Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on March 29, 2006, 08:21:10 PM
-
A friend of mine who read the same article commented that this was all "too little, too late" and that at this point nothing other than the discovery of Bin Laden in an undiscovered anteroom of Saddam's spider hole, or a bunker containing Nuclear tipped ICBMs with slogans like "BYE-BYE NEW YORK" written in Arabic on the Nose Cone would have much impact at home and abroad...
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11671
-
I'd settle for the capture of Bin Laden,....he really doesn't need to be in Saddam's spider hole.
I'd settle for finding those masses of WMD's. They don't have to have any Arabic righting on them. I mean, with this MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AS BIG AS WALMART, there is tangible WMD's somewhere, right?
Find Bin Laden and the weapons and I would then say our little stroll into Iraq was an unqualified success and that it sends a CREDIBLE powerful message to the world, that we know our stuff and we execute upon that.
I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when he used our forces to invade Iraq and I supported this action based upon the reasons given.
That benefit is gone.
I've seen other references to this MOUNTAIN OF PAPER EVIDENCE, and we even had Gun talking about this retired Iraqi general like that was new news, btw whatever happened to him and his Sryia connection, Gun?...hello, any Fox News Alert on his information??
We've been there 3 years.....referring to these documents now is smoke and mirrors.
Why isn't the White House singing about this from every rooftop and talking head program out there? That's what I don't get, it comes from, and no offense, such huge publications as the World Magazine.
Why isn't the Bush Admin saying this stuff?
We can have, in Bush's words "CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" of Saddam's links to terrorism and possesion of WMD's before we ever set foot in Iraq, but after 3 years of occupation we can't get through all the MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE to prove those things we KNEW.
Saddam was a bad man....a very bad man, no mistake there.....but.......
I do like what Bush said a couple of Sunday's ago.....I'll paraphrase "We are now implementing a successful strategy in Iraq." Huh?...now implementing....ok.
Honestly, find the proof of the link and the WMD's and Bush is a winner in my book.
BTW, since there is a photograph of Rumsfield shaking Saddam's hand in 1987 (?I think that was the year..maybe 1985), and we knew he used gas on the Iranians, does that mean the world can say we have links to terror organizations?
-
vote democrat
LOL LOL LOL
-
Eagler...what are you twelve?
That's a response?
-
I tried to give this article the benefit of the doubt, but this is not credible;
About that time UN weapons inspectors were taken to a facility in the western desert, where they were shown proof Iraq had tested a nuclear weapon
You gotta be kidding me. They tested a nuke and nobody noticed? That just aint gonna happen.
Then they showed "proof" to UN weapons inspectors, and they hushed it up? Gimme a break.
WORLD MAGAZINE
Weekly News | Christian Views
Rags like this using the word "Christian" in their description exemplify everything that is wrong with mixing religion and politics.
[EDIT]
Ahhh, now I get it..
COVER STORY ARTICLE | "History speaks" April 01, 2006
It's an April Fools joke.
[/EDIT]
-
Originally posted by Eagler
vote democrat
LOL LOL LOL
Yup. the dems are gonna snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
-
Hello Zorch,
Originally posted by z0rch
I tried to give this article the benefit of the doubt, but this is not credible;
You gotta be kidding me. They tested a nuke and nobody noticed? That just aint gonna happen.
Then they showed "proof" to UN weapons inspectors, and they hushed it up? Gimme a break.
Rags like this using the word "Christian" in their description exemplify everything that is wrong with mixing religion and politics.
I believe the author was referring to a feature article published in the Times of London on Feb. 25th 2001 which talked in detail about possible Iraqi Nuclear tests. I don't have a link to the original article, but the text and some of the illustrations are available here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/stirevnws01015.htm
In any event, I understand that Christianity like porn is something that has to be kept behind closed doors or hidden under the bed. Christians are of course unspeakably stupid and useless. Just ask idiots like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Isaac Newton and T.S. Elliot. Whereas socialism is the shining path to truth, enlightenment, and credibility in journalism. I know this because I am a long time reader of the New York Times and I listen to People's Liberation Radio. I mean NPR.
I'd sign this, but I plum fergot how to spel mah handle agin... go figur
-
Porn should be kept behind closed doors? The hell you say...
-
Well, with modern technology, nukes could probably be tested through computer programs, couldn't they? Actual detonation is the old way of testing, or of testing where several were available and on hand. Computer programs could probably give acurate results of what a nuke could do, or even if it would work.
The point being, a nuke could be tested without setting it off, provided one was already built and available for diagnostics. This doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility, since there's probably nothing new under the sun concerning nuke technology.
Anyhow, someone's gonna have to read through all 48.000 boxes of documents and look into this. I nominate Zorch for the job. :D
Les
-
"We believe that our purpose is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever and forever begins right now."
"We stand for factual accuracy and biblical objectivity, trying to see the world as best we can the way the Bible depicts it."
Must be credible source... Maybe better than BBC ?
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I do like what Bush said a couple of Sunday's ago.....I'll paraphrase "We are now implementing a successful strategy in Iraq." Huh?...now implementing....ok.
Maybe that strategy is calling civil war refugees "iraqis displaced by sectarian violence"
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/iraq/3755216.html
-
I think this is probably the part that generated a defensive response..
quote: Originally posted by z0rch
Rags like this using the word "Christian" in their description exemplify everything that is wrong with mixing religion and politics.
Notice that I'm not criticizing Christianity. I'm criticizing political rags that hide behind a label of Christianity.
Religion comes from faith. Government comes from politics. If you have _faith_ in _politicians_, I'd like to sell you a ranch in North Dakota.
Posted by Seagoon;
I believe the author was referring to a feature article published in the Times of London on Feb. 25th 2001 which talked in detail about possible Iraqi Nuclear tests. I don't have a link to the original article, but the text and some of the illustrations are available here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/l...revnws01015.htm
From the above referenced article;
Intelligence agencies, including Israel's Mossad, insist that Saddam has never had the technology or the fuel to fulfil his ambition of creating a nuclear arsenal.
If there was even the slightest chance that Iraq had The Bomb, Israel would at the very least be howling from the rooftops, or more likely launching a pre-emptive strike.
This is what lawyers call a "statement against interest", meaning that it would not be in their interest to tell this particular falsehood.
A nuke is not easy to build, and fuel for it isn't easy to get. No nation is going to sell Saddam weapons grade fuel; because he's crazy enough to use it and the isotopic signature would enable the source of the fuel to be traced to the country of origin. E.g., If Pakistan or NK gave Iraq the fuel, and Saddam nuked Tel Aviv, the accomplice nation would be getting a taste of retaliatory nuclear fury.
Even given the materials and detailed design specs, there are a number of very sophisticated technical hurdles that Iraq never had the infrastructure to clear.
Plus, even an underground test would leave _incontrovertible_ evidence. Isotopes in the atmosphere and ground water. Massive electromagnetic emissions. Our satellites are sensitive enough to intercept the electromagnetic signals of a telephone from over 100 miles up. They won't miss a nuke.
No nation has gone nuclear without the US detecting their tests. Pak and South Africa both caught us by surprise, but we knew once they lit the thing off.
The article is based on highly questionable and completely unsubstantiated claims from an anonymous and un-credentialed source that had an interest in overstating the facts ("I am in danger here in Iraq," said "Leone", as we came to know him).
For this obviously partisan political rag to twist facts beyond any credibility and claim to do it in the name of Christianity should outrage you more than anyone. It's the credibility of your faith being undermined.
-
too little... too little.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I'd settle for finding those masses of WMD's. They don't have to have any Arabic righting on them. I mean, with this MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AS BIG AS WALMART, there is tangible WMD's somewhere, right?
They are in France... why do they have so many nukes? :noid
-
Good post. Last paragraph mighta been left out, but ok.:)
Les