Printable View
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stmQuote:
Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago.
Comments? I'll throw mine in after the Bush bashing starts. =)
No Bush bashing from my side.. He's the smart one, the rest of the US (especialy the ones that got him re-elected) are the ones in need of bashing..
And this is more proof of that :p
Easy enough. And this was also predictable to anyone with some common sense, here's the steps:
1. The single biggest military mistake since Veitnam was George Bush senior not finishing the job during Desert Storm. It's counted as a failure among historians. Instead of being 'punished' as was the original intent, Saddam Hussein (who was spurned politically by the other arab nations prior to Desert Storm) was elevated to 'hero' status for surviving a US invasion. There were other political things that occurred post-Storm which were open slaps in the face to Bush Sr. as well - like the Kuwait royal family refusing to re-enter their palace until the US Army Corps of Engineers reinstalled the solid-gold bathroom fittings, at OUR expense.
2. George Junior entered the office of Governor of Texas with the intent for an eventual Presidential bid - and even at that time there were mutterings about 'fixing daddy's mistake'.
3. When he was elected, the first thing he did was start pointing a finger in Iraq's direction - until China got his attention, then 9-11 brought it back to bear on the Arabs.
4. Failing to capture OBL, and suffering politically even after giving a tax rebate, George turned to the one thing he knew well - making war on Iraq. Intel (our spies) had somehow produced a report to support the argument that Saddam had wmd's. Saddam had also repeatedly refused access to the UN inspectors, and had been a pain in the arse in general instead of complying with the treaty which ended Storm. Understand that Desert Storm never really ended - it was just at a 'cease fire' until Junior restarted it.
To conclude, this was all about 'fixing daddy's mistake' imho. It had nothing to do with wmd in Iraq, although I firmly believe that Iraq had them and that they're sitting quite safely in Jordan and Saudi Arabia right now.
Being the staunch Bush supporter I am, I believe we're right in fighting in Iraq. I also believe that their country is much better off without Saddam. However I'll openly recognize Junior's mistakes - here's one right off the top from world history.
There's a reason countries back in the 18th century didn't interfere with 'revolutions' - including the US revolution (which is why it was very hard for us to get allies back then, even from France, who eventually helped us.) We're seeing that reason right now in Iraq - what we did there in essence was to manufacture a revolution by overthrowing their government. The aftereffects of this will go on for quite some time, even after we've pulled out. I fear that the ruler who replaces Saddam will be just as bad, or worse, for Saddam was merely greedy - the next one might be ambitious...
Uh.. .last time I checked, he wasn't just greedy. He committed genocide. That should have been reason enough for the UN to return. Heck, it should have been reason enough for George Jr. to go there (which if that had been the true reason, I can live more with that than with an excuse of WMD). Read A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. It has a whole chapter on Iraq and it's use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish residents.Quote:
I fear that the ruler who replaces Saddam will be just as bad, or worse, for Saddam was merely greedy - the next one might be ambitious...
Ooooooh, for once I just about completely agree with everything said here. :D I think between your two posts, it boils down to this:
Quote:
The single biggest military mistake since Veitnam was George Bush senior not finishing the job during Desert Storm.
EXACTLY. This has been the backbone of my support for this war. I think if everyone realized this, the country would be MUCH more united. Evidently the problem lies within:Quote:
Desert Storm never really ended - it was just at a 'cease fire' until Junior restarted it.
I think if Bush made a mistake, this was it. He should've bypassed the whole WMD argument and just went straight for freedom fighting, and then maybe we wouldn't have had such a huge controversy. I think libs and conservs alike can agree ending that genocide was a good idea.Quote:
He committed genocide. That should have been reason enough for the UN to return. Heck, it should have been reason enough for George Jr. to go there
Might I also note, that above all else, it was well established Saddam was planning to acquire WMDs, and who dares argue that he wouldn't if he could?
Amen, brother :D.Quote:
To conclude, this was all about 'fixing daddy's mistake' imho. It had nothing to do with wmd in Iraq, although I firmly believe that Iraq had them and that they're sitting quite safely in Jordan and Saudi Arabia right now.
Invasions, cohersion, torture, genecide, using every damn banned weapon on the planet (on his own people), imprissonment, corruption, attacking non-military targets in isreal (on purpose), 10 years of defiance at every UN resolution. I think you are on to something MS Mittens. ;)
Thats true MsM, but unfortunately there's too many people in this world who simply do not give a **** about who's getting killed across the other side of the globe :(.Quote:
He committed genocide. That should have been reason enough for the UN to return. Heck, it should have been reason enough for George Jr. to go there
No, they care if it's the cause of a national disaster, and will attack Bush for not helping them. They just don't care if it's the cause of murder, and will attack Bush for helping them.Quote:
Thats true MsM, but unfortunately there's too many people in this world who simply do not give a **** about who's getting killed across the other side of the globe
You're absolutely correct MsMittens - but after seeing his palaces firsthand, and in pictures over the media and sent home from my stepson, greed appears to have been his prime motivator. Saddam in power was a bloodthirsty, greedy bastard who enjoyed the power that had absolutely corrupted him. Given the tribal mindset of the various Iraqi factions, will not his replacement do worse still? Have we made a bigger mistake in removing him? Those worries are what play in my mind each time I think on the subject. All we can do at this point is wait, watch, and try to make peaceful the hornet's nest we stirred up. God bless 'em all, our troops who have to suffer through these 'rebirth pangs' for a nation not their own. As for Saddam, I hope he fries in the most painful method possible, and very soon, instead of sitting down in Gtmo brig and eating our food and our humane treatment. (that last sentence was to open yet another can of worms - let's see if anyone bites...)
Was it established?Quote:
Might I also note, that above all else, it was well established Saddam was planning to acquire WMDs, and who dares argue that he wouldn't if he could? [/B]
The WMDs were hidden in... coconuts. The monkeys hid them.
They have coconuts in Iraq?!Quote:
The WMDs were hidden in... coconuts. The monkeys hid them.
I've already made my points known in other threads about this war...and more especially Canada's stand on it...and if you've read them you know , for the most part I agree...I will add one more thing to my comments though...
one of the reasons Bush jr is receiving more resistence and less help from other Arab nations than his dad did is because Bush sr renegged on a promise he made to the Kurds( yes I know they're fighting...but not for Bush..for themselves) and Iraqis the first time around.
He left!
Even refused to return after the Kurd's begged him to return as they were being chased across the hills to Turkey ( who didn't want them either and already had a large Kurdish population from other exodus').
He had promised them( all Iraqis') that if they stood up and opposed Saddam, or surrendered, or unarmed and went home, he would depose the dictator and set up self-government with the Kurds and Sunni's being well represented in the new government...he lied and he left, so now Bush jr has the war his daddy avoided by making promises he didn't keep.
That's why Bush sr had a stroll against an arguably well equipped army...and Bush jr is in a quagmire against guerillas.
Hmmm,
I would be inclined to go for Syria myself. Saudi and Jordan are monarchies, and not likely to be as sympathetic. Also Syria was preparing to accommodate up to a million Iraqui refugees when the war started.Quote:
I firmly believe that Iraq had them and that they're sitting quite safely in Jordan and Saudi Arabia right now.
Bush Sr. Left because he "listened" to the UN and their underling power base in the EU.
Ms Mittens that was a joke. :) But when I think about it most of Iraq is desert but the area around Bagdad down to Kuwait is a belt of green and marshes. There are palm trees in some places, so I bet they could have hid them inside millions of coconuts. ;) No monkeys though. Maybe giant squirrels carried them off? Oh, they may have migrated to England via African swallows.
I realise it was a joke but it would have been funnier if it was date trees rather than coconuts because, IIRC, there are no coconut trees in Iraq. ;)
Ah but dates are small. You could fit much more in a coconut. :p I wish we could get fresh dates here in North America. California started a date crop but a little research last year turned up little availability. In a few years maybe we will see some as they warp the genetics. They are delicious fresh.
When you talk about banned weapons, you are perhaps not making it clear that these weapons are selectively banned as in certain "large" (in status?) western countries seem to be perfectly allowed to have them. Fair enough, these countries haven't used them on their own ppl, but it does seem slightly hypocritical.
And no, I'm not saying that Iraq should have been allowed to have so called WMD's, what I am saying is that no-one should be allowed to store and/or manufacture these weapons. The fact that they were developed in the first place is quite frankly sick, and the fact that any weapons are bought and sold in the international marketplace is even worse.
And about Saddam Hussein suffering a slow and painful death and frying and whatnot...that is also sick. It doesn't matter what he's done (and I would agree that he was a horrible person, evil even, but not in the biblical sense, but as in common usage) - it will not make things better or bring other people back to life by killing him.
IMO, he should have to live out the rest of his life in prison with absolutely no priviledges. I would say that would be worse than a relatively quick death. Not to mention the fact that it is clearly murder to kill anyone, no matter if they are being executed.
ac
Jarrod, c'mon on now, you'd think Saddam would sit over there and behave himself nicely?
I gotta agree with ol' gothic there. I wouldn't mind seeing us toss out the nukes either. I would presume the argument would be if we disposed of ours, then we'd be open to get nuked ourselves since we couldn't fire back...but still...
I tried to edit my previous post because it looks a little out of place there sandwiched between coconut stories but...too late now... :D
Anyways, the problem with WMD can be dealt with quite easily...obviously we can't do away with them entirely because that wouldn't stop some wacko like the guy in North Korea from making them, or worse...marketing them.
And who really trusts France with all their nukes? Not saying they would ever use them but ...ahem...we are talking about a country that's been brain dead when it comes to war and weapons since they bit it at Waterloo...and ...cough...didn't they collaberate with the Nazi's. Kinda like giving a knife to a newborn and say " don't you hurt yourself !"
Solution:
Give the missiles to a trustworthy responsible country, who would show ultimate discretion and care yet be willing to blow the hell out of someone if need be...I vote for Iceland ( I know it's not itself a country being part of Denmark? but we would make it one), it's nice, not aggressive, out of the way, very centralized, lots of places to hide them, and I'm sure the Viking nature can rise to the occasion if the situation called for it!
:D
Collaborate with the Nazi's? They declared war on Germany in 1939... And before you start saying that some French collaborated with the Germans: so did a bunch of Americans (Henry Ford probably being the most famous one)...
And don't worry... Iceland is a country :/
Actually, the collaboration of the French in WW11 has been well documented ( is there really a difference between those who collaborate and those who do nothing )...there were some resistance fighters after Hiltler walked in but that's almost always true in war...
Poland lasted longer than France.
We declared war on Sept. 10th, 1939...seven days after Britian.
And you're right America also traded and continued relations with Germany while my Father and his brothers were fighting and dying...three died in his arms...I mentioned that already in another thread...that America protested against going to war right up until Pearl Harbour...among other things.
I could also mention Ireland declared neutrality...and so did Iceland...etc...etc...etc...
One thing alot of people don't know ( because it was a secret ) is that we were helped in one way by America before Pearl Harbor...
And it's been a long time since I studied Iceland...it doesn't come up very often in a conversation...but if they are automonious now...they weren't always. They are such a quiet nation that's why I like them...if it wasn't for the Olympics, I'd probably forget they were even there. Kinda like that little country between France and Spain...Andora I think it's called...it's so small it doesn't even have it's own money.
In forums I don't try to cover all the bases, I'd need to devote at least a whole thread to do that...like everyone else I try to be brief and make my points, sometimes with levity and sometimes not. The Iceland part was a joke!
You sound upset ...because I don't trust France with nukes...or because I passed over America this time around? Personally, I don't get upset over events that happened so long ago...I just like to set the record straight.
"Vichy France" collaborated with the Nazi's, not "La Republique"... they surrendered.
Andorra uses the Euro...
And Iceland's been an independent nation longer than the US has been ;)
If a woman is being raped and ten people watch and do nothing are the watchers part of the crime?
To me there is no difference between those who collaborate and those who surrender and stand by to watch and do nothing.
And I already knew. Do I really have to be that detailed? See the point on being brief in my previous post. smilely
And Andorra never has produced it's own currency.
I stand corrected...and apologize to the people of Iceland! roll-eyes
"Settled by Norwegian and Celtic (Scottish and Irish) immigrants during the late 9th and 10th centuries A.D., Iceland boasts the world's oldest functioning legislative assembly, the Althing, established in 930. Independent for over 300 years, Iceland was subsequently ruled by Norway and Denmark. Fallout from the Askja volcano of 1875 devastated the Icelandic economy and caused widespread famine. Over the next quarter century, 20% of the island's population emigrated, mostly to Canada and the US. Limited home rule from Denmark was granted in 1874 and complete independence attained in 1944. Literacy, longevity, income, and social cohesion are first-rate by world standards."
World Encyclopedia
I was wrong...1944! :D :p Yeh, Iceland! I'm 61 years behind on your history...damn...I'm not even that old yet...I'll try to do better! Actually, I knew that but I was discussing the war and so I was thinking along those lines when I said Iceland was under Denmark's control, which it was during most of the war.
I'm a Kelt...well my background anyways! I guess I'm Norwegian too! Scottish and Irish on my Father's side...Irish Catholic and Scottish Protestant...no wonder I like to argue...I've been at war with myself for 500 years!!! :D
If a person wants to avoid being wrong most of the time, he should talk only about that which he knows and quietly listen to everything else. To be properly educated in the art of learning is to know when to speak and when to listen.
If I don't talk about computers in my conversations it's because that's a subject that deserves the full attention of my eyes and ears and not my mouth...but on the subjects I do talk about you'll find me rarely in error.
I don't like the rape-analogy at all... it sucks, and isn't even an analogy ;)
Here's what Andorra's Euro looks like... they make it, it's their own currency ;)
I completely agree with that... If you want to make a good point, you better make sure you have all the facts surrounding that point right - if you don't, your point's value will suffer.Quote:
If a person wants to avoid being wrong most of the time, he should talk only about that which he knows and quietly listen to everything else. To be properly educated in the art of learning is to know when to speak and when to listen.
if ye want to use the rape analogy it needs a little changing... how about there's 15 rapers and 10 french, the rapers kill the 5 strongest french and offer the other 5 to live if they walk away, or offer to kill them and to rape the wives of them if they don't...
in the case of the netherlands we tried to stay neutral, but the nazi's needed to come true the netherlands to rape the french and solved that in mere days by bombing the most dense inhabited areas... switching president isn't as bad as literally get blown of the face of the world
if sadaam would've had nukes and he'd have fired them at the US, and the US wouldn't have nukes... you expect every single american to jump in front of the bombs rather then accepting sadaam for president ? ow wait... of course you do, but you don't see the weird part of that
get over the french
I stand corrected on the Euro...I was under the impression that it was a general currency of the EU...so...if I understand this correctly, each country produces their own money and the Euro (eg. England produces the pound and the Euro )...own money plus Euro ...I see that Andorra has the latter but I still don't see the own money ...just Euro.
The rape analogy probably was not a very good one but it was an item recently in the news so it came into play. The point, however, still stands...and it has been raised many times...that neglecting to do the right thing is as bad as doing the wrong thing.
neel...that depends upon your beliefs...some people value their own life above all others, and some don't...some people believe that this life is all they have, and some don't...
if you're the type that would jump in front of a bullet to save a stranger or run into a burning building to rescue a stranger then, chances are you would have been a resistance fighter...if not...likely you would have stood around and watched the tanks roll into town and done nothing...are you scared to die? Death doesn't frighten me at all.
I made one statement about the French...all others were responses to replies...I got over the French a long time ago. If no one had replied that matter would have ended there.
We seem to be wasting alot of time on minor issues which distract from the major ones...I can defend both, but I really don't see the point in arguing over the Euro, when Iceland achieved independance, etc...it seems to be rather trivial nit-picking...what's next...my grammar...spelling errors ? !
We've devoted seven additional threads to something I wrote pretty much tongue-in-cheek...shheeeesh!
;)
Yes, every country part of the Euro-group produces its own money. There are French Euro's, there are German Euro's... don't want to nit-pick, but the example of England you picked is the worst you could have picked - they're not part of the Euro-group and only use the pound, not the Euro :D
It's not about nit-picking... it's about trying to make a point and supporting it by non-facts. I see your point, and I saw it long ago already, but its merits are reduced by the non-facts (doesn't matter if they're details or not)...
Point taken...England was definitely a bad choice! :D
But I still don't see your "non-facts"...I omitted details for the sake of brievity...which were brought up and answered. And everything else that was brought up was also explained or answered.
I reveiwed the posts and I do not see any non-facts ( with the exception of the one above...duly noted ) according to the usual definitions.
I agree sometimes details are very important...if we were having this same conversation in a history forum I would have been more precise and diligent...but this isn't a history forum. :D
I do appreciate the banter though, Negative...I don't often get a chance to square-off nowadays...and I don't take it personal. If everyone agreed with me I would be extremely bored. :)
Egaladeist, at this point I have to interject, much as I love bashing France...
Were it not for the French resistance during WWII the allies would have been much longer in winning the war. The intel they provided, plus aid in escaping prisoners and in hiding Jews is valued beyond price. During the British evacuation at Dunkirk, were it not for French fishermen helping with transportation, many troops would have died. You have no grounds whatsoever upon which to stand in bashing them as a whole. Vichy France (which is a very small cross-section of the country) was the only part of France to openly support the Nazis. To this day frenchmen from Vichy aren't looked well upon there. Post war, many of them were killed outright, or tried for treason. Now, France today might be a bunch of fools led by a fool (hell, some might say the US is too), but the fact remains that they *did* fight in WWII, even after being occupied.
Using your (flawed) logic, our own POW's in the various ongoing wars throughout the years were non-contributors as well - does this mean that our country stood idly by and watched while another country was ravaged? I think not. Try a different train of logic.
Negative:
Errrrrrrrr..................every country in the Euro area HAS its own version of the coinage............that does not mean that they all produce it :p ...........didn't Belgium always produce Luxembourg's currency?Quote:
Yes, every country part of the Euro-group produces its own money. There are French Euro's, there are German Euro's... don't want to nit-pick, but the example of England you picked is the worst you could have picked - they're not part of the Euro-group and only use the pound, not the Euro
As I understand it, the banknotes (which are identical for all countries) are produced centrally.
Yes, Sterling is the official currency over here, but more and more shops, particularly in tourist areas and large cities are pricing in Euros as well.
I guess that is encouraged/viewed positively by the government as a means of getting the UK population more ready for the transition?
:D
Thanks nihil !!! :D
I3lackIce, did you read all the posts or just the last two or three? I agree with you on the resistance and there was no wholesale bashing, unless you mean the tongue-in-cheek remarks that led to this chain of posts.
And I don't understand your last remarks...if they're POW's that means they were fighting at one time and not just sitting around watching the tanks go by. ;)
you missed me point a slight bit... by sketching the situation of jumping in front of a bomb I ment dying in a useless way, with a zero change of achieving anything... I'm not saying you should do nothing if you can, that's yer own choice, but doing stuff just because you don't fear dead, the whole "pro patria mori" crap, without achieving anything is ignorant... selfish even because in that case you have absolutely no idea what yer doing and you might endanger plans with a bigger chance of succes and imo your "sacrifice" would be a weak excuse for "the easy way out"Quote:
neel...that depends upon your beliefs...some people value their own life above all others, and some don't...some people believe that this life is all they have, and some don't...
if you're the type that would jump in front of a bullet to save a stranger or run into a burning building to rescue a stranger then, chances are you would have been a resistance fighter...if not...likely you would have stood around and watched the tanks roll into town and done nothing...are you scared to die? Death doesn't frighten me at all.
You didn't check the facts before you posted that, did you? :pQuote:
Originally posted by Egaladeist
Thanks nihil !!! :D
My statement you quoted explicitly said every country part of the Euro-group produces its own money ....Quote:
Originally posted by nihil
Errrrrrrrr..................every country in the Euro area HAS its own version of the coinage............that does not mean that they all produce it ...........didn't Belgium always produce Luxembourg's currency?
As I understand it, the banknotes (which are identical for all countries) are produced centrally.
That Euro-group consists of 12 (yes, only 12!) members: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. All these countries have their own mint, producing their own coins. Luxembourg has, as far as I know, always produced its own money (they definitely produce their own Euro’s – not sure about the Luxembourg Francs).
The other 9 countries (Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Monaco, San Marino, and even the Vatican) also all produce their own Euro’s. Andorra has always been a weird case, but from what I’ve heard they recently got permission to mint their own coins (and they have in the past issued some Andorran currency, too).
The banknotes are produced by the same mints in the same countries (they are indeed all the same, and not country-specific).
Egaladeist, the reason that people keep on correcting you is not because they are "nit-picking", but because you are showing ignorance. You are continually making general statements about the people of certain countries which seem to be very offensive. You said that if no-one replied to you the discussion would have ended there...that would be completely against the idea of a forum.
And I have to agree with neel; if your country is going to be nuked (or you are going to be killed somehow) and there is nothing that you can do - there is no way to resist in any form - it would be completely stupid to give up your life. This is nothing to do with valuing your own life above others. Your analogy of a person jumping in front of a bullet to save another has nothing to do with neel's example because by not surrendering, you are not going to save anyone if your country is going to be nuked anyway.
This forum is about people's opinions, but it is about opinions that are backed up by factual evidence and not simply made up, omiting details which damage one's point of view. And this site as a whole is about correctness and furthering of knowledge; things that your posts did not conform with.
And btw -- this post was not meant to be taken personally...you just didn't seem to understand why people were annoyed with you and attempting to correct you.
ac
Negative,
I checked out Luxembourg's entry into the EuroZone........................ALL thier initial currency was minted by the Dutch Mint, although I believe Belgium used to make the francs, because the two currencies (Bf/Lf) were tied to eachother in those days.....also there are quality issues with vending machines and counterfeit detectors.
The Royal Mint (UK) made around 5% of the initial blanks components & coins for the original members. :D It is a rather more complex process than one might think.
Sources :
European Union
Annual Accounts of the Royal Mint
Like I said: as far as I know... thanks for that correction. Doesn't change anything about the fact that today, they are producing their own coins, though :)
http://www.bcl.lu/en/currency/index.html
Oh, boy....my, my...with all these new posts where does one begin ! Hummmm...
first...neel...
if you had read the posts you would have realized that the comments you were responding to concerned WW2...more specifically the part before nukes and therefore have no bearing or merit.
second...gothic_type...
read what I just wrote to neel because it applies to you too...if you have an issue with nuke jumping it's neel you should be talking to because I never even came close to saying that in any post I've made...those were comments neel made, not me.
to neel and gothic_type...
if you are going to jump into a discussion you should read the posts first and not jump to conclusions based on partial information, or make assumptions on what was said or meant, or put words into people's mouths that were never there.
:D
Negative...tisk, tisk...and you were doing sooooo good...all this time you stuck to the facts ( those facts being what I said without you're own interpretation drawn in ) and never jumped to a conclusion...see what you've done neel and gothic_type...you're corrupting Negative...
I didn't check the facts of nihil's points because I wasn't responding to nihil's points..I was responding to the fact he wasn't posting to join the debate against me...thank you again, nihil !
Please return to the old Negative and no more assumptions! :D
Quote:
Originally posted by me
You didn't check the facts before you posted that, did you?
That was indeed an assumption on my side... until you acknowledged it: that's when it became a fact :DQuote:
Originally posted by Egaladeist
I didn't check the facts of nihil's points