their underlings and despite huge monetary rewards they all say there were no weapons.

If it was for humanitarian reason their are plenty odf countries with EXTREMELY worse humanitarian records -than Iraq and Bush and Co. ignore it - so I don't buy that argument.

I suppose it goes against the vision of the world that some people want to have of the U.S. as the good guys, but historically wars for the most part have been fought for resources.

[ June 05, 2003, 20:45: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[kalthalior]

THE GUARDIAN now has a correction on its main page regarding the Wolfowitz oil story:

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

Oh, I almost forgot this:
Another Guardian correction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,970468,00.html)

EDIT: BTW, maybe Rex should read this:

Human Rights Report on Iraq (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast4.html)

I'm not aware of many countries that can compare, but perhaps I'm blissfully ignorant.

[ June 05, 2003, 21:34: Message edited by: kalthalior ]

[Aloofi]

You got to be dreaming if you expect these corporate guys to do anything out of their kindness.
This war was for oil, and for Strategical considerartion, and to see if it could help the economy a little bit.
If there is some good that ChickenHawk Brigade can do while making a profit, like removing an evil dictator, they will do it, but if they have to go out of their way to do some good, I recomend you buy a Hybernation chamber for the waiting.
And of course, if they have to do some evil to make some profit, like cutting a sovereign country in half or recognizing a terrorist goverment that doesn't affect american interests, they will do it for sure.
Its all about the money, baby.

[geoschmo]

Oh yeah. They have a great one of Phil Hartman playing Reagan. He's in the oval office acting all grandpa like for some visiting Girl Scout troop, then as soon as they walk out the door it's like, OK let's get to work! And this panel slides down on the wall and and it's this world map and he's got a room full of lackey's and he's giving them all orders like Patton or something. I think it was during the Iran Contra stuff and he giving them all detailed instructions on how to get funds here and wepons there. And then he jumps on the phone and he's talking fluent German and Chinese and all this stuff. It's a riot. I see it occasionally on Comedy Central. One of my Favorites.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Unknown_Enemy's personal point : I never appreciate when a politician takes me for an idiot. Even if I am not US citizen and do not vote for him.

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
5 June 2003

by Dr. George Friedman

WMD

Summary

The inability to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has created a political crisis in the United States and Britain. Within the two governments, there are recriminations and brutal political infighting over responsibility. Stratfor warned in February that the unwillingness of the U.S. government to articulate its real, strategic reasons for the war -- choosing instead to lean on WMD as the justification -- would lead to a deep crisis at some point. That moment seems to be here.

Analysis

"Weapons of mass destruction" is promising to live up to its name: The issue may well result in the mass destruction of senior British and American officials who used concerns about WMD in Iraq as the primary, public justification for going to war. The simple fact is that no one has found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and -- except for some vans which may have been used for biological weapons -- no evidence that Iraq was working to develop such weapons. Since finding WMD is a priority for U.S. military forces, which have occupied Iraq for more than a month, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction not only has become an embarrassment, it also has the potential to mushroom into a major political crisis in the United States and Britain. Not only is the political opposition exploiting the paucity of Iraqi WMD, but the various bureaucracies are using the issue to try to discredit each other. It's a mess.

On Jan. 21, 2003, Stratfor published an analysis titled Smoke and Mirrors: The United States, Iraq and Deception, which made the following points:

1. The primary reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was strategic and not about weapons of mass destruction.

2. The United States was using the WMD argument primarily to justify the attack to its coalition partners.

3. The use of WMD rather than strategy as the justification for the war would ultimately create massive confusion as to the nature of the war the United States was fighting.

As we put it:

"To have allowed the WMD issue to supplant U.S. strategic interests as the justification for war has created a crisis in U.S. strategy. Deception campaigns are designed to protect strategies, not to trap them. Ultimately, the foundation of U.S. grand strategy, coalitions and the need for clarity in military strategy have collided. The discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will not solve the problem, nor will a coup in Baghdad. In a war [against Islamic extremists] that will Last for years, maintaining one's conceptual footing is critical. If that footing cannot be maintained -- if the requirements of the war and the requirements of strategic clarity are incompatible -- there are more serious issues involved than the future of Iraq."

The failure to enunciate the strategic reasons for the invasion of Iraq--of cloaking it in an extraneous justification--has now come home to roost. Having used WMD as the justification, the inability to locate WMD in Iraq has undermined the credibility of the United States and is tearing the government apart in an orgy of finger-pointing.

To make sense of this impending chaos, it is important to start at the beginning -- with al Qaeda. After the Sept. 11 attacks, al Qaeda was regarded as an extraordinarily competent global organization. Sheer logic argued that the network would want to top the Sept. 11 strikes with something even more impressive. This led to a very reasonable fear that al Qaeda possessed or was in the process of obtaining WMD.

U.S. intelligence, shifting from its sub-sensitive to hyper-sensitive mode, began putting together bits of intelligence that tended to show that what appeared to be logical actually was happening. The U.S. intelligence apparatus now was operating in a worst-case scenario mode, as is reasonable when dealing with WMD. Lower-grade intelligence was regarded as significant. Two things resulted: The map of who was developing weapons of mass destruction expanded, as did the probabilities assigned to al Qaeda's ability to obtain WMD. The very public outcome -- along with a range of less public events -- was the "axis of evil" State of the Union speech, which identified three countries as having WMD and likely to give it to al Qaeda. Iraq was one of these countries.

If we regard chemical weapons as WMD, as has been U.S. policy, then it is well known that Iraq had WMD, since it used them in the past. It was a core assumption, therefore, that Iraq continued to possess WMD. Moreover, U.S. intelligence officials believed there was a parallel program in biological weapons, and also that Iraqi leaders had the ability and the intent to restart their nuclear program, if they had not already done so. Running on the worst-case basis that was now hard-wired by al Qaeda into U.S. intelligence, Iraq was identified as a country with WMD and likely to pass them on to al Qaeda.

Iraq, of course, was not the only country in this class. There are other sources of WMD in the world, even beyond the "axis of evil" countries. Simply invading Iraq would not solve the fundamental problem of the threat from al Qaeda. As Stratfor has always argued, the invasion of Iraq served a psychological and strategic purpose: Psychologically, it was designed to demonstrate to the Islamic world the enormous power and ferocity of the United States; strategically, it was designed to position the United States to coerce countries such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran into changing their policies toward suppressing al Qaeda operations in their countries. Both of these missions were achieved.

WMD was always a side issue in terms of strategic planning. It became, however, the publicly stated moral, legal and political justification for the war. It was understood that countries like France and Russia had no interest in collaborating with Washington in a policy that would make the United States the arbiter of the Middle East. Washington had to find a justification for the war that these allies would find irresistible.

That justification was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. From the standpoint of U.S. intelligence, this belief became a given. Everyone knew that Iraq once had chemical weapons, and no reasonable person believed that Saddam Hussein had unilaterally destroyed them. So it appeared to planners within the Bush administration that they were on safe ground. Moreover, it was assumed that other major powers would regard WMD in Hussein's hands as unacceptable and that therefore, everyone would accept the idea of a war in which the stated goal -- and the real outcome -- would be the destruction of Iraq's weapons.

This was the point on which Washington miscalculated. The public justification for the war did not compel France, Germany or Russia to endorse military action. They continued to resist because they fully understood the outcome -- intended or not -- would be U.S. domination of the Middle East, and they did not want to see that come about. Paris, Berlin and Moscow turned the WMD issue on its head, arguing that if that was the real issue, then inspections by the United Nations would be the way to solve the problem. Interestingly, they never denied that Iraq had WMD; what they did deny was that proof of WMD had been found. They also argued that over time, as proof accumulated, the inspection process would either force the Iraqis to destroy their WMD or justify an invasion at that point. What is important here is that French and Russian leaders shared with the United States the conviction that Iraq had WMD. Like the Americans, they thought weapons of mass destruction -- particularly if they were primarily chemical -- was a side issue; the core issue was U.S. power in the Middle East.

In short, all sides were working from the same set of assumptions. There was not much dispute that the Baathist regime probably had WMD. The issue between the United States and its allies was strategic. After the war, the United States would become the dominant power in the region, and it would use this power to force regional governments to strike at al Qaeda. Germany, France and Russia, fearing the growth of U.S. power, opposed the war. Rather than clarifying the chasm in the alliance, the Bush administration permitted the arguments over WMD to supplant a discussion of strategy and left the American public believing the administration's public statements -- smoke and mirrors -- rather than its private view.

The Bush administration -- and France, for that matter -- all assumed that this problem would disappear when the U.S. military got into Iraq. WMD would be discovered, the public justification would be vindicated, the secret goal would be achieved and no one would be the wiser. What they did not count on -- what is difficult to believe even now -- is that Hussein actually might not have WMD or, weirder still, that he hid them or destroyed them so efficiently that no one could find them. That was the kicker the Bush administration never counted on.

The matter of whether Hussein had WMD is still open. Answers could range to the extremes: He had no WMD or he still has WMD, being held in reserve for his guerrilla war. But the point here is that the WMD question was not the reason the United States went to war. The war was waged in order to obtain a strategic base from which to coerce countries such as Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia into using their resources to destroy al Qaeda within their borders. From that standpoint, the strategy seems to be working.

However, by using WMD as the justification for war, the United States walked into a trap. The question of the location of WMD is important. The question of whether it was the CIA or Defense Department that skewed its reports about the location of Iraq's WMD is also important. But these questions are ultimately trivial compared to the use of smoke and mirrors to justify a war in which Iraq was simply a single campaign. Ultimately, the problem is that it created a situation in which the American public had one perception of the reason for the war while the war's planners had another. In a democratic society engaged in a war that will Last for many years, this is a dangerous situation to have created.

[ June 06, 2003, 17:26: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
Unknown_Enemy's personal point : I never appreciate when a politician takes me for an idiot. Even if I am not US citizen and do not vote for him.

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
WMD
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I won't repeat the whole post - no need.

I begin to really doubt the integrity of Stratfor. I recall discussing this topic just as the war was beginning, comparing the relative merits of Stratfor (a paid Subscriber service) to Strategypage (a free or donation-supported site). Stratfor's read on how the battle of Baghdad would unfold was dead-on wrong, and StrategyPage hit it dead-on right. Now Stratfor is picking up the "where are the WMD's?" chant too.

Well, first off, the "panic" in the US government, at least, does not yet appear to be anywhere but in the minds of those who want to see this made into an embarassment to it.

Secondly, there are any number of plausible reasons why WMD's have not yet appeared in the quantity that some critics are demanding. A) They are still hidden in various places in Iraq awaiting recovery. It's not like Saddam didn't have advance warning we were coming, after all... B) They have been spirited away to other countries (my personal suspiction, and Syria is my prime suspect) and/or terrorist Groups (stock up on your duct tape...) C) The WMD's *were* destroyed before the war, but for reasons of personal/national pride, Saddam would not cooperate. (A rather fanciful theory I heard was that the WMD's were destroyed after Gulf War I, but Sadddam's cronies pretended to him that they were not to save their own skins. Like I said, rather fanciful, but given the level of dysfunctionality in these tyrranical regines, who knows?) D) Some combination of the above three. (My second choice)

Major point - if by this time next year no appreciable WMD stockpiles have been accounted for, there indeed would be cause for concern politically. But, like everything else about this crazy conflict, the MTV Generation's time frame for expected results has struck again. For something that purports to be a serious outlet for strategic studes, Stratfor should know better. All the more reason I stick with StrategyPage.

[General Woundwort]

Just in case anyone is interested, here is what StrategyPage has to say on the WMD issue...



Does Accounting For Saddam's WMD Matter?
by Austin Bay
April 30, 2003

Yes, it matters -- and it matters a great deal.

Accounting for Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs is absolutely essential if America intends to achieve victory in the War on Terror.

Commentators who think otherwise miss the crucial strategic challenge. The formula for Hell in the 21st century, the wicked linkage of terrorists, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction, remains the fundamental issue vexing those on this planet who work for stability, prosperity and genuine peace.

Several pundits now write that the evident evils of Saddam's regime, revealed in piles of stacked skulls, provide sufficient reason for "waging the war."

As someone who has for two decades publicly deplored Saddam's relentless butchery, I agree that liberating the Iraqi people is a virtue and a blessed success.

However, we are engaged in a much larger and longer war, with Iraq being one phase. The object lesson U.S. and British military forces dealt Saddam's regime puts other dictators (a score of petty Saddams) on notice. Their states, the gutters where terrorists connect with money and weapons, are no longer Free Parking, a playpen for vile shenanigans safe behind the false sovereignty imposed by tyrannical oppression. America can crack rogues and crack them quickly.

But breaking the Hell formula and achieving victory in the long war means we must be able to accurately locate and then eliminate the dictators' chemical, biological and nuclear arms Caches. This challenge includes destroying the ways and means of acquiring and manufacturing such weapons.

Finding chem, bio and nuclear weapons evidence in Iraq is literally a test of our intelligence. Intelligence information gathering and assessment are the first line of defense and offense in the War on Terror. In February, Tony Blair said every nation with an intelligence service knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Is this a massive intelligence failure? I doubt it -- but if there is, it must be addressed quickly and thoroughly.

Saddam has had chemical weapons and he's used them. Ask victimized Kurds and Iranians. Given U.S. pressure and the build-up of U.S. forces on his borders, it's conceivable that in late 2002 Saddam concluded he would destroy his weapons but retain "seed crystals" for recreating weapons programs as soon as U.N. sanctions ended. "Dual-use" technologies would be part of this program (for example, chemical precursors that could be used for both insecticide or nerve gas). If this is the case, documenting Iraqi gimmicks will improve counter-proliferation intelligence collection and analysis.

"He shipped the gas to Syria" is another alternative. Saddam reportedly bought British left-wing "peace" MP George Galloway's support -- renting nerve agent storage sites in Syria is simply business as usual among tyrants. If that's the case, Syria must suffer stiff consequences for that bargain.

If no weapons or traces of weapons are found, the Bush Administration will legitimately face charges of lying or exaggerating. The credibility of the U.S. president and secretary of state are on the line, and their credibility is extremely important in continuing to effectively wage the War on Terror. (I bolded this - just to show that they're not ideologues. - G.W.)

So how long could it take to shakedown Iraq for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?

One former military planner provided this best guess on April 15: a full-scale inspection effort would take 90 to 120 days. The estimate posited a focused effort of 200 mobile teams and "quick response" laboratory support for quality testing and evaluation. This field effort would be backed by a dedicated intelligence-gathering and analysis group. One of the intelligence group's primary concerns would be the rapid and thorough debrief of captured regime officials and key subordinates active in weapons of mass destruction research, development and deployment. This estimate used 1,000 potential weapon sites as a baseline.

Operations of this size aren't wired in an afternoon; the number of field teams currently deployed hasn't been publicized. In late April, Gen. Tommy Franks said that several thousand sites would be surveyed. Syria remains a question mark. However, four months still strikes me as a reasonable time frame.

That means early September is a fair date for drawing conclusions about Saddam's weapons. That should be adequate time to find and document the telltale toxic spill, the concealed bacterial culture, the buried lab or -- heaven forbid -- the hidden bomb.

To find out more about Austin Bay and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. (http://www.creators.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2001 - 2003 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[Unknown_Enemy]

Saddam reportedly bought British left-wing "peace" MP George Galloway's support <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I stopped reading this article after that passage. Reporting without sources/citations accusation of high treason from a UK MP seems a bit....mad. The fact that they wrote "reportedly" change nothing to it. They did report on allegations of high treason without a single element of proof. I was not impressed the first time you cited StrategyPage, in fact I found doubtful the reasonning, but this is laughtable.

Let me make the following paraphrase : "it is reported all americans are KluKlux Klan supporters" Then me asking "but General Woundwort, why do you burn black people ?".

Such a STUPID statement and grave accusation based on nothing is as stupid as the statement on the UK minister. Hell, from what I know, you could be of african origin.

But anyway, thanks for the article. It helped me to remind that you sometime need to pay to get quality news or analysis.

[ June 08, 2003, 10:10: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Saddam reportedly bought British left-wing "peace" MP George Galloway's support <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I stopped reading this article after that passage. Reporting without sources/citations accusation of high treason from a UK MP seems a bit....mad. The fact that they wrote "reportedly" change nothing to it. They did report on allegations of high treason without a single element of proof. I was not impressed the first time you cited StrategyPage, in fact I found doubtful the reasonning, but this is laughtable.

Let me make the following paraphrase : "it is reported all americans are KluKlux Klan supporters" Then me asking "but General Woundwort, why do you burn nigers ?".

Such a STUPID statement and grave accusation based on nothing is as stupid as the statement on the UK minister. Hell, from what I know, you could be of african origin.

But anyway, thanks for the article. It helped me to remind that you sometime need to pay to get quality news or analysis.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A pity. Well, suit yourself. If you had finished the article, you would have noted that they put the time frame as to when we will know if Iraq still had WMD even sooner than I did - about September. Well, the truth will out sooner or later, to somebody's grief - Bush's or his enemies. In the meantime, I'll go back to my Highliner Mod and let this thread pass - the tone of discussion here is a bit ugly, and the possibilites for constructive dialogue seemingly nil.

[oleg]

I just watched on BBC the interview with former weapon inspector (sorry, forgot his name). When asked about "missing stockpile of VI gas and anthrax", he said it was based on 1991 data. He also said Iraqi' VI gas and anthrax spores are completly inactive after three years. Thus, they possed no danger in 1994.. It is 2003 and Bush/Blair still scare us with those mythical weapons. And please don't tell me they did not know the facts. Well, may be Bush dos't, but Blair !! It really sucks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Unknown_Enemy]

the tone of discussion here is a bit ugly, and the possibilites for constructive dialogue seemingly nil <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Last time I checked, rumors and insinuations were neither part of constructive dialogue or quality journalism.

[QBrigid]

So the war is about oil. Bush and Cheney are oil men. Now, I do believe in the business world high demand, low supply increases profits. Soooo, if the war is about oil, and Bush et al making money from it....Why in the world did our troops protect the oil fields?

If we wanted Iraq's oil for ourselves to stimulate the U.S. economy, why in the world would we want to STOP buying oil with food, knowing we produce way more food than we know what to do with? Before the war we were the major exporter of Iraqi goods. 47% of all Iraq's exports came to the U.S., more than any other country(CIA Fact book if you'd like to check my source).

So I still do not understand how this war was for Oil.

What I do understand is that Iraq threatened us, and refused to prove they had destroyed WMD.

What exactly am I missing here?

[Baron Munchausen]

You are thinking too simplistically. Sure, Bush and Cheney are looking out for their own interests. Just like the Saudis are looking out for their interests by trying to keep the price of oil in a certain range. If it goes too high, people can't afford to continue consuming and the economy crashes. End of profits. If it goes to low, the price doesn't cover production costs (drilling wells, building tankers and refineries, paying bribes to politicians, etc.). End of profits. There is a 'zone' that they want the price of oil to stay within.

So yes, the war could have been about oil. Because securing the supply from the second largest known reserves in the world is a good way to stabilize the price for the long-term future. The new Iraqi regime will have essentially the same interests as the Saudis. They want the price to be high enough to make a good profit, but not so high that it drives the Western economies down. That way they would get maximum return on their resource, and so would their corporate partners in the US (and other western countries).

Personally, I think the oil is just a perk. It's far more likely that the war was simply imperialism. The US can't have this dictator defying them for years and years and maintain credibility as ruler of the world. Gotta get rid of him. It was obviously not for any of the stated reasons. They kept changing to suit the moment. He was just grasping for whatever 'hot button' he could find to over-ride the objections. But it seems equally unlikely to have been about oil. The development of Russian and other central-asian oil reserves is well underway. We'll be swimming in oil within 10 years. We could have left Iraq to wither and die for the rest of the century with no problem to oil supplies.

[ June 07, 2003, 23:13: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[tesco samoa]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/index.html

Interesting article

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

Hmmm...

I do hope that the reason this war happened was because of the threat.

For if it was about economics and securing those economics for the 21st centry that is frightening. As is those who support war for economic gains.

[mac5732]

In my opinion only, I think time is what is needed before final disposition on the whys and what nots of the war. There had to be something there as both Bush and Blair knew they would catch flak if nothing was found. Therefore, since they are still uncovering mass graves and other things, My opinion is that more time needs to be given before any condamnation for the reasons of the war in regards to other reasons then mass destruction weapons. Also don't forget, the Iraqi's had years to hide or redeploy them during years prior to the invasion. As for informants, My opinion again, is that until the proof of Sadam's true whereabouts, whether alive or dead is determined, many Iraqis are scared to give info for fear of repriasals or that he is alive and planning his comback..

These are opinions only

just some ideas Mac

[Fyron]

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No. Lying is part of being a politician. Spreading propaganda is not an impeachable action. If it was, all of the US's wartime presidents would have been impeached. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[dogscoff]

So I still do not understand how this war was for Oil.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bush said that the Iraqi oil reserves are being protected and preserved for the Iraqi people. And I believe him. Bush isn't planning to steal Iraqi oil. He wants the Iraqi people to exploit it, make moeny from it, and then spend that money on rebuilding Iraq.

And who will be doing that rebuilding? Who has already secured the billions of dollars worth of contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq's devastated infrastructure? Yup, you guessed it, Bush and his cronies. His colleagues, freinds and financial backers all have fingers in the pie.

Pick your own supporting article. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bush+iraq+rebuilding+infrastructure+contracts&btnG=Google+Search)

That said, I don't believe this was the primary reason for the war, it was just a tasty little bonus. I think what it really comes down to is global dominance, as outlined in the PNAC. Anything else is just a cover-story, imho.

[Aloofi]

Artista: Laura Brannigan
Música: Auto Controle

"Oh, a noite é meu mundo
A luz da cidade pintou, garota
Durante o dia nada importa
É a noite que elogia
Durante a noite, sem nenhum controle
Pela parede algo está quebrando
Visto branco enquanto você caminha
Pela rua da minha alma
Você levou meu ego, você levou meu auto-controle
Você me pegou vivendo somente para a noite
Antes da manhã vir, a história conta
Você levou meu ego, você levou meu auto-controle
Outra noite, outro dia se passa
Eu nunca me paro para saber porque
Você me ajuda a esquecer de exercer minha função
Você levou meu ego, você levou meu auto-controle
Eu, eu vivo entre as criaturas da noite
Eu não tenho a força para tentar e lutar
Contra um novo amanhã,
Então suponho que eu só acreditei nisto
Que o amanhã nunca virá
Uma noite segura,
Eu estou vivendo na floresta de meu sonho
Eu sei que a noite não é como parecia e
Eu tenho que acreditar em algo,
Então eu me farei acreditar nisto
Que esta noite nunca acabará
Oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh
Oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh
Oh, a noite é meu mundo
A luz da cidade pintou, garota
Durante o dia nada importa
É a noite que elogia
Eu, eu vivo entre as criaturas da noite
Eu não tenho a força para tentar e lutar
Contra um novo amanhã,
Então suponho que eu só acreditei nisto
Que o amanhã nunca virá

Uma noite segura
Eu estou vivendo na floresta de meu sonho
Eu sei que a noite não é como pareceria
Eu tenho que acreditar em algo,
Então eu me farei acreditar nisto
Que esta noite nunca acabará
Oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh
Você levou meu ego, você levou meu auto-controle"

I'm learning Portugese now with the songs I used to like when i was in kindergarden. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
.
.
.

[ June 09, 2003, 14:18: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

[Aloofi]

Hey, I just found a picture of my first love!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I remember fighting with another kid because of her...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002IGR.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[Aloofi]

Amazing the things that can be found Online. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
But I remember her with a longer hair....

[Erax]

Good translation.

(I spot an age difference here... I was entering high school when 'Self Control' started playing in these parts.) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

How good is your Portuguese ? Try to find anything by Os Mamonas Assassinas, I think you'll like them !

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Chief Engineer Erax:
Good translation.

(I spot an age difference here... I was entering high school when 'Self Control' started playing in these parts.) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

How good is your Portuguese ? Try to find anything by Os Mamonas Assassinas, I think you'll like them !<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My portuguese sux . I can read it, and I'm improving my pronounciation, but I'm in trouble with the irregular verbs, and some other gramatical issues.
Is it there any good writer that you would recommend? Reading original works have always helped me.
Oh, I didn't do that translation. I was looking for Portuguese verbs Online and I found it. I think the song should say "Você levou meu auto" instead of "Você levou meu ego", right?
Or maybe I didn't get the song's meaning in English to begin with.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[primitive]

Talk about OT.

Here are a little piece of music to bring the thread back on topic (prolly posted before, but who cares). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Real Saddam (http://www.madbLast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=2224)

[tesco samoa]

hehe

http://www.theonion.com/onion3922/infograph_3922.html

[tesco samoa]

Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds

Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.
The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer Last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government - and revealed by The Observer Last week - is hugely embarrassing for Blair, who had used the discovery of the alleged mobile labs as part of his efforts to silence criticism over the failure of Britain and the US to find any weapons of mass destruction since the invasion of Iraq.

The row is expected to be re-ignited this week with Robin Cook and Clare Short, the two Cabinet Ministers who resigned over the war, both due to give evidence to a House of Commons inquiry into whether intelligence was manipulated in the run-up to the war. It will be the first time that both have been grilled by their peers on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee over what the Cabinet was told in the run-up to the war.

MPs will be keen to explore Cook's explanation when he resigned that, while he believed Iraq did have some WMD capability, he did not believe it was weaponised.

The Prime Minister and his director of strategy and communications, ALastair Campbell, are expected to decline invitations to appear. While MPs could attempt to force them, this is now thought unlikely to happen.

The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, is expected to give evidence the week after.

The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control.

[tesco samoa]

THis is from the WP.

Interesting read

A Plot to Deceive?

By Robert Kagan

Sunday, June 8, 2003; Page B07

There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency analysts claimed Last September merely that Iraq "probably" possessed "chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably" possessed "bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve agent.

This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have -- exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first place."

The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt.

Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report Last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we'll find them or we'll find out what happened to them?

The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared Last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.

So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.

The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Alpha Kodiak]

This all leads to some really interesting speculation. It seems that if Bush/Blair et al had been deceiving us on the existence of WMD that they would have been prepared to plant evidence to justify their position after they had control of Iraq, as not finding WMD is entirely too embarassing. Add to that the fact that has been repeatedly brought up that even opponents of the war thought Saddam had WMD and it leaves us with an a real puzzle.

It seems to me that there are three possibilities. First, it could have all been destroyed prior to the war, but Saddam was unwilling or unable to accurately document the destruction. Possible but unlikely.

Second, they could still be hidden in Iraq. Only time will tell on this one.

Third, and I think scariest, is the possibility that they were moved out of Iraq, probably to Syria. Again, only time will tell.

There is the fourth possibility, that they didn't exist at all, but I think the WP article Tesco quoted was pretty thorough in refuting that.

I just hope that, assuming it is out there somewhere, we find it before it finds us.

[tesco samoa]

I always thought that the "WMD" that the 'bad guys' have are over rated.

Fuel based weapons , nuclear and cluster type weapons are very deadly.

Especially the Fuel based weapons.

The germans used to use one in ww2 that the allied soldiers called snow. A bomber would fly over the normandy coast and release these white phosphorous fragments ( the size of soap ) They looked like a blizzard. They would also fire them out of the bigger guns. Anything they touched would burn.

Anyways enough of the history lession on anti-personal weapons.

Here is one that is off topic. Quiz time

Who invented the first APC?( armored personal carrier )
What battle was it first used in?
What was it made out of ?

[Phoenix-D]

Tesco, that isn't that different from, say, napalm. And you're missing the "mass" in "mass destruction". Chemicals I would argue don't fit, but biologicals properly dispersed do..since the breed. Nukes of course..one bomb, minus one city or for the smaller ones a good chunk of it.

EDIT: compare that to, for example, the car bombing of the WTC in 1993. As it is it did fairly minor damage. With a nuke onboard instead? The entire WTC complex gone as a -minimum- for a very small weak nuke.

[ June 17, 2003, 02:58: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

[Narrew]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Quiz time
Who invented the first APC?( armored personal carrier )
What battle was it first used in?
What was it made out of ?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) Spartans
2) Trojan War
3) Wood in the shape of a horse http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

well, did I win a prize?

[Alpha Kodiak]

My first inclinations was to dismiss chemical weapons as "not that bad" myself, but then I did a little checking into the sarin attack in Tokyo in 1995. While the number of deaths wasn't terribly high, twelve or so, several thousand people wound up in the hospital.

The Terrorist Attack with Sarin in Tokyo (http://www.sos.se/SOS/PUBL/REFERENG/9803020E.htm)

Further, there seems to be some long term effects of sarin on memory that are concerning, though more study is needed.

Effects of Sarin on the Nervous System... (http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/109p1169-1173nishiwaki/abstract.html)

There also are a number of studies indicating that low levels of sarin exposure may be a contributing factor to Gulf War syndrome.

Gulf War Syndrome Research... (http://www.chronicfatiguesupport.com/library/showarticle.cfm/id/4479)

All in all, pretty nasty stuff, and while not nukes, I believe they would be more effective in a terror role than conventional explosives. As far as things like cluster bombs are concerned, it is highly unlikely that terrorists are going to have the means to deliver cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives or other "conventional" munitions. The reason we didn't want Saddam to have WMD was primarily the fear that he would pass them on to terrorists.

[Phoenix-D]

"All in all, pretty nasty stuff, and while not nukes, I believe they would be more effective in a terror role than conventional explosives."

Point. Something about screwing with the air you're breathing freaks people out more than explosives..hmm, imagine that.

[Thermodyne]

This is almost a must read. Could be true of could be pure recycled hay. But it seems to demand some debate.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,480226,00.html

[dogscoff]

"Emergency anti-terrorism" powers abused. (http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/09/week_2/10_arms.html) Peaceful protestors are denied their rights to protest by officers quoting anti-terrorist legislation.

How long before any form of public protest, or unbiased reporting, or membership of opposition political parties constitutes "terrorism" and justifies the use of "emergency powers"?

It's a slippery slope...

[tesco samoa]

Thermo. Now add the USA side to that link. Cause you know its there.... And you know where it leads to...

[Loser]

[edit: looks like I came off a lot stronger than I intended, or rather I used stronger language than was warranted. Must be more carefull in the future, and for now I'll just back off. Sorry, Tesco.]

[ September 11, 2003, 16:59: Message edited by: Loser ]

[tesco samoa]

another interesting article

Sources:
THE SIERRA TIMES, February 9, 2003
Title: "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq"
Author: William Clark

FEASTA, January 2003
Title: "Oil, Currency, and the War on Iraq"
Author: Cóilín Nunan

THE NATION, September 23, 2002
Title: The End of Empire
Author: William Greider

Faculty Evaluators: Wingham Liddell Ph.D, Tony White Ph.D , Phil Beard Ph.D.,
Thom Lough Ph.D.
Student Researchers: Effren Trejo, Kathleen Glover, Dylan Citrin-Cummins

President Richard Nixon removed U.S. currency from the gold standard in 1971. Since then, the world's supply of oil has been traded in U.S. fiat dollars, making the dollar the dominant world reserve currency. Countries must provide the United States with goods and services for dollars - which the United States can freely print. To purchase energy and pay off any IMF debts, countries must hold vast dollar reserves. The world is attached to a currency that one country can produce at will. This means that - in addition to controlling world trade - the United States is importing substantial quantities of goods and services for very low relative costs.
The Euro has begun to emerge as a serious threat to dollar hegemony and U.S. economic dominance. The dollar may prevail throughout the Western Hemisphere, but the Euro and dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East.
In November 2000, Iraq became the first OPEC nation to begin selling its oil for Euros. Since then, the value of the Euro has increased 17%, and the dollar has begun to decline. One important reason for the invasion and installation of a U.S. dominated government in Iraq was to force the country back to the dollar. Another reason for the invasion is to dissuade further OPEC momentum toward the Euro, especially from Iran- the second largest OPEC producer, who was actively discussing a switch to Euros for its oil exports.
It is estimated that the dollar is currently overvalued by at least 40%, burdening the United States with a huge trade deficit. Conversely, the euro-zone does not run huge deficits, uses higher interest rates, and has an increasingly larger share of world trade. As the euro establishes its durability and comes into wider use, the dollar will no longer be the world's only option. At that point, it would be easier for other nations to exercise financial leverage against the United States without damaging themselves or the global financial system as a whole.
Faced with waning international economic power, military superiority is the United States' only tool for world domination. Although, the expense of this military control is unsustainable, says William Clark, "one of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America's preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel." If American power is ever perceived globally as a greater liability than the dangers of toppling the international order, the U.S. systems of control can be eliminated and collapsed. When acting against world opinion - as in Iraq - an international consensus could brand the United States as a "rogue nation."

Updated By William Clark: Only time will tell what will happen in the aftermath of the Iraq war and U.S. occupation, but I am hopeful my research will contribute to the historical record and help others understand one of the important but hidden macroeconomic reasons for why we conquered Iraq. The Bush/Cheney administration probably believes that the occupation of Iraq and the installation of a large and permanent U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf region will stop other OPEC producers from even considering switching the denomination of their oil sales from dollars to Euros. However, using the military to enforce dollar hegemony for oil transactions strikes me as a rather unwieldy and inappropriate strategy. Regrettably, President Bush and his neo-conservative advisors have exacerbated "anti-American" sentiments by applying a military option in Iraq that is in essence an economic problem. History may not look kindly upon their actions.
Despite the U.S. media reporting otherwise, the current wave of 'global anti-Americanism' is not against the American people or against American values - but against the hypocrisy of militant American Imperialism. The foreign polices of the neoconservatives may be creating the regrettable emergence of a possible European-Russian-Chinese alliance in an effort to counter American Imperialism. It appears that the structural imbalances in the U.S. economy, along with the Bush administration's flawed tax, economic, and most principally their overtly imperialist foreign polices could result in the dollar's reserve currency status and/or oil transaction currency status being placed in jeopardy or at the very least significantly diminished over the next 1-2 years. In the event that my hypothesis materializes, the U.S. economy will require restructuring in some manner to account for the reduction of either of these two pivotal advantages.
What is needed is a multilateral meeting of the G-7 nations to reform the international monetary system. Given that future wars will become more likely over oil and the currency of oil, the author advocates that the global monetary system be reformed without delay. This would include the dollar and euro being designated as equal international reserve currencies, and placed within an exchange band along with a dual-OPEC oil transaction currency standard. Additionally, the G-7 nations should also explore a future third reserve currency option regarding a yen/yuan bloc for East Asia. A compromise on the euro/oil issues via a multilateral treaty with a gradual phase-in of a dual-OPEC transaction currency standard could minimize economic dislocations within the U.S.
While these proposed multilateral reforms may lower our ability to finance our current massive levels of debt and maintain a global military presence, the benefits would include improving the quality of our lives and that of our children by reducing animosity towards the U.S., while we rebuild our alliances with the E.U. and world community. Creating balanced domestic fiscal polices along with global monetary reform is in the long-term national security interest of the United States, and necessary for the Global economy. Hopefully these proposed monetary reforms could mitigate future armed or economic warfare over oil, ultimately fostering a more stable, safer, and prosperous global economy in the 21st century.

Update by Cóilín Nunan: At the time this article was written, the suggestion that Iraq's move to selling oil for euros had something to do with the US threatening war against the country was just a theory. It still is a theory, but a theory which subsequent US actions have done little to dispel: the US has invaded Iraq, installed its own authority to rule the country and as soon as Iraqi oil became available to sell on the world market, it was announced that payment would be in dollars only (1). But the story doesn't end there: the US trade deficit is still widening and the dollar falling. More and more oil exporters are talking openly about selling their commodity for euros instead of greenbacks. While Indonesia has only been considering it (2), Malaysia's Prime Minister Dr Mahathir has been strongly encouraging his country's oil industry to actually do it (3), which has led the European Union's Energy Commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, to comment that she could see the euro replacing the dollar as the main currency for oil pricing (4). Iran meanwhile has been giving all the signs that it is about to switch to the euro: it has been issuing eurobonds, converting its foreign exchange reserves from dollars to euros and having warm trade negotiations with the EU. According to one recent report it has even started selling its oil to Europe for euros and encouraging Asian customers to pay in euros too (5). Should US talk of 'regime change' in Iran not be seen in the light of these facts? The media largely appear to think not since there has been little discussion of the dollar-euro connection with the 'war on terror'. What discussion there has been may well be expanded upon in the future as neither the threat to the dollar and the US economy or the US threat to world peace are likely to go away any time soon.

1. Carola Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, 'Iraq returns to international oil market', Financial Times, June 5 2003, http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1054416466875
2. Kazi Mahmood, 'Economic Shift Could Hurt U.S.-British Interests In Asia', March 30 2003, IslamOnline.net
3. Shahanaaz Habib, 'Use euro for oil prices, says Dr M', The Star, June 16 2003, http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2003/6/17/nation/sboil&sec=nation
4. Reuters, 'EU says oil could one day be priced in euros', June 16 2003, http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/030616/energy_euro_2.html
5. C. Shivkumar, 'Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms', June 16 2003, http://thehindubusinessline.com/stories/2003061702380500.htm

Loser. Why not look back at all the Posts i have made over the Last 2 years on this topic. For a change. Prove me wrong ok. Cause I am sick of this i need proof and when it is posted or has been posted it is ignored because it goes against what certain people think. I have been asking as well for people to convince me that I am wrong on what I think, I have yet to see anything from anyone. The information is out there. Read. And you do know what I am talking about.

So why not post your arguements against what i stated.

[tesco samoa]

one more
from asia times

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI11Ak02.html

[Alpha Kodiak]

Ah, Tesco, always such unbiased reports. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I for one would love to see the US declared a rogue nation. You know that big US trade deficit? All gone. Think what would happen to the economies of all the countries that are on the receiving end if the US was no longer buying their goods. Then of course there would be the loss of foreign aid, and the people of the US would probably cut down on out-of-country charitable giving as well. In short, I don't see any coalition of countries out there trying to cut us off from the rest of the world, it would be economic suicide.

Of course, I'm sure that the war on Iraq was started for oil, though. Just look at how much we're getting out of it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif And 9-11 was surely self-inflicted. In fact, I bet Bush was flying one of the airliners that crashed into the WTC, but bailed out just before impact. It makes as much sense as the other conspiracy theories that keep being floated around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Thermo. Now add the USA side to that link. Cause you know its there.... And you know where it leads to...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please splain dis to me Lucy.......

Actually I was thinking we would debate the Saudi actions in detail without the weight of the full picture.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Of course, I'm sure that the war on Iraq was started for oil, though. Just look at how much we're getting out of it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wars have been fought over resources for thousands of years and history hasn't stopped just because we are alive to witness it - just because Rumsfeld et.al. botched the "peace" doesn't make the reasons for the war untrue.
Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
And 9-11 was surely self-inflicted.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only thing 9/11 and Iraq have in common is that Bush was able to link them in people's minds.

Besides there are better ways to spend $87B.

[ September 11, 2003, 19:45: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[tesco samoa]

Ah, Tesco, always such unbiased reports.

Guess everything is biased eh AK. That one on the money is rather interesting. As is the history between those in charge , the companies they came from , the fininical dealings they had with people and countries. War against Communists and all the Things that happen in that war. All biased of course. Why is that AK ? Its all documented. Why is it a conspiricy theroy. Because it has not made the 6pm news , or the sunday edition of the local newspaper. What theroy am I promomoting here ? Please tell me. And are you saying that economics has no play in the events that have been going on for the Last little while ? Again. Attack the poster. Why not show me the error of my thoughts. Where I am wrong and where I am right. Many of the 'biased' Posts and links have stood up against the grain. 'conspiracy theories ' an example to me would be WMD in Iraq, Buried, or given away to Iran and Syria.

AK my friend we have a difference of opinion on what is going on in the world. There is nothing wrong with that. What it does show is that we know each other enough to post stuff we find interesting knowing that each other will read it and either dismiss it agree with it or not care.

George Bushes Grandfather profited off the Nazi's Just as the current bushes profited off the Saudies and the Ladin clan. Or is this just more of those 'conspiracy theories ' or is this the ' conspiracy theory ' i am promoting ??

[Phoenix-D]

I'd like the money article a bit more if all the reference links weren't dead or passworded.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Tesco: My main point (obviously hidden in my sarcasm) is that, despite what the money article stated, it is highly unlikely that the nations of the world are going to declare the US as a rogue nation due to the fact that it would destroy them economically.

My little shot about unbiased articles was a reference to the fact that in just about every OT thread, whether or not it has anything to do with Iraq (amazingly, the article actually fits this particular thread), these little Posts show up with links to articles showing how the US was evilly scheming to take over the world or some such. You are certainly within your rights to post those, and I feel that I am within my rights to make fun of them. I hardly feel that I am attacking the poster. Incidently, I find it hard to take seriously any article that comes from a page that sports the following picture:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1063323419.bmp

[Unknown_Enemy]

Now, even worst than the cheese eating surrender monkeys, here is the chineese currency plot.

================================================== ===============

STRATFOR'S GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
http://www.stratfor.com
11 September 2003

================================================== ===============

Politics, Deficits and the Chinese Currency Debate

Summary

The White House is under serious pressure to strong-arm China into doing something about the perceived undervaluation of the yuan. Beijing is not going to budge, but this won't hamper the Bush administration from using the issue in attempts to turn down some political heat on the domestic front. For all the rhetoric that will be thrown around about China, there is another, countervailing force at work that actually might keep Asian currencies from appreciating against the dollar: the need to finance the growing U.S. budget deficit.

Analysis

In the latest U.S. salvo against China's pegged currency, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced legislation that seeks to impose an across-the-board tariff increase of 27.5 percent on Chinese imports unless Beijing drops its decade-old currency peg to the U.S. dollar.

The introduction of the bill follows Treasury Secretary John Snow's trip to Asia in early September, when he made a very public show of trying to convince Chinese leaders to drop the currency peg and reach a kind of market economy self-actualization by freely floating the yuan.

Not surprisingly, the Chinese response was a diplomatic but very firm "no thank you," with Premier Wen Jiabao telling Snow that a stable Chinese currency was in the interests of both China and the United States. The best Snow could get was a vague commitment to consider a wider currency basket for the yuan -- an idea that Beijing tends to pull out when one trading partner or another begins to complain too loudly about its fixed exchange rate.

In fact, China has absolutely no intention of dropping the currency peg in the foreseeable future, for myriad reasons. The fixed currency has paid tremendous dividends for China over a decade that has been marred by currency instability in the rest of Asia, particularly in terms of attracting and keeping foreign investment. China's new political leadership is not about to rock the boat, particularly considering the various structural weaknesses of the Chinese economy, such as its fragile banking system. Also, any decision to change the currency regime will require years of internal debate and buy-in from the country's vast political bureaucracy. Finally, China might not agree that its currency is undervalued: Imports are actually growing more quickly than exports, and Morgan Stanley predicted Sept. 5 that
at current rates, China could run a trade deficit in less than a year.

China also has a fundamental geopolitical reason for its resistance to change. Diplomatic sources tell Stratfor that Beijing is very concerned that the United States and other rich Western countries would seek to manipulate China's freely floating currency in a way that would give foreign governments substantial influence over the nation's economy and China's future in general. Maybe officials in Beijing have been listening to too many of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's fiery speeches. Nevertheless, the concern raises serious questions about national security for Beijing.

As Wen more or less told Snow, altering the currency regime is fundamentally not in China's national interest, and the fact of the matter is that the White House can do nothing to change that. One can't blame Snow and the White House for trying, however. And even though Snow came back without any real commitments from Beijing, his trip was actually a success for the Bush administration in two important ways.

First, the administration was able to demonstrate a good-faith effort at addressing the issue of American export competitiveness, which many argue is tightly linked to jobs.

Though most economic indicators show the U.S. economy now chugging along at a healthy click, the recovery has stubbornly failed to create jobs in significant numbers. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and there are reasons to believe that job creation may well be on the horizon, such as historically low business inventories. However, the longer the employment numbers disappoint, the greater the chance that consumers -- followed by nervous corporations -- will rein in spending, which could short-circuit the recovery.

The phrase "jobless recovery" is appearing more and more in the U.S. media, and this is a major worry for the White House as it prepares for next year's election. President George W. Bush is vulnerable on the jobs issue: The U.S. manufacturing sector has shed 2.7 million jobs over the Last three years, a number that the Democrats already are citing with gusto. This figure is also a substantial concern for American industry, which has been trying for years to deflect criticism that its search for cheap foreign labor is behind the loss of American jobs. The Republicans and U.S. manufacturing interests share an interest in laying blame for the employment situation somewhere else -- preferably very far away.

This leads to the second success of Snow's visit: The White House and representatives of the U.S. manufacturing sector have succeeded in painting China as the big, mean monster that is stealing American jobs by dint of its unfair currency policies. The argument goes that the undervalued yuan has created a vastly uneven playing field that makes it impossible for U.S. manufacturers to compete with Chinese competitors in foreign markets. Moreover, the undervalued yuan also prices U.S.-made products out of the rapidly expanding Chinese market. The resulting American trade deficit with China is then linked back to joblessness in the United States.

Those objectives -- painting the White House as proactive on jobs and making China a scapegoat for unemployment in the United States -- were the more realistic goals of Snow's trip than getting an actual commitment out of China, and they were met.
This is a very defensive political strategy that seeks to appease one group (business) while deflecting criticism from another (labor) on the jobs issue.

If the scapegoating of China has its desired effect on domestic politics, the stage will be set for a lengthy period of China-bashing in the United States. The currency issue has suddenly overtaken Washington like some kind of mutant Asian virus, with lobbying Groups and business interests from a range of industries joining the chorus of criticism and demanding that something be done. Data like the record $11.3 billion U.S. trade deficit with China in July will add more fuel to the fire.

The National Association of Manufacturers praised Snow's efforts but demanded that China "move quickly to end the undervaluation of the yuan." One of the lawmakers behind the Sept. 9 legislation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), noted that "the political forces behind this bill are unusual, probably will never be duplicated again, but that shows you how deep the problem is." Graham also acknowledged that the U.S. Treasury Department helped to draft the legislation.

The din will only get louder, especially as China fails to make any substantial concessions.

There is an irony in all of this that also links back to Snow's trip to China. One of the few things he got out of Beijing was a commitment to purchase more U.S. treasury bonds. Asian investors
are the largest foreign owners of U.S. treasuries; Japan, China and South Korea owned a combined $696 billion in T-bills at the end of June. Washington desperately needs them to keep buying, especially considering the sharply rising U.S. budget deficit and the expanding costs for the occupation in Iraq. Though the international appetite for U.S. debt remains healthy, the recent fall in bond prices might have the Treasury Department a little
worried about attracting more buyers.

If the Chinese government follows through on its commitment to buy U.S. bonds -- which it can, considering its enormous stash of hard currency reserves -- then Beijing will have substantial leverage of its own that that can be used to take some pressure off of the currency issue. Although this won't quiet the rhetoric in the United States, it will ease Chinese fears that Washington
might try to retaliate.

The same issue applies to floating Asian currencies such as the Japanese yen and the South Korean won. In a variation on the China theme, East Asian countries have been criticized in the United States for keeping their currencies artificially low to improve their own export competitiveness.

One way they can drive the value of their currencies down is by purchasing U.S. treasuries, since this increases the overall supply of their currencies in the global market. So, as the United States issues more bonds to finance the war in Iraq and the expanding deficits -- and as countries like Japan and South Korea purchase more U.S. debt -- Asian currencies actually might travel in the opposite direction than the White House needs them to politically.

On the other hand, if Asian currencies appreciate against the dollar, these countries would have less need and desire to hold dollar-denominated U.S. assets. In a high-deficit situation, this actually provides a disincentive for the United States to support the sharp appreciation of certain Asian currencies.

Nevertheless, the White House will do what it can to keep the economic debate focused not on jobs or the impact of deficits, but rather on a selfish and recalcitrant China.

[Erax]

In other words, China will step into the role Japan played 20 years ago. "We must look at this rising economic power carefully because it may be dangerous - see, it's taken your job away already !"

[tesco samoa]

AK I see my point was missed as well.
Debate the work. Debate the concept. Proove it wrong. I would like to see that for a change. Instead of Dismisal at the wave of a hand.

P.S. I did not state that the USA is taking over the World.

on a side note i saw this in a sig today. Liked it so I am passing it on.

"A coward has no scar." (Zimbabwean Proverb)

[Alpha Kodiak]

Here's an interesting article:

We're Winning this War (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-09-13&id=3494)

[Alpha Kodiak]

And another:

The Failuremongers (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=192767&attrib_id=7511)

[Mephisto]

The newspapers I have at hand here and the news on TV and radio have not the slightest bit of "Schadenfreude" in it, quite the contrary: They/we are troubled that so many American soldiers die every week from the hands of terrorists/guerrilla. What they claim is that we foretold that there would be no easy victory and that we in Germany got the impression that the US government was to optimistic in its post war plans. Really, there not the slightest bit of joy (=Freude) in seeing this coming true.

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
And another:

The Failuremongers (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=192767&attrib_id=7511)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[primitive]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
And another:

The Failuremongers (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=192767&attrib_id=7511)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The cheap shot taken by the unfortunate deaths of the French elderly is just sick. Two thumbs down for Mr. Safire.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
And another:

The Failuremongers <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">AK, I find this article quite disapointing. Please observe the article from the Asian Times was not resorting to name calling. When I read an article from Stratfor or a major US newspaper, I may disagree with it, but I will never feel insulted.

To my opinion, "The Failuremongers" article is not only offensive but of low quality.

Some would call it propaganda.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Here's an interesting article:

We're Winning this War (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-09-13&id=3494)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This stuff is absurd much less factually suspect to say the least. Should I start trolling the internet and posting biased articles from liberal publications.

[ September 14, 2003, 18:34: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[primitive]

Sorry AK, I do not wish to hackle you, but there is just no limit to how much The Failuremongers (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=192767&attrib_id=7511) article p.. me off.

The reasons most Europeans (don't know about Americans, so I won't comment on them) took to the streets in opposition to the war was not because we are some blue-eyed peacenics, or that we had great love for Saddam, or that we hate America. It was because we belived this war to be a mistake that would make the world a worse and more dangerous place. And I for one still believe this and that the aftermath of this (unnecessary) war will fuel religious/racial hatred and terrorism for decades.

I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong. To see new democracies blossom all over the Middle East, to see security and welfare brought to the people of Iraq and the neighboring countries. Only time will tell if this will happen, or if terrorism will rise again, if USA (or FN) will be bogged down in an occupation for decades, or if Iraq will be lost to religious fanatics.

But if the worst happens, and my darkest predictions are proven right, I will certainly not gloat (Schadenfreude) over it.

[Baron Munchausen]

There are still a few sane people left in the US after all. Protestors at Boston University play the Imperial March as Ashcroft arrives for another 'Patriot Act' rally!!!

http://www.dailytrojan.com/article.do?issue=/V150/N12&id=09-ash.12c.html

I should point out that this 'public campaign' to build support for the Patriot Act is not at all public. These events are closed to the public. Only invited guests (vetted right-wingers like police officers) are allowed to attend in order to prevent just these sort of protests which are occurring at Ashcroft's arrival.

It sure would have been funny to see Ashcroft step out of his Limo to the strains of the Darth Vader theme...

[Gozra]

I found it interesting how much the media is involved in saying how we are failing in Iraq and that things are falling apart. It is similar to the TET offensive in the veitnam war it was a stragic victory for the communist because the american media portrayed it as a big defeat for South Vietnam. Yet in reality it was a descisive victory on the ground. Last night I watch an HBO movie about Pancho Via. I was shaking my head over the way the media used and abused the truth for their own ends. And it is still going on today. I for one do not trust the media even when I agree with them. I don't think we are winning in Iraq neither do I think we are losing. I don't think George Bush did the wrong thing but I know that all orginazations make decisions based on incomplete information. I am afraid that's just the way it is. The best we can do is hope for the best and plan for the worst.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Interesting. For the Last many months I have had to either ignore threads like this, or be subjected to a continuous stream of attacks against this country, its President, and anyone who dared to support either. The President has been called everything from evil to an idiot, and on more than one occasion, people have expressed that they wished someone would kill him. When I get really frustrated, and object, even in a sarcastic way, to some of this material, I am told that I am out of line, because I am not approaching this garbage as if this were a serious debate.

So I decided to conduct a little experiment. I did a Google search to find some biased material from the other side and posted links to it, just to see what would happen. Lo and behold, the material is highly offensive, calls people names and is just sick. People are p*ssed of at it. Welcome to my world. And I only posted two articles. Try a steady diet for months, it gets really old after a while.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Interesting. For the Last many months I have had to either ignore threads like this, or be subjected to a continuous stream of attacks against this country, its President, and anyone who dared to support either. The President has been called everything from evil to an idiot, and on more than one occasion, people have expressed that they wished someone would kill him. When I get really frustrated, and object, even in a sarcastic way, to some of this material, I am told that I am out of line, because I am not approaching this garbage as if this were a serious debate.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know how you feel. But politics is politics is politics. Doesn't matter if the man in offices is a democrat or a republican, there will always be politics.

The economy was beginning to tank in 98, we all know this, so no one can blame it happening on Bush. Then came 9/11 and that to was not Bushes fault. Then the wars. Well these are nessassary evils. Better to fight them now, even without a plan, then encure the cost of another 9/11 and an even more expensive war years down the road.

Things will get better, people will go back to work, and the economy will improve. It takes time, inovation, planning, and many years of growth. All of the things that Bush is doing now will benifit him in the later parts of his second term if re-elected, or the first term of a new president.

I thank God every day that I am an american, our freedom to voice our opinions does not come at the expense of our lives like it did, and currently does for billions around the worlds. (China)

I watched the other day on the news when that lady heckelled Donald Rumsfeld and thought to my self, gee lady you are really lucky to be here in America because in most middle eastern countries you as a women would not even be allowed to speak, and if you did, you would be beaten for it. That if you lived just a month like most arabic women, you would be on the front line thanking our government if they came to your rescue and restored your freedoms.

I don't care who is in office because you can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

Time and history will be the ultimate judge regardless of what we think.

[ September 15, 2003, 05:49: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Fyron]

AK, don't worry. 99.9% of the articles linked to by forum members in these threads are overly biased garbage not worth the cost of electricity powering your moniter to read them.

[ September 15, 2003, 06:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[tesco samoa]

thats a good system fyron. keeps you in the dark http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif and onesided. It is good to read what the world thinks on issues. It is good to read how people disagree with you.

take the time to read as much as possible about the current situation and its history. and if i followed your policy i would never have read rebuilding americans defences

[Unknown_Enemy]

But anyway AK, I am ready to accept any political idea you'd like to put on me if you make a baseship for the rage.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Fyron]

Tesco, that is only if you want to learn about all that political garbage. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Erax]

The 'political garbage' may not be nice, but you have to know about it because a whole truckload of it may be heading your way at this very moment...

[tesco samoa]

and the military truck loads as well...

I would not classify this link as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' or 'democrate' or 'republican' or the other political parties / idologies.

It is opinions and a good read

http://www.d-n-i.net/

[oleg]

BTW, where are all those f..g Sadam' WMD ?
Any ideas except CIA&MI6 been on heavy drugs ???

[Unknown_Enemy]

Wrong question.
Question should be "if they lied, what was worth the political risk involved ?"

Then you'll have to figure your own answer.

[oleg]

Risk ? What Risk ???

We all know it was Muslim/Arabs responsible for 9/11. We must revenge - I'm not American but I DO remember my anger 2y ago http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif - The right solution would be to seek out true villians and invade SA, but that would be too expensive economically (oil and stuff). Hence, pick up Arab's country with bad publicity, find some sort of excuse and exact the revenge. Never mind real villians - it is all about politics, not truth.
Just MHO.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by oleg:
BTW, where are all those f..g Sadam' WMD ?
Any ideas except CIA&MI6 been on heavy drugs ???<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ideas on them not requiring fataly flawed thinking on the part of higher-ups:
1) The WMD components were used, and this did not get noticed at the time by the global community
2) The WMD components were hidden/stored/buried in Iraq, and have not yet been found
3) The WMD components were exported out of Iraq (given away/sold/traded)
4) The WMD components were hidden/stored/buried outside Iraq
5) The WMD components were destroyed, but Saddam, for some unknown reason / unknown insanity, didn't support that fact well.

Loose Reasoning:
Facts:
A) There is evidence (reciepts from US-based companies operating under UN sanction, mostly) that Saddam recieved WMD components.
B) The report sent to the UN by Iraq did not account for the current status of some of those WMD components to the public satisfaction of those in power in the US.
Assumptions:
A: Saddam would want to give evidence that they were destroyed (had they been destroyed) to get the UN off his back.
B: Saddam has his regeme keep correct, detailed paperwork when he wants them to do so.
C: Those in power in the US are being reasonable when they say the report Iraq sent to the UN did not adequately account for the WMD components destruction. (I haven't read the report, and will not comment on it directly)
D: The facts above are valid; a.k.a., the reciepts above were not manufactured and those in power in the US are being essentially honest in that they do not find Iraq's report to the UN satisfactory.

At most, the above facts and assumptions imply that one or more of the following is true:
1) The WMD components were used, and this did not get noticed at the time by the global community
2) The components were hidden/stored/buried in Iraq, and have not been found
3) The components were exported out of Iraq (given away/sold/traded)
4) The components were hidden/stored/buried outside Iraq
5) They were destroyed, but Saddam, for some unknown reason / unknown insanity, didn't support that fact well.

Using the above facts and assumptions, there is no way to choose which of them is/are correct. A detailed search of Iraq has the potential to shed some light on the probability of those possibilities -
1) a detailed search could potentially find traces of the WMD components having been used
2) a detailed search could potentially find hidden Caches of the components
3,4) a detailed search could potentially find evidence of the components being transported
5) evidence of the destruction of the components could potentially be found in a detailed search.

However, it is also concieveable that steps could have been taken to thwart the success of a search, rendering the effort futile. Paperwork could have been destroyed or deliberately not kept in the first place, or transactions could have been buried under a mountain of paperwork via harmless seeming codenames.

From what I have seen on the news, the search hasn't found much. Does this mean the components aren't there? No; nor does it mean that they are there, nor does it mean they never were there, nor does it mean many other things, especially because I've also read a news report where a member of a US search team was criticizing the methods he had been ordered to use. Mind you, the news in my area is severly slanted and not too terribly reliable, so that should be taken with a health dose of salt. If my assumptions aren't valid, then neither are most of my possible conclusions. I personally have no method by which to be certain on the subject. I have suspicions, but that is all they are, when it comes down to it.

[Mephisto]

I can see your point, AK. I’m glad that you don’t hold these reports to be true to the actual European emotions in this whole matter.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
But anyway AK, I am ready to accept any political idea you'd like to put on me if you make a baseship for the rage.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tell you what, I won't even require you to change your political views. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1063689015.bmp

I'll try to get this put together with the stuff you sent me, and make it official.

Hows that for taking OT OT. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[deccan]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
From what I have seen on the news, the search hasn't found much. Does this mean the components aren't there? No; nor does it mean that they are there, nor does it mean they never were there, nor does it mean many other things, especially because I've also read a news report where a member of a US search team was criticizing the methods he had been ordered to use. Mind you, the news in my area is severly slanted and not too terribly reliable, so that should be taken with a health dose of salt. If my assumptions aren't valid, then neither are most of my possible conclusions. I personally have no method by which to be certain on the subject. I have suspicions, but that is all they are, when it comes down to it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By and large, I agree with Jack Smith's reasoning. I agree that it was reasonable for the various governments to assume that Iraq had / might still have WMDs. I'd like to point out that even France didn't claim that Iraq was free of WMDs.

A more significant point of contention was whether or not the supposed WMDs were a credible, imminent threat to the United States. I'd say that claiming that they were would be stretching the truth.

[Loser]

Originally posted by oleg:
We must revenge - I'm not American but I DO remember my anger 2y ago http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif - The right solution would be to seek out true villians and invade SA, but that would be too expensive economically (oil and stuff).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In yet another situation I just have to say "It's not about the oil, man."

Can't invade Saudi. Too close to Mecca. Not the ground you want to get blood on.

[Erax]

Great article Tesco. Following its links I came to this other article (http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm) which pretty much sums up my views on Iraq, the US and the world.

A few excerpts which I would agree with :

"Television news may become a more powerful operational weapon than armored divisions."

"Ideally, the enemy's military is simply irrelevant to the terrorist."

"Terrorists use a free society's freedom and openness, its greatest strengths, against it. They can move freely within our society while actively working to subvert it. They use our democratic rights not only to penetrate but also to defend themselves. If we treat them within our laws, they gain many protections; if we simply shoot them down, the television news can easily make them appear to be the victims. Terrorists can effectively wage their form of warfare while being protected by the society they are attacking. If we are forced to set aside our own system of legal protections to deal with terrorists, the terrorists win another sort of victory."

"hostile forces could easily take advantage of a significant product of television reporting — the fact that on television the enemy's casualties can be almost as devastating on the home front as are friendly casualties."

This is why I believe that the current methods for fighting terrorism may not work; although I do not claim to have the answers. No one does.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Here are some pictures that someone emailed to my wife. They really touched me, putting a human face on the soldiers that are deployed.

Soldier and Kitten.jpg (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1063721848.jpg)
Prayer Circle.jpg (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1063722037.jpg)
Low Five.jpg (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1063722147.jpg)
Cradling.jpg (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1063722208.jpg)
Letter from Home.jpg (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1063722286.jpg)

This isn't a political statement about whether we should be there or not, nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything. I just wanted to share a little of the human side of the situation.

[tesco samoa]

Erax it is a double edged sword.

Take Northern Ireland.

Take IRA and Gilbrater

Take 4 SAS men.

They believed that there was a bomb about to go off so they killed the 4 marks.

They basiaclly lost their careers over the issue.

The problem with fighting terrorism is that if you want a police action against them which falls within the laws ( due to the fact it is close to home, if it was very far away , say far east, central asia all gloves are off ) use the police.

If you want to take the terrorists out. The Groups like the SAS must be free to opperate.

The decision makers must be responsible if something goes wrong ( which may be public opinion ), not the soldiers.

As there caught in a catch 22.

Failure to follow an order can result in Treason charges and jail upwards to death.

Follow an order and if it draws public fire. Then the soldier is held accountable not those who set the policy.

[tesco samoa]

A interesting interview with Dr. Krugman.

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002170.html

I do not know enough about economics to add to it.

But I did read it. And thought it was worth passing on.

There is mention of A.Sullivan Does anyone have any good interviews with this gentleman ??

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by deccan:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jack Simth:
From what I have seen on the news, the search hasn't found much. Does this mean the components aren't there? No; nor does it mean that they are there, nor does it mean they never were there, nor does it mean many other things, especially because I've also read a news report where a member of a US search team was criticizing the methods he had been ordered to use. Mind you, the news in my area is severly slanted and not too terribly reliable, so that should be taken with a health dose of salt. If my assumptions aren't valid, then neither are most of my possible conclusions. I personally have no method by which to be certain on the subject. I have suspicions, but that is all they are, when it comes down to it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By and large, I agree with Jack Smith's reasoning. I agree that it was reasonable for the various governments to assume that Iraq had / might still have WMDs. I'd like to point out that even France didn't claim that Iraq was free of WMDs.

A more significant point of contention was whether or not the supposed WMDs were a credible, imminent threat to the United States. I'd say that claiming that they were would be stretching the truth.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The real problem that you are missing is that most of the 'components' of both chemical and biological weapons are useful in countless civilian industries. You have the 'components' of chemical weapons under your kitchen sink and/or in your garage. With the recent advent of bio-engineered organisms as 'pesticides' you might even have bio-weapons in your garage. Who's to say whether a pesticide (chemical or bio) plant is going to be retooled in one day to make 'human' pesticide instead of insect pesticide? This is just the most obvious case. There are scores of other manufacturing processes that use the same toxic chemicals that you would use to make chemical weapons. It takes manufacturing experts a lot of serious study of the equipment to recognize signs that certain manufacturing equipment is setup for 'dual use' and then the UN had to decide whether to further destroy Iraqs civilian economy just to remove one more possibile souce of WMD.

So you can see how someone watching this process from the outside and seeing the constant maneuvers to frustrate or outright deceive the inspectors could decide that this government simply can't be trusted. That said, I don't at all agree with the course they took once they decided this. The 9-11 attacks have set off a genuine panic/paranoia in the US government and created something very dangerous.

[ September 16, 2003, 17:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Erax]

Who's to say whether a pesticide (chemical or bio) plant is going to be retooled in one day to make 'human' pesticide instead of insect pesticide? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, chemical pesticide factories are a potential source for WMDs, which opens up a lot of scary scenarios. Most people don't realize that a chemical plant can be just as dangerous as a nuclear power plant.

Edit - Tesco, like I said, I don't have the answers and I don't think anyone does right now.

[ September 16, 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: Erax ]

[rextorres]

It's time to shift the argument to -

"Did the administration knowing lie about WDM?" and if so "Is it more of a crime to lie about having sex with an intern than it is to lie about reasons for sending your country to war?"

Arguing if they existed is absurd especially in the historical context:
*To this day NONE have been found
*ALL the scientist who were the supposed weapons makers insist that there was no longer a program
*NOT ONE credible weapons making facility has been found.
*Not to mention that the Iraqis did not use them even in the dieing throws of the regime

All these theories of what happened to the WMD simply stretches the imagination and says more about what people are willing to believe than any reality.

Goerge Orwell is probably rolling over in his grave right now.

AJT

[ September 16, 2003, 19:17: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by rextorres:
It's time to shift the argument to -

"Did the administration knowing lie about WDM?" and if so "Is it more of a crime to lie about having sex with an intern than it is to lie about reasons for sending your country to war?"

Arguing if they existed is absurd especially in the historical context:
*To this day NONE have been found
*ALL the scientist who were the supposed weapons makers insist that there was no longer a program
*NOT ONE credible weapons making facility has been found.
*Not to mention that the Iraqis did not use them even in the dieing throws of the regime

All these theories of what happened to the WMD simply stretches the imagination and says more about what people are willing to believe than any reality.

Goerge Orwell is probably rolling over in his grave right now.

AJT<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well you win some, and you loose some. At lease he is not around any more and we don't have to worry about him selling off the technology if he was left in place to develop it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ September 16, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
A interesting interview with Dr. Krugman.

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002170.html

I do not know enough about economics to add to it.

But I did read it. And thought it was worth passing on.

There is mention of A.Sullivan Does anyone have any good interviews with this gentleman ??<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He lost all credibility with this line:

Bush says, I've got a tax cut that's aimed at working people, ordinary working people, and then you just take a look at it and discover that most of it's coming from elimination of the estate tax and a cut in the top bracket, so it's heavily tilted toward just a handful of people at the top. It's just a flat lie about what the tax cut is.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While it is true that dollar-wise the wealthiest people get the most money back, the reason is that they put the most money in. I am not an economist, so I will keep the discussion to a tax situation that I am familiar with -- my own. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, my tax burden was relatively low, since I have four kids and a mortgage, and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. After the tax cut, my burden more than just went to zero, it went negative (I got back more than I put in) because of increases in the child tax credit. One could argue correctly that I did not get nearly as much of a break as the local millionaire, strictly on a total-dollar basis. However, since I received a greater than 100% reduction in my actual tax burden, I am hard-pressed to see how the administration could funnel more of the tax reduction to me. And trust me, no one would peg me as one of the nation's rich people. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[tesco samoa]

AK i do not fully understand that policy as it does not affect myself personally ( live in canada). But would like to learn more about it. Any suggestions?

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
While it is true that dollar-wise the wealthiest people get the most money back, the reason is that they put the most money in. I am not an economist, so I will keep the discussion to a tax situation that I am familiar with -- my own. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, my tax burden was relatively low, since I have four kids and a mortgage, and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. After the tax cut, my burden more than just went to zero, it went negative (I got back more than I put in) because of increases in the child tax credit. One could argue correctly that I did not get nearly as much of a break as the local millionaire, strictly on a total-dollar basis. However, since I received a greater than 100% reduction in my actual tax burden, I am hard-pressed to see how the administration could funnel more of the tax reduction to me. And trust me, no one would peg me as one of the nation's rich people. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How much did you pay in payroll tax (aka ss and medicare)? Sure you probably paid less in Income Tax, but you still had to pay this. The government lumps ALL taxes together so you should too. If you factor this tax in the wealthy pay less tax percentage wise as well. It always baffles me when people forget about this tax.

Trust me your tax "savings" will be lost when you have to make up for the lost services your no longer getting.

A good example is I may save about $1,500 year in taxes but things like wear and tear on my car because the roads are no longer fixed or child care because their is no longer a pre school in my school district will offset this savings. It all "trickles" down.

[ September 16, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Most of the time when people criticize tax cuts, they use half-truths. They will cite the literal percentages of money going back in the cut and say that most goes to the wealthy (at least, more wealthy than the "poor"). This is of course true, but it is irrelevant. Often times, the percent of tax cut to the wealthy is much lower than that to the middle classes. And the lower classes often pay little to no taxes to begin with, due to low income tax brackets combined with various reductions (children, mortgages, etc.). So, when tax cuts are given, most of the money tends to go to the upper middle class and the upper classes. But, this only makes sense, because most of the money came from them in the first palce, and it is a slanted figure anyways. What is more important than raw cash values is the effective percent that the taxes paid goes down. It is most of the time the lowest for the wealthy. Not all tax cut proposals are the same, of course. But, most follow the same basic plan, as there are only so many ways you can do a tax cut. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
While it is true that dollar-wise the wealthiest people get the most money back, the reason is that they put the most money in. I am not an economist, so I will keep the discussion to a tax situation that I am familiar with -- my own. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, my tax burden was relatively low, since I have four kids and a mortgage, and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. After the tax cut, my burden more than just went to zero, it went negative (I got back more than I put in) because of increases in the child tax credit. One could argue correctly that I did not get nearly as much of a break as the local millionaire, strictly on a total-dollar basis. However, since I received a greater than 100% reduction in my actual tax burden, I am hard-pressed to see how the administration could funnel more of the tax reduction to me. And trust me, no one would peg me as one of the nation's rich people. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How much did you pay in payroll tax (aka ss and medicare)? Sure you probably paid less in Income Tax, but you still had to pay this. The government lumps ALL taxes together so you should too. If you factor this tax in the wealthy pay less tax percentage wise as well. It always baffles me when people forget about this tax.

Trust me your tax "savings" will be lost when you have to make up for the lost services your no longer getting.

A good example is I may save about $1,500 year in taxes but things like wear and tear on my car because the roads are no longer fixed or child care because their is no longer a pre school in my school district will offset this savings. It all "trickles" down.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tax cuts are nearly always given when there are budget surpluses, so services rarely get cut do to a tax cut...

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Most of the time when people criticize tax cuts, they use half-truths. They will cite the literal percentages of money going back in the cut and say that most goes to the wealthy (at least, more wealthy than the "poor"). This is of course true, but it is irrelevant. Often times, the percent of tax cut to the wealthy is much lower than that to the middle classes. And the lower classes often pay little to no taxes to begin with, due to low income tax brackets combined with various reductions (children, mortgages, etc.). So, when tax cuts are given, most of the money tends to go to the upper middle class and the upper classes. But, this only makes sense, because most of the money came from them in the first palce, and it is a slanted figure anyways. What is more important than raw cash values is the effective percent that the taxes paid goes down. It is most of the time the lowest for the wealthy. Not all tax cut proposals are the same, of course. But, most follow the same basic plan, as there are only so many ways you can do a tax cut. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again I'll reiterate the payroll tax is an income tax by a different name. So not only did those making over $500,000 get a bigger tax cut in raw dollars they got a bigger tax in percentage of the total tax cut. A fair tax cut would have lowered the payroll tax as well - not that anyone needed a tax cut to begin with.

[ September 16, 2003, 21:29: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Taxes are way too high to begin with... everyone needs a big tax cut.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AK i do not fully understand that policy as it does not affect myself personally ( live in canada). But would like to learn more about it. Any suggestions?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm probably not the guy to tell you where to find info, I have enough trouble figuring out how to fill out my tax forms. I just know the final totals. I won't claim that US tax code makes sense, or that I agree with the way the the income tax system is run in all cases. All I am saying is that to claim Bush is blatantly lying when he says that he is cutting taxes for the working class is a lie in itself. Therefore, the author of that statement has no credibility in my eyes.

[Fyron]

AK, that is generally how people criticize tax cuts, with lies. There is of course legitimate criticism out there, but relatively little. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Taxes are way too high to begin with... everyone needs a big tax cut.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you go to a public university?

Anyway I don't about you but I probably can't afford to send my kids to private school so on that basis alone I would rather see the $87B + $65B go to education.

I hope you are startinng to plan for your retirement because with the deficit the way it is unless you've planned well your screwed.

Do you live in a gated community? Police and Fire are going to get cut back so the level of protection your used to will probably go away.

Aren't you from Riverside? The air is pretty much toxic there how can you afford to clean it.

Didn't you mention in one of your Posts that you like national parks well kiss them good by or get used to paying lots to go there.

etc. etc. etc. etc.

[ September 16, 2003, 21:40: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Why do you assume that I am wealthy? Stop stereotyping people; just because I am of the opinion that the government takes too much money from people and wastes a lot of it does not mean I am wealthy.

[ September 16, 2003, 21:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Again I'll reiterate the payroll tax is an income tax by a different name. So not only did those making over $500,000 get a bigger tax cut in raw dollars they got a bigger tax in percentage of the total tax cut. A fair tax cut would have lowered the payroll tax as well - not that anyone needed a tax cut to begin with.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tell you what, Rex, you can send me your tax cut if you don't want it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

You can twiddle you statistics however you want, and get whatever results you want, but I know I am better off after the tax cut. Remember, what I am arguing against is the statement that Bush blatantly lied when he said he was cutting taxes for the working class. I have yet to see any proof that I didn't benefit significantly from the tax cut, so I stand by my assertion that the author of that statement has no credibility on this topic.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why do you assume that I am wealthy? Stop stereotyping people; just because I am of the opinion that the government takes too much money from people and wastes a lot of it does not mean I am wealthy.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You fail to see my point. You benefit from the tax system and you don't even know it.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Tell you what, Rex, you can send me your tax cut if you don't want it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

You can twiddle you statistics however you want, and get whatever results you want, but I know I am better off after the tax cut. Remember, what I am arguing against is the statement that Bush blatantly lied when he said he was cutting taxes for the working class. I have yet to see any proof that I didn't benefit significantly from the tax cut, so I stand by my assertion that the author of that statement has no credibility on this topic.[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most people make less than $25K a year. They probably didn't pay income tax because they made too little money so they didn't get a cut in income tax or there income tax is so small that their tax cut way negligable BUT they still paid the same payroll tax. They didn't get a tax cut. Simple as that.

[ September 16, 2003, 22:30: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why do you assume that I am wealthy? Stop stereotyping people; just because I am of the opinion that the government takes too much money from people and wastes a lot of it does not mean I am wealthy.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You fail to see my point. You benefit from the tax system and you don't even know it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know exactly how I benefit from the tax system. You are under the mistaken impression that just because some things are beneficial means that they are a good idea for the government to get involved in (either to the degree they are, or any involvement whatsoever).

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rextorres:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why do you assume that I am wealthy? Stop stereotyping people; just because I am of the opinion that the government takes too much money from people and wastes a lot of it does not mean I am wealthy.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You fail to see my point. You benefit from the tax system and you don't even know it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know exactly how I benefit from the tax system. You are under the mistaken impression that just because some things are beneficial means that they are a good idea for the government to get involved in (either to the degree they are, or any involvement whatsoever).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Parks!

Without taxes and govt we wouldn't have them. They aren't profitable so why would someone develop their land for that?

A private entity could probably run my local park better, but what would be their incentive? It's like that with lots of things.

Are you against public parks? What about public schools? What about public roads? Police Dept? Fire Dept? It's a slippery slope when you start going down the small govt/no tax route.

[ September 16, 2003, 22:45: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

You mention the basic services that it is the role of government to provide. Those are not at all what I was talking about... Also, I was certainly not on a no tax road...

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You mention the basic services that it is the role of government to provide. Those are not at all what I was talking about... Also, I was certainly not on a no tax road...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All I can say is $550B deficit. Even if we were to go back to the boom of the 90s - with the tax cut as they stand - we STILL would not get back to a surplus. So yes we are talking about basic services. What government services should be cut?

[ September 16, 2003, 22:54: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

The defecit is not actually an issue. Most of it is in the form of bonds that can and will be repaid in time. What is more of an issue is yearly spending compared to yearly revenues. The old debts get paid off and replaced by new debts. It is how the economy works.

Some "services" that need to be cut are obselete programs that are no longer necessary. There are numerous programs dating from the Great Depression that only serve to waste money now, but are still in operation, such as the program that was made to try to help farmers hit by the "dust bowl"...

[ September 16, 2003, 23:09: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[rextorres]

If the deficit is not an issue then why do we have to cut anything? Why not have a trillion dollar deficit? Who buys these bonds. What happens like in Argentina or Mexico when the interest on the debt (it's already our third biggest expenditure on par with entitlements) is larger than the revenue from taxes.

Besides all those wasteful programs you're talking about are significantly less than the $87B going to Iraq i.e. Not a huge savings if you ask me.

[ September 16, 2003, 23:24: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by rextorres:
If the deficit is not an issue then why do we have to cut anything? Why not have a trillion dollar deficit? Who buys these bonds. What happens like in Argentina or Mexico when the interest on the debt (it's already our third biggest expenditure on par with entitlements) is larger than the revenue from taxes.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I think that East Asians buy A LOT of American bonds.

[Fyron]

Gah. I hate these threads. You discuss one thing, but then people mutate it into a totally different subject you had no desire to get into. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I need to stop posting in them...

[rextorres]

I'll bring around to Iraq. It's a big waste of money and we can't afford this war especially with the Bush Tax Cuts in place.

[Fyron]

I didn't want to talk about Iraq either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Unknown_Enemy]

Tell you what, I won't even require you to change your political views.

I'll try to get this put together with the stuff you sent me, and make it official.

Hows that for taking OT OT.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good man.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Alpha Kodiak]

Tesco, here is some basic information on the changes to the child tax credit.

IRS Newsroom (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=109816,00.html)

The big thing for me is the $400 per child increase in the credit (to $1000 per child total). In my case, that is $1600 direct tax relief all by itself. Even if you have no tax burden, you can get some or all of that credit (hence my higher than 100% reduction in my income taxes.)

[ September 17, 2003, 00:35: Message edited by: Alpha Kodiak ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The defecit is not actually an issue. Most of it is in the form of bonds that can and will be repaid in time. What is more of an issue is yearly spending compared to yearly revenues. The old debts get paid off and replaced by new debts. It is how the economy works.

Some "services" that need to be cut are obsolete programs that are no longer necessary. There are numerous programs dating from the Great Depression that only serve to waste money now, but are still in operation, such as the program that was made to try to help farmers hit by the "dust bowl"...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are confusing terms. The Debt is how much is owed total, and the defecit is the annual excess spending over income.

[ September 17, 2003, 02:30: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[rextorres]

I don't think there is a confusion.

We (the govt) pay interest on the debt which adds to the deficit. As the debt grows so do our interest payments which add to the annual deficit.

Eventually - if the debt keeps rising at $350B/year (Bush's own best case scenario - probably will be way higher) that interest payment will overwhelm the rest of govenment expenditure. The interest payment this year alone was the third biggest expenditure behind defense spending and entitlements.

People like Alpha Kodiak would rather mortgage their children's future and collect an extra measly $400 per child now and let those same children pay multiple times over this amount in interest payments alone when they pay taxes.

People like Fyron just want to bankrupt the government so that it has to cut everything.

[ September 17, 2003, 02:24: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Ok, just Fyron swapped the terms then.

In any case, when running a country, like running a Space Empire, you can't spend more than you make for very long before your storage runs out.
Selling mineral planets for cash to keep your production up just makes things worse.

Some debt is OK, for investment purposes where you know (or are pretty sure) you'll make the money back.
For the rest, make sure you're making more than you spend.
Keep building a pool of extra money, which you can spend on bonus services, one-shot projects and stuff.
Live well within your means, and then you'll have the money for the stuff you want.

IMO

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I didn't want to talk about Iraq either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Huh?? This topic is about Iraq? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Good god I have been horribly misinformed!

[tesco samoa]

its ot land for iraq, war and politics.

I wish thermo would come back and post some stuff. Enjoyed his links but not his barbs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Here we pay 26% income tax, plus a percentage towards Pension and UI.

Sales tax is 15% on everything except for unprepaired food. ( 7% goods and service tax, 8% provinical )

Even taxes are taxed.

Some times it bugs me when time are tight. But I do not want to lose the standard of living i am used to. And I do not want others to lose that standard as well. So I pay the taxes and just complain about it once or twice a week.

I would perfer if it was spent properly. As it looks like a good 30 to 40% is just wasted ( nooah stats numbers out of a hat, please i hope i made that up cause it sounds cool ) on commisions, digging holes in toronto and then filling them back in.

I will be interesting to see how our economy goes in the next few years. As we have not been hit by the recessions that hit the USA. ( THough our bosses at work like to tell us were in a recession, we ask for the proof and they state that it is in the news... So we now carry the figures for the Canadain Economy and pull it out at meetings ... Were not liked too much by the flying circus ... but i go off on a tangent )

End this now before I actually post something that makes sence. I do not want to scare GEO. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The defecit is not actually an issue. Most of it is in the form of bonds that can and will be repaid in time. What is more of an issue is yearly spending compared to yearly revenues. The old debts get paid off and replaced by new debts. It is how the economy works.

Some "services" that need to be cut are obsolete programs that are no longer necessary. There are numerous programs dating from the Great Depression that only serve to waste money now, but are still in operation, such as the program that was made to try to help farmers hit by the "dust bowl"...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are confusing terms. The Debt is how much is owed total, and the defecit is the annual excess spending over income.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought I had typed debt there. Oh well.

Rex:
People like Fyron just want to bankrupt the government so that it has to cut everything. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now that is an outright lie and is approaching slander. I neither said nor implied any such thing. You (and people like you) are the reason I do not like getting into these sorts of discussions.

[ September 17, 2003, 04:11: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Taxes are way too high to begin with... everyone needs a big tax cut.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Essentially more tax cuts WILL bankrupt the govt and you did say the govt should cut "obsolete" programs. So where's the slander?

Just because people "like me" point out holes in your logic you shouldn't take it personally.

[ September 17, 2003, 04:35: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Phoenix-D]

"Essentially more tax cuts WILL bankrupt the govt and you did say the govt should cut "obsolete" programs. So where's the slander?"

Obselete is a far cry from 'everything', and he did cite an example of a farm program that was designed to help them recover from a problem that is long since over, yet the program keeps on going.

[rextorres]

So I am guilty of hyperbole. Sue me!

The current popular theory amongt "govt program cutters" is that the only way you'll get real cuts is if you bankrupt the govt. Even if Fyron doesn't explicitly say this - his Posts do lead one to believe that he agrees with this at least partly.

If Fyron is really a "Tax and Spend" liberal being a devil's advocate then I appologize.

[ September 17, 2003, 05:01: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Thank you P-D.

There are no holes in my logic, I just did not post all of it because these sorts of discussions get nowhere. The slander lays in making blanket statements about me that are far from true and based off of very incomplete evidence.

Hyperbole does not work at all here, as hyperbole is overstatement, not stating something else entirely. The difference between obselete and everything is much more than just one of scale, so it does not qualify as hyperbole.

[Fyron]

The current popular theory amongt "govt program cutters" is that the only way you'll get real cuts is if you bankrupt the govt. Even if Fyron doesn't explicitly say this - his Posts do lead one to believe that he agrees with this at least partly. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only if you want to make great leaps of logic.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by rextorres:
People like Alpha Kodiak would rather mortgage their children's future and collect an extra measly $400 per child now and let those same children pay multiple times over this amount in interest payments alone when they pay taxes.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's good to know that you are watching out for my best interests, since I am part of the great unwashed and am incapable of understanding my situation. I obviously need someone of far greater intelligence and judgment to tell me what I should believe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

It is interesting that since you lost the argument of Bush lying about the tax cuts, which was the original point of this subthread, you shift gears to the rather tired "you don't care about the future" attack. Obviously, I am an awful father who would sell his children into slavery for next to nothing. Or, of course, there is the chance that you have no clue what you are talking about.

[rextorres]

Huh!!?

AK

Let's start again.

Bush claims he want to cut taxes for the working class. Well MOST people who work make less than 25k a year. You got that!!

MOST of their taxes are in the form of the payroll tax. Look at your check stub sometime if you don't know what that is - obviously you don't.

ALSO most of these working people pay minimal or no income tax. So they could not have gotten an income tax cut or a miniscule tax cut at best.

BUT their payroll tax didn't change one penny - is that clear?

So they didn't get an income tax cut and they are still paying the same payroll tax. Not to mention we all pay excise tax for pumping gas, and using the phone (read your phone bill sometime).

If most working people didn't get a tax cut and are still paying the same tax they've always paid how can you say that Bush wanted to give a tax cut to the working class and is not lying about that. Am I missing something here - or do you just not get it?

Since you obviously don't understand govt accounting ALL tax is lumped into one general fund so even though the payroll tax is supposed to go to Social Security and Medicare it is being used to fund the war in Iraq or something.

Also it is evident you don't care about the future because you support a tax cut that your children will have to pay back in spades so that you can consumer spend or something - what's so tired about that argument?

[ September 17, 2003, 06:14: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Fyron]

This is exactly what I was talking about Rex... please tone down your Postss.

[oleg]

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=4248349

Again, what was the reason for this war ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[Loser]

Originally posted by oleg:
Again, what was the reason for this war ?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To stabilize and add an American Military presence to the most strategically located country in the world.

Though I have to say, I'm not entirely pleased with the progress made toward this end... oh well, time will tell.

[Mephisto]

Moderating mode ON

Please cool the tax discussion and keep civil. Thank you all!

Moderating mode OFF

[Loser]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/09/17/uk.hutton/index.html

The government isn't the only one who will lie when its ends are served.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Huh!!?

AK

Let's start again.

Bush claims he want to cut taxes for the working class. Well MOST people who work make less than 25k a year. You got that!!

MOST of their taxes are in the form of the payroll tax. Look at your check stub sometime if you don't know what that is - obviously you don't.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually Rex payroll tax doesn't show up on your pay stub. What you see there is withholding. The majority of working taxpayers get some portion of that back at the end of the year in the form of a tax refund.

And saying most people that work make less then 25,000 is not technically accurate. According to the IRS statistics for 2002 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf), most people make more then 25,000 a year. Out of 129,444,947 individual income tax returns filed only 42% made less then 25,000 a year.

If you want to throw out those more well off and just look at those under 100,000, the numbers are almost equal with slightly more that made less then 25K. But this doesn't really tell you how well off these people are. When you consider that these are IRS statistics and many married couples file separatly and many teens living at home working part or full time jobs have to file also.

Using U.S. Census Beauro statistics (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2002/ACS/Tabular/010/01000US3.htm) you get a clearer picture. According to them only 29.3% of housholds made less then 25,000, and 59.2% made between 25,000 and 100,000. The median household income is 43,057.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[QUOTE]Actually Rex payroll tax doesn't show up on your pay stub. What you see there is withholding. The majority of working taxpayers get some portion of that back at the end of the year in the form of a tax refund.

And saying most people that work make less then 25,000 is not technically accurate. According to the IRS statistics for 2002 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf), most people make more then 25,000 a year. Out of 129,444,947 individual income tax returns filed only 42% made less then 25,000 a year.

If you want to throw out those more well off and just look at those under 100,000, the numbers are almost equal with slightly more that made less then 25K. But this doesn't really tell you how well off these people are. When you consider that these are IRS statistics and many married couples file separatly and many teens living at home working part or full time jobs have to file also.

Using U.S. Census Beauro statistics (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2002/ACS/Tabular/010/01000US3.htm) you get a clearer picture. According to them only 29.3% of housholds made less then 25,000, and 59.2% made between 25,000 and 100,000. The median household income is 43,057.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Geo:

I am looking at the census statistics you linked to and it says the median income for individuals is $25,839 and the majority of families make less than $50K I am assuming a family is most likely at least two adults.

I can't find where you got the IRS figures from the posting you placed, but let's say it is 42% that is still the largest amount of workers by tax bracket. This is the point of the argument - they are the largest percentage of workers and they didn't get any real tax cut.

When I said payroll tax - I meant FICA and SSI - the amount is ~8% and - I don't mean to sound snide - has appeared on every check stub I've received - and that is not refunded.

AJT

[ September 17, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
I am looking at the census statistics you linked to and it says the median income for individuals is $25,839 and the majority of families make less than $50K I am assuming a family is most likely at least two adults.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
On the census page the "Median Earnings: (dollars)" is 25,839, but that is including seasonal and part time workers, ie students. The Median for the male, full time, year round workers (still the majority of the workforce) is 39,996. The line right below where you were looking.

The majority of families do make less then 50K, and the majority of families do have two adults. But the majority of families don't have two income earners. There aren't stats regarding that on either of these websites but I have seen stats previously that show the majority of families still have only one income. Although that is changing and has been for some time. Most of the families that have two adults working full time will be in the 50,000 to 100,000 range for total household income.

Originally posted by rextorres:
I can't find where you got the IRS figures from the posting you placed, but let's say it is 42% that is still the largest amount of workers by tax bracket. This is the point of the argument - they are the largest percentage of workers and they didn't get any real tax cut.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The numbers are there. I used them to get the percent.

The workers making under 25K are statistically the largest single group if you slice the entire population into equal sized Groups. But that doesn't mean they that most workers fall into that group. And a significant number of workers in that group are part-time, not the primary income earners, and not supporting any dependants. That's not to say of course there aren't many people aren't in poor financial situations. But they aren't the majority of workers.

[Alpha Kodiak]

I may regret entering into this again, but the one thing that keeps being overlooked is that you get the child tax credit regardless of how little you pay in income tax. I will receive a $4000 credit ($1600 higher than Last year) regardless of whether I owe taxes or not. There are some limitations on that, but they primarily apply to those with higher incomes rather than lower. You can argue whether it is a good idea or not, but you can't say the tax break isn't there.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
When I said payroll tax - I meant FICA and SSI - the amount is ~8% and - I don't mean to sound snide - has appeared on every check stub I've received - and that is not refunded.

AJT<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually "FICA" doesn't show up on a lot of paystubs at all. MY own for example has separate entries for Social Securtiy and Medicare. No it's not refunded, but the way it's supposed to work is you get it back in the form of social security and medicare benefits, and part of it goes for unemployment insurance premiums. Even though it's called a tax, and in effect is a tax, it could technically said to be not a tax. Since theoretically your benefits resulting from it are supposed to be in proportion to the amount you paid in over the years. Of course we all know that's not very likely by the time we retire.

My point is that since it's technically not a tax to begin with you aren't going to get a refund on it. As you said yourself the ones getting refunds are going to be the ones actually paying taxes.

[rextorres]

No, I've said all all along that Social Security Tax is an income tax in disguise. People conveniently forget to include this tax when factoring in who pays what in this country.

If the social security tax were set aside I would most likely agree with you, but since it's being spent instead of being put in a "lock box" then it's an income tax - it's money taken out of your pay check based on income - it's being used to mask an even larger deficit - they can call it by any name they want but it's an income tax. Also we all pay federal taxes on gas, phone, etc and that wasn't cut either.

Seasonal workers pay Social Security Tax Too - and I am still not getting how 42% is not the largest percentage by far.

Most (I don't know the exact figure - this is an assumption on my part) people don't have children and it's only a $400 credit increase. Also (I don't want to look up the exact # but if you make UNDER a certain amount your not entitled to the credit. That was one of the big political squabbles).

Speaking back to the article in question: if Bush really had wanted to help the workers of America he would have focused on the payroll tax and not on (I know this is a tired argument) the top 1%.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Seasonal workers pay Social Security Tax Too - and I am still not getting how 42% is not the largest percentage by far.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They are the largest group. I didn't say they weren't. If that is what you had said originally I wouldn't have disagreed with you about it. You said "Well MOST people who work make less than 25k a year.", that's not the same thing you are saying now.

Originally posted by rextorres:
Speaking back to the article in question: if Bush really had wanted to help the workers of America he would have focused on the payroll tax and not on (I know this is a tired argument) the top 1%.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's not only tired, it's flat wrong. The tax cuts don't only benefit the top 1% as you appear to be inferring. edited for clarity

But I would love it if he could do something about the medicare and SSI taxes. But that's the "third rail" of American politics. They tried to privitize some of that stuff. It wouldn't lower the outgo, but at least you'd know what you put in would be coming back to you someday. But even that idea got bLasted.

[ September 18, 2003, 02:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[teal]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

It's not only tired, it's flat wrong. The tax cuts don't benefit the top 1%. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">huh?! Wasn't the theme of this thread, "let's all be super precise in our language and make sure that we never ever say anything that isn't 100% technically true"???

If so, then please do provide some facts here Geo showing that the top 1% got NOTHING from the tax break. Because that is what you just said. Of course AK was saying a while earlier that "everyone" who had kids got $400 bucks, but of course no one in the top 1% could possibly have any kids. And I seem to remember something about a dividend tax cut. I'm sure that no one in the top 1% of income has any stocks to speak of and didn't benefit from this dividend tax cut.

I could of course be shooting off my mouth here. But I think not. In any case the statement "the tax cut's don't benefit the top 1%" seems to be blatantly false on its face. The top 1% got *something*.

And now for a complete about face... Actually I happen to agree with the statement "the tax cut don't benefit the top 1%". But only in the sense that the tax cuts were a terrible idea that hurt the country as a whole and thus no american benfited from them in the long run. I say this because running a defecit as massive as the tax cut entails I believe is not good for us at all and will come back to bite us in the ***, hard. I prefer my governments to be fiscally responsible and to actually cut spending when they cut taxes not increase it like the current fiscally irresponsible administration has done.

And about the $400 that AK keeps talking about. Yes, many people "benefit" from this tax cut by getting X>0 number of dollars immediately. But that is quite clearly loaned money. No spending cut accompanied this tax cut and the defecit is going to be increased because of it. That is borrowed money. SOMEONE is going to have to pay it back some day, either directly or in the form of a collapsing currency should the government default on its bonds. I bet if I went to AK's house and said, "here's $400 bucks now, don't worry about paying me back now, I'll come along at some future time (probably when you can least afford it), and demand the money back then" that he might have a slightly different view on whether I was "benefitting" him or not.

All this is arguable of course. A case can be made for running a defecit under certain conditions and even in the hypothetical visit AK may need that $400 bucks so much he is willing to take the risk. But I for one am going to be casting my vote in the next election for someonewho at least understands that cutting revenues should be accomanied by some plan for cutting spending. If a politician does not do so then they are a coward for trying to saddle some future leader with the consequences of their bad fiscal management.

[ September 17, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: teal ]

[Narrew]

ok, ok, I wanted to get in here on the tax debate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

First, the money going to free Iraq, I am as sure as I can be that the future Iraqi government will pay us back. Now before anyone points it out, I realize that we forgave the French the 2 times we bailed their butts out, but I think we would be very stoopid not to get repaid back, also I think we have a moral obligation to help the Iraqi's after we let them down after Desert Storm I when we encouraged them to revolt and they all died when Saddam slammed them down. Also, if we can help them along to democracy, then that will can not hurt.

Income Tax--the top 50% of Income tax payers pay 96% of Income tax's, that is from IRS figures. I think a flat tax would be more reasonable (a very low one) then have a national sales tax, so if your rich and buy rich things, you pay! I would make congress put a super-majority requirement on that (both the flat tax and sales tax).

Payroll Tax (SS and Medicaid)--Is a social program that is just a huge bloated, mismanaged organization. Both programs were implemented with good intentions, but are ran hideously. If I knew 90% of their budget went to the people that need it then I think it would viable, but when I hear a SS official say that we had to spend ever dollar (which went to new furniture and bonuses) so we can get more next year, that is messed up, a company cant survive with that attitude.
Also, there is NO politician (right or left) that will EVER decrease Payroll Tax, that would make all liberals scream "they are taking these social programs from you". They do need to privatize them, or work to that direction, it is inefficient as it is now, more money will go to overhead and NOT to the people that need it.
SS was started to SUPPLEMENT retirement, but has become many peoples sole retirement income (that just shows you that many people will not take responsibility for their own future when they think the government will do it for them, sad really), then they added disability ect... that just made it a bigger hand out program.

The prescription bill coming along will be such a bad thing it wont be funny, not just because it will be ANOTHER social program, but it will force people out of their employers/retirement programs and into a national program, that will be bloated and cost more than what the private sector can do it for.

Finally, something that has got my attention recently is the United States Constitution. Specifically Section 8. This is where the Founding Fathers spelled out things, like what is the role for the Federal Government. To make it brief, the US Government shall Provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States (and NO, I don't think they meant social welfare programs). To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, the States and Indian Tribes. To establish rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies through the U.S. To regulate and coin money and fix Standard of Weights and Measurements. To establish Post offices and post roads. To raise and support Armies, but NO appropriation of money to the USE shall be for a longer term than 2 years. To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. There are other things related to foreign relations ect...but you should get the idea of what our Founding Fathers had in mind. That the federal government is for the protection of the nation as the whole, and if you read more in the constitution, they wanted all rights go to the States for self government, so they can decide how the best way their population wanted to live. The only real exception was that there was no law against going across state borders, so if you didn't like how one state did things, there was no law that kept you from moving elsewhere.

No where did the Founding Fathers say that the Federal Government was the be-all/end-all, cradle to grave, hold your hand for everyone. The Great Depression allowed the Federal Government to assume powers that were never intended for the Federal Government. True, many things helped the nation get back on its feet, but at a cost that we are still paying today. If States kept control, but was subsidized by the Feds, that would have been legal (as far as the Article 8 of the Constitution). I also think that most politicians had good intentions, but they unknowingly created a beast that will never be satisfied, the more money you put in it, the more it demands, it does not care about results, just more money. (and if you doubt that, just look at our education system, we could dump $100 trillion more each year and it would not improve children's education, because when you have kids that can not past a graduation test that they can take 5 times and only have to get 40% correct with the amount we spend now, well...).

I am not naive enough to think we can get back to what our Founding Fathers intended. But there ARE too many Federal Government programs that need to be either privatized (so money gets to the people that need it) or shut down. I do not think we need to subsidies the phone industry, we don't need to subsidies farmers especially milk producers (I mean, a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas), if we could get to a flat tax, then I would like to see no more deductions period. No more Corporate Welfare, it will be hard to just throw out a blanket statement that no more corporate subsides, but I am sure many of them are not needed other than a form of PORK.

There is no reason NOT to help people that need help, but as a tax payer, there is NO reason that any program shouldn't be ran efficiently. That is just common sense, sadly that is lacking in our Government.

Ok, golly that took me a while....
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Narrew]

ACK, I cant put a picture here, so go this link...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of _income_taxes.guest.html (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes .guest.html)

[ September 17, 2003, 23:31: Message edited by: Narrew ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by teal:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by geoschmo:

It's not only tired, it's flat wrong. The tax cuts don't benefit the top 1%. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">huh?! Wasn't the theme of this thread, "let's all be super precise in our language and make sure that we never ever say anything that isn't 100% technically true"???
****snip****
I could of course be shooting off my mouth here. But I think not. In any case the statement "the tax cut's don't benefit the top 1%" seems to be blatantly false on its face. The top 1% got *something*.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Teal, No, I don't believe that is the theme of this thread, but I did mispeak. I left out the word "only". Rex's statement infered that the tax cut only benefitted the top 1%. That wasn't his use of words exactly, but that seems to be his meaning from the contrast against a "payroll tax cut". I was disagring with the notion that it only benefitted the top 1% of wage earners. This is patently false.

[ September 18, 2003, 01:56: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[teal]

Geo: Sorry about perhaps sounding a little harsh. I'm sure that if I had thought a little more I could have found a nicer way to point out your typo.

But I think my charicature of the forum topic stands as valid (as a charicature). You say that Rex's statement meant that *only* the top 1% of wage earner's benefited from the tax cut. By no stretch of the imagination could Rex have meant that literaly. Thus you are picking on him for saying something which is technically not true, but fail to really address the gist of his meaning (that the top 1% benefit *disproportianetly* (sp?) more than other tax payers). I gave into my penchant for sarcastic arguing by using this same tactic against you. As it always does, it backfired and made me look like a jerk and I should know better.

To my mind, the ideal form of a debate is to always grant your oppenent their best possible argument (even if what they say is not quite that best possible argument). So when Rex spouts some tired argument about the top 1% of the tax payers being the one to benefit (implying *only* them in your mind), this should be read in its most powerful light (that the top 1% benefit more than everyone else does). Then one should try and argue with this new and improved best possible argument of ones debating oppenent. Admittedly, I have a lot of trouble doing this myself, but it is a good standard to try and live up to I think. If one is interested in actually feretting out some insight into questions and not merely scoring debating points.

Teal

[Mathias_Ice]

Originally posted by Narrew:
ok, ok, I wanted to get in here on the tax debate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">WOOT!!!! You go brother!! (I wanted to quote the whole thing but that would have been a little too much.)

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by teal:
You say that Rex's statement meant that *only* the top 1% of wage earner's benefited from the tax cut. By no stretch of the imagination could Rex have meant that literaly. Thus you are picking on him for saying something which is technically not true, but fail to really address the gist of his meaning (that the top 1% benefit *disproportianetly* (sp?) more than other tax payers). <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree totally that Rex could not be reasonably thought to have meant that. Even now after rereading it I still believe that is exactly what he meant. But I may be wrong and said as much in my post.

If I am incorrect and he meant that the top 1% benefit *disproportionally* as you suggest, then he is still wrong. Because the top 1% do not benefit from the tax cuts disproportionally.

[teal]

Originally posted by Narrew:

Income Tax--the top 50% of Income tax payers pay 96% of Income tax's, that is from IRS figures. I think a flat tax would be more reasonable (a very low one) then have a national sales tax, so if your rich and buy rich things, you pay! I would make congress put a super-majority requirement on that (both the flat tax and sales tax).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First off, its very well known that sales tax is actually a *regressive* tax. This means that practically speaking, instituting a sales tax or instituting an income tax where the poorest 20% pay an income tax rate of 30% with the next richest paying an income tax rate of 25%, etc. are functionally identical.

So my question for you is. Do you think it is fair to have a tax system where the richest people pay proportiantely *less* of their income than poorer people? Your initial rhetoric is talking about a flat tax, so I would think that you think it is fair to have people pay an even percentage of their income to taxes. I agree with this as far as it goes, except in that I have seen some fairly compelling arguments that a progressive tax system is actually a good thing for the economy as a whole and thus I might favor that if these arguments hold water. But that is besides the point. The point is that a national sales tax is highly *regressive* in nature. In effect, what you are arguing here, is that poorer people should pay more of their income to taxes than rich people.

It get's worse though. Federal taxes are of course not the only taxes that Americans pay. They also pay local and state taxes as well. Sadly many states already have a regressive tax system because they rely heavily on sales, excise, and property taxes, all of which are regressive.

http://www.ctj.org/itep/whopays.htm

What this means is that even if we instituted just a federal flat income tax that the poorest peole would be, on average, paying more of their income in total taxes than richer people throughout the 50 states because of the effect of these regressive state and local taxes. We need a progressive federal income tax system just in order to make the overall tax system flat!

Narrew may be particuarly interested to know that Washington state is one of the worst states in the nation in terms of being particuarly regressive:
Total local and state tax rate as a percentage of income in Washington state:

poorest 20%: 17.5% of income
20% to 40%: 13% of income
40% to 60%: 11.5% of income
60% to 80%: 9.5% of income
80% to 95%: 8% of income
95% to 99%: 5.5% of income
richest 1%: 3% of income

I can't think of any possible reason why this is a "fair" state of affairs.

Next time you listen to a politician spouting about a "flat" tax ask them about how they feel about sales and excise and property taxes as well. If you truly believe in equal tax rates then you can't in good conscience advocate these kinds of taxes.

[ September 18, 2003, 03:46: Message edited by: teal ]

[teal]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[QUOTE]
If I am incorrect and he meant that the top 1% benefit *disproportionally* as you suggest, then he is still wrong. Because the top 1% do not benefit from the tax cuts disproportionally.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Evidence or argument please http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I would bet they probably get *absolutely* more money from the tax cuts, simply because they are so wealthy and pay so much tax. So what do you mean exactly....?

[deccan]

Originally posted by teal:
Evidence or argument please http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I would bet they probably get *absolutely* more money from the tax cuts, simply because they are so wealthy and pay so much tax. So what do you mean exactly....?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not American but ...

Wouldn't you say that ending inheritance taxes is of disproportionately greater benefit to the wealthy?

[rextorres]

Speaking back to the article in question: if Bush really had wanted to help the workers of America he would have focused on the payroll tax and not on (I know this is a tired argument) the top 1%.

Geo I won't accuse of slander but what I meant is what I said (although a little tongue in cheek). Bush's FOCUS on the tax cut was for the 1% they got the largest amount of tax cut in terms of $ and % so arguably that was who the tax cut was focused on - sure the rest of us got some crumbs BUT IMO the FOCUS of his tax should have been on something else - and in this particular instance I proposed that it should have been relieving the working poor of the payroll tax burden.

I know it's hard to accept and for conservatives it's a convenient thing to forget so that they can claim that 50% pay 96% of the income tax, but the payroll tax, business tax, excise tax and income tax is put into one big pot as revenue and spent as the govt sees fit.

When you factor the payroll taxes and excise taxes into the revenue equation then *presto* all of a sudden the bottom 42% (not most but close to most) provide as much revenue as the top 1% but - here's the catch - they earn a lot less.

[ September 18, 2003, 05:33: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Well, let's see. The Social Security tax, the largest of the payroll taxes, is the creation of the liberal darling FDR, and if Bush suggested cutting that, every liberal in the country would be screaming their heads off at the unfairness of it all. Then there is the Medicare tax. The liberals would love it if Bush suggested cutting that one, because they could immediately begin slamming him for cutting services to the elderly. There isn't much else to cut that I can remember on a paycheck stub. Of course, since I haven't seen a real paycheck in over a year (good thing I'm one of those wealthy conservatives), I may have forgotten something. And, yes, I am familiar with the so-called payroll taxes, as I have to pay SE tax on what contracting I can scrounge up, so I get to pay double Social Security. Oh, and you'll have to forgive me for taking the measly $400 per kid, I kind of like feeding them.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Well, let's see. The Social Security tax, the largest of the payroll taxes, is the creation of the liberal darling FDR, and if Bush suggested cutting that, every liberal in the country would be screaming their heads off at the unfairness of it all. Then there is the Medicare tax. The liberals would love it if Bush suggested cutting that one, because they could immediately begin slamming him for cutting services to the elderly. There isn't much else to cut that I can remember on a paycheck stub. Of course, since I haven't seen a real paycheck in over a year (good thing I'm one of those wealthy conservatives), I may have forgotten something. And, yes, I am familiar with the so-called payroll taxes, as I have to pay SE tax on what contracting I can scrounge up, so I get to pay double Social Security. Oh, and you'll have to forgive me for taking the measly $400 per kid, I kind of like feeding them.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never suggested he should cut the payroll tax. He should just stop spending it - and he should definitly stop using it fund his "tax cut".

Most "liberals" would be for a cut in payroll tax on people like you and me and that doesn't mean cutting social security. "Liberals" have proposed cutting the payroll tax - most of that revenue comes from the working poor after all - but it has been shot down by Republicans. The real underlying reason - of course - is that then they could not have passed an income tax cut which gives most of the money to the wealthy.

So if your situation is truly what you say it is then you are getting your $400 extra per child from Bush but you probably would have been better off with a "liberal" proposal of lowering social security tax and not Bush's proposal of an income tax cut.

EDIT:

I trolled around the internet and found an article in the Washington Post that effectively explains my point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30822-2001Feb5?language=printer

[ September 18, 2003, 08:02: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

Isn't it nice that the focus of tax cuts is ALWAYS the wealthy? No matter what the tax cut is, it gets twisted to be about the wealthy (at least in some people's eyes...). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Isn't it nice that the focus of tax cuts is ALWAYS the wealthy? No matter what the tax cut is, it gets twisted to be about the wealthy (at least in some people's eyes...). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the way I see it.

Republicans are all about big business and company owned cities and want a Capatilistic society that only favors the rich living off the backs of the slaves. The slaves being you and I, or poor folk.

Demacrats are all about protecting people from their rights by trying to create a toltarian society whereas we all live in the future depicted in the Stallone movie Demolition Man were all the people were aloud to listen too were old comercial jingos.

Given the choice between living under the rich, with the illusion that I have rights, or living in a politically correct society with no rights, I would choose the republican way every time.

I hate the rich, but I know one thing they don't, I am resigned to the fact that death comes to us all, and you can't take your money with you, and at the gates to wherever, I will be there waiting for them with a smile on my face and baseball bat in my hands.

[ September 18, 2003, 08:53: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Isn't it nice that the focus of tax cuts is ALWAYS the wealthy? No matter what the tax cut is, it gets twisted to be about the wealthy (at least in some people's eyes...). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know how you feel - sometimes I feel sorry for wealthy people too - they're always picked on. It's unfortunate for them that they've gotten most of the benefit from Bush's tax cut.

[ September 18, 2003, 09:32: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[dogscoff]

I have to pay SE tax
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You get taxed for playing Space Empires?

Damn, I'm gald I don't live in the US...

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by rextorres:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Isn't it nice that the focus of tax cuts is ALWAYS the wealthy? No matter what the tax cut is, it gets twisted to be about the wealthy (at least in some people's eyes...). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know how you feel - sometimes I feel sorry for wealthy people too - they're always picked on. It's unfortunate for them that they've gotten most of the benefit from Bush's tax cut.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh here we go again, lets blame Bush for all of the woes in the universe. If not for Clitonomics and the fact that he opened the flood gates for the chines so they could swamp our markets and under cut our industries with their products, our economy would not have tanked. 1998 was the beginning of the end for the Semi Conductor industry and many many other companies. (Oh ya, don't forget about NAFTA too and all the jobs that took away from us and sent south. Did you know that under article 11 of the NAFTA Treaty if a state passes a law that says a product can not be sold in the US, the company that makes it in a foriegn country can sue. And under the terms of NAFTA, they always win. Just ask California about that. They were sued by a Canadian company who makes poisonious gas cleaner addatives that the state had banded for being harmful to the environment.)

Clinton sold us down the drain to the chines for election money. This bad economy is mostly his doing, and to blame it on Bush is absurd. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Ok you can blame a little of it on him. But not all of it.