View Poll Results: Will they find WMD in Iraq

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, left there by the Saddam gov.

    12 42.86%
  • Yes, 'planted' by US gov.

    4 14.29%
  • No

    8 28.57%
  • Don't know/ not sure

    4 14.29%
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 82
  1.    #1  
    Lets get back to our original discusion over the justification of a unilateral attack...

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_030410001334

    How many people think they will find WMD? If so do you believe the consipiray theories that the US may plant them to save face?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #2  
    I think there are enough "maybes" the UN inspectors found (not to mention the chemicals/pesticides coalition forces found) that the US won't have to fabricate any... But IMO we should've been concentrating more on Afghanistan, and not split our forces.
    As for conspiracy theories (again IMO), I think the WMD was just an excuse to go after Saddam, but I can't think of a good ulterior motive to accuse GWB of having. And FTR: I don't go in for the oil or 21st-Century Crusade theories either. Having said all this, I sincerely believe the war is Very Far from being over. There's still a lot left to do.

    Edited to include SIG
    Last edited by doomdr313; 04/10/2003 at 12:48 AM.
    "And if I claim to be a Wise Man,
    It surely means that I Don't Know..."
    Kansas - Carry On Wayward Son
  3. #3  
    I guess it is possible that Saddam still has WMD somewhere, no UN inspector ever said he hasn't. But if he still has/had them, what is he keeping them for now, and if he found them so important, why did he not use them? Or did he hide them so well he cannot find them any more?

    On the other hand: No doubt the US have much more WMD than Saddam, both chemical and biological (the US anthrax used last year in the US, to start off with) - let alone nuclear weapons. I guess it would not be a problem to bring over some of the US stuff in case there is nothing else to be shown in Iraq....
  4. jke
    jke is offline
    jke's Avatar
    Posts
    46 Posts
    #4  
    I believe that what the us did was right. I mean for 12 years we have been trying to get to the bottom of what is or is not going on is this guys country. What I find more interesting then the issue of wmd is that there were a lot of outside country man how were in the country and took up arms against the us. It looks like he was allowing the **** roaches to use his country as a training ground or haven. The second issue is will the documents ever come to light on Frances,Gremany and Russia dealings with him. I mean the real reason why they did not want him taken down was not because they were for peace but rather they had a HUGE stake in him staying in power. I will admit that as great as it is to be rid of him the real work is in front of us. I believe our prayers our needed now more then ever.
  5. #5  
    Well, if I recall correctly, the Bush Administration was claiming intelligence that said Saddam had mobile labs and storage, driving around the countryside, keeping just out of reach of the inspectors. Also, there were claims he was storing WMD materials in his palaces around the country, but I think the UN searched some of those and found no evidence.

    As far as using them, look at it this way: the US says Saddam's got WMD, Saddam says he doesn't. (Let's assume Saddam's lying.) Now, Saddam has a problem: if he uses chemicals when the US/UK forces attack, he's just proven he has WMD, and is a Big Fat Liar, and provided justification for military action. OTOH, if he doesn't, it proves nothing either way, and the Middle East gets to keep the impression of the US as a big bully infidel who can't stop throwing its weight around .

    I haven't seen this discussed much either here or on the news, but using WMD can be a double-edged sword. If used in the wrong conditions (weather and so forth), chemicals can backfire, and wind up damaging the troops using them or even be ineffective. Just another two cents to throw into the pot.
    "And if I claim to be a Wise Man,
    It surely means that I Don't Know..."
    Kansas - Carry On Wayward Son
  6. #6  
    now perhaps bush can get back to what he tried to change the subject from when he started carrying on about iraq, that is the ecomony.

    that new proposed tax cut is a crock and he is too stupid to know it.

    in addition, this war happened, becuase papa bush did 1/2 a job in the first place!

    keep in mind that soc sec and medicare willnot have enough $ to cover the baby boomers, and bush wouldn't borrow for that or med ins for all or r coverage for seniors but weat 47, my grandchildren will be paying off papa bush's "mistake" of not taking out saddam in the 1st place.
  7. #8  
    If Saddam was really a serious threat to his neighbours, the U.S would not have take over Bagdad and other major cities with only 96 dead. If he had WMD, he would have used them. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. Saddam would not care if the world think he is a big fat liar or not if his back is against the wall.


    Originally posted by doomdr313
    Well, if I recall correctly, the Bush Administration was claiming intelligence that said Saddam had mobile labs and storage, driving around the countryside, keeping just out of reach of the inspectors. Also, there were claims he was storing WMD materials in his palaces around the country, but I think the UN searched some of those and found no evidence.

    As far as using them, look at it this way: the US says Saddam's got WMD, Saddam says he doesn't. (Let's assume Saddam's lying.) Now, Saddam has a problem: if he uses chemicals when the US/UK forces attack, he's just proven he has WMD, and is a Big Fat Liar, and provided justification for military action. OTOH, if he doesn't, it proves nothing either way, and the Middle East gets to keep the impression of the US as a big bully infidel who can't stop throwing its weight around .

    I haven't seen this discussed much either here or on the news, but using WMD can be a double-edged sword. If used in the wrong conditions (weather and so forth), chemicals can backfire, and wind up damaging the troops using them or even be ineffective. Just another two cents to throw into the pot.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  8. #9  
    Originally posted by yardie
    If Saddam was really a serious threat to his neighbours, the U.S would not have take over Bagdad and other major cities with only 96 dead. If he had WMD, he would have used them. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. Saddam would not care if the world think he is a big fat liar or not if his back is against the wall.
    So you know him well enough to make that judgement?

    How do we know if he didn't make that call and was ignored by the military.

    How do we know that he's still alive?

    The interesting thing, I think, about this issue is that there are actually people who think the US would "pull a rabbit" out of it's sleeve if proof isn't found.

    Lot's of closed, paranoid, minds out there....

    Originally posted by ilovedessert
    in addition, this war happened, becuase papa bush did 1/2 a job in the first place! etc. etc.
    Oh, so the son Bush is a criminal cowboy because he goes against the wishes of the UN and papa Bush is incompetent because he was a teamplayer (The UN wanted Saddam out of Kuwait, not Saddam out of Iraq)?

    Do you realize that each President spends the first 3 years of his Presidency trying to clean up the economic mess left by the prior administration? Of course you have to live through more than 3 Presidencies to get a good feeling of how it works.

    Social Security has always been a Ponzi scheme. How can anybody who can do math even think that it, as a system, can work? It's ludicrous. The first woman who received a SS check had only paid into it for something like six weeks, and she received a check until she died. It "worked" fine until more people were taking out than put in. When you pay into SS, you're not paying for your retirement - in the future-, but someone elses - right now.

    Borrowing money, to "pay for it" is stupid. Who will pay down that debt?

    I'll be 40 this year, and if I ever see any money from SS, I'll be surprised. But then I figured that out 20 years ago and have made my own plans for my retirement. Do yourself a favor, match what you put into SS (or more) into your own retirement fund. You'll thank yourself later.

    Buy a house instead of renting. Look for a house that you can invest some sweat equity into and sell it in 5-7 years and upgrade.

    Better yet, buy a duplex and let someone else pay your mortgage.

    Buy a used car instead of a new one. The money you lose on a higher interest rate (if you borrow) you'll more than make up in lack of depreciation.

    Be like Ben Franklin and marry a "thrifty wife"
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  9.    #10  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    The interesting thing, I think, about this issue is that there are actually people who think the US would "pull a rabbit" out of it's sleeve if proof isn't found.

    Lot's of closed, paranoid, minds out there....
    With the way Bush and Rumsfeld are running the place it does not surprize me people get paranoid...


    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    Social Security has always been a Ponzi scheme. How can anybody who can do math even think that it, as a system, can work? It's ludicrous. The first woman who received a SS check had only paid into it for something like six weeks, and she received a check until she died. It "worked" fine until more people were taking out than put in. When you pay into SS, you're not paying for your retirement - in the future-, but someone elses - right now.
    I disagree. The system can surely work, look at scandinavia. Sure they got very high taxes but they choose to run things that way because they feel the strong have the obligation to take care of the weak. Also it is a sort of insurance. If something bad happens to you, you know you will still have an income.. this goes for anybody, not just the ones that can afford a private insurance..
    Also by keeping the gap by rich and poor smaller you can prevent (some) crime..

    But in the US people have the mentality 'take care of yourself' mentality. Where a lot of people get in trouble due to bad luck and/or bad planning, leading to all kinds of social problems..

    Both systems have their pro's and con's but SS sure can work if you all believe in it an fight abuse of the system...
    It is a matter of choise and most european countries choose for a more social system, the US choose for their own system, to each their own...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #11  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    The interesting thing, I think, about this issue is that there are actually people who think the US would "pull a rabbit" out of it's sleeve if proof isn't found.

    Lot's of closed, paranoid, minds out there....

    I'm impressed, BobbyMike. I'm sure you would also have called lot's of people paranoid before Nixon's "early retirement". And "Iran/Contra" does not ring a bell, does it?

    Being patriotic is one thing, being naive is another.
  11. #12  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    With the way Bush and Rumsfeld are running the place it does not surprize me people get paranoid...

    I'm not really sure it is Bush who runs the place - I mean, look at him, how he talks and all that. Did you see him on TV when he left his helicopter from Camp David yesterday? He was walking to and fro on the lawn like a sleep-walker until he found his way to the microphone, with a strange and absent-minded look on his face, and then he said: "... I believe we think" Syria has chemical weapons... makes me wonder who thinks for him. Isn't he just a puppet on a string for Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and the rest of crew? Is he really "misunderestimated" as he himself put it?

    Plus, the the claim of the Bush administration that Syria took over the WMD of Iraq is an offence to the intellect of the rest of the world: After having seen how useless the WMP have been for Iraq (supposing the still had any, which seems far from sure right now), what on earth should be the advantage of them for Syria?

    But let's not forget that there indeed is a country with WMD (nuclear weapons) in the Middle East, this country illegally occupies foreign territory and continues to violate numerous UN resolutions: Israel....
  12. #13  
    1. soc sec was never designed to be solely self supporting, orginally it was supposed to draw $ from the general budget years ago. Congress raised fica taxes a number of times to continue soc sec from having to draw from public coffers.

    The largest of these raises was done during the Carter admistration. This was done because as the baby boomers (of which I am one, I am 47, but more about that in a min.).

    Carter supported the idea and I did thena and still do. The idea was to give a 20 some odd year to accumulate extra funds so that when the baby boomers, the largest one time group to be approching soc sec age.

    Later retirement age was raised gradually from 65 to 67. If you did not reach 65 by 2000, starting back to the Reagan admstrations time until 2000, your retirement age was gradually and fractionally increased toward 67, ie if you would have turned 60 in year 2000, your retirment would have been a few months after your 65th birthday, which each successive year worth of recpients would have another monthor a few weeks added to it, until the retirement age of 67 was reached. Thereafter all recpients who applied for full (100%), soc would be age 67.

    The early reirement age of 62m was also to be gradually increased by the same formula and I beleive it was to go to age 64, when you could first get soc sec but at 80% of what your age 67 rate would be.

    Medicare rates were increased as well, 1st by eliminating the cap on medicare on income over a certain ammount. I beleive it was 1.6 or 1.8% of your 1st 100,000 in annual income and then nothing after $100,000. per anum.

    That was first changed to all money under and over $100,000 were taxed by the same percentage. (I think that was Crater's proposal as well, but it is a long time ago, so I maybe wrong about the timeng of it).

    Later Reagan, gradually increased medicare ages (was age 65 or 24 to 5 months after you are disabled. (5 moths of all disability claims are eaten by the claimant, then 24 moths after your first soc sec diability check you get the same medicare as retireees. However a great many get that benifit retroactively since disabilty claims can take up to more than the 5 months elimation period and the first 24 months, (as did mine, my fiels was lost and soc sec did not discover it for 8.5 mothsn and then took3.5 to recosntrcut the file. My soc sec disablity claim took 29 months, of which i had no income at all and then when i was awarded it, it was during the first of newt's government shut down and while technically i was eliagable for meidcare it took 3 moths due to the second of newt's shut down. In fact i had to pay $444.44 x 3 the week before iwas told i won my soc sec dis claim form private med ins, of whcih i had no income at all. evetaully i was awarded medicare retoatively and was refunded the $444.44 x 3 back 9 months after i paid it!).


    Reagan also changed soc and medicare to round down. for example my soc sec orginal disability figure incuded the amount of .84 cents. that was rounded out to the lower $ ammount, each raise we get is based on the lower figure and each new raise is lowered down to the nearest dollar.

    In addition he rounded up as well. Medicare rates during some of the following increase came to .70 cents which was rounded up to the nearest $.

    This rounding up and down adds up across the millions of retirees and the 1.5 million of us who get soc sec disablity.

    all of carter's fgures turned out to be amazingly accurate and it owuld have been fine of all of the boomers who will file for soc and medicare.

    The problem is that reagan spent moeny like a drunken sailor and also promised to balance the budget at the same time. While he sucessfully blaming congress for spending all fo that money in actuallity he asked for way more than they sepnt and only once out of all of regean's budet did they spend more than reagan asked for and my a small ammount.

    Thus the huge deficit was created. Eventally the republican congres balanced the budget in part by taking 138 BILLION out of medicare's coffers. Thsi caused the a cap in medicare's payments to providers based by zip code, (aech county in the entire country gets adifferent ammounbt), in fact where i live in fla, m,y county gets $255 a month less per month for providers than does the next one 16 miles away.

    This rate is also is waht is used to calcvulate the fees, if any for medicare hmo's if any in the county, if there is not one in your county you are out of luck as you cannot go to another county.

    So my medicare hmo closed leaving ,me to find other ways for covering my $1200 A MONTH RX bill!

    SO if you are unhappy of the plight of soc sec and medicare you apply just remember that Reagan and the republicans did this to us, at the time I suspected he was not of his right mind and he wasn't

    For better or worse, I beleive supply side cannot work as it seems to me that only the rich get the tax breaks. Out of W's orgianl tax cuts across 10 year only 75% of us will ever see another cut, the percentage of people not gettting a cut is far higher here as the incomes are so much lower here in fla.

    So once agian, we are told you can get something for nothing and congress is eating it up, while they get richer.

    BTWthey gave themselves a cost of livinga and a another raise the COLA was more than twice the soc raise that I got!

    So think about it before you vote!
  13. #14  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    Lets get back to our original discusion over the justification of a unilateral attack...
    Hold on now, just because everyone wasn't on board does not make it unilateral. Have we forgotten word roots' meanings?

    Unilateral: done or undertaken by one person or party
  14.    #15  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Hold on now, just because everyone wasn't on board does not make it unilateral. Have we forgotten word roots' meanings?

    Unilateral: done or undertaken by one person or party
    OK, that word is a bit dated now the US 'found' a couple of allies.
    But the gist of the word still stands..
    US went out on their own and picked up some allies allong the way.

    We started using unilateral when they were still alone and the word stuck even though technical it is not correct anymore..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  15. #16  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    We started using unilateral when they were still alone and the word stuck even though technical it is not correct anymore..
    No you didn't. That post was dated april 9. The fact of the matter is the US has always had allies. Not *everyone* and indeed not even most (or perhaps even a significant fraction) but unilateral is a misleading term.
  16.    #17  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    No you didn't. That post was dated april 9. The fact of the matter is the US has always had allies. Not *everyone* and indeed not even most (or perhaps even a significant fraction) but unilateral is a misleading term.
    I wasnt talking about this thread only but in general..
    Unilateral is a bit misleading indeed, but I don't have a better word for it... do you?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  17. #18  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    I wasnt talking about this thread only but in general..
    Unilateral is a bit misleading indeed, but I don't have a better word for it... do you?
    Semilateral? Very-few-lateral?
  18.    #19  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Semilateral? Very-few-lateral?
    LOL!
    I'll use semilateral from now, OK?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #20  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    LOL!
    I'll use semilateral from now, OK?
    Muahahaha, joke's on you! That implies half of everyone agreed. Hardly! Frankly, I could care less. I don't know why I felt like being a jerk and belaboring this point.
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions