Posts by dubla

However the way that one particular scene was shot...the slow buildup to an action packed crescendo, then Neo just blasting off made it one of the film's best, imo.

neo blasting off was definitely a "wow" moment....but didnt it leave you wondering why he fought them at all? why not simply "blast off" at the start of the battle?

aa

26

Just saw The Matrix Reloaded

by Trauma_Hound in

jw
friends

.

and it kicked massive ass!

make sure you stay through the credits, there is a preview for the matrix revolutions at the end..

dubla

spoiler warning..........................

the first matrix is one of my favorite movies of all time, and i never get tired of watching it. so i was pretty excited when i finally bought my ticket to the first sequel................

disappointed doesnt begin to describe my feeling after leaving the theater yesterday.......disgusted is more like it. after the first half hour of the movie, i realized it was terrible, and the rest of the way through i just kept hoping it would somehow get better.....it didnt. of course the action scenes were great, there were a few legitimate chuckles and wows, as should be expected.....but the overall feel of the movie left me remembering "attack of the clones". it felt like the movie knew what its strengths were, and overemphasized them. the fight scenes seemed to just happen, because they had to, not because they were an intricate part of the story line......very contrived for the most part.

the lines got much cheesier from matrix 1 to matrix 2...and morpheus sounded as if he was reading cue cards for much of the movie. the characters were supposed to be bleak and somewhat faceless from the beginning, but that lack of emotion is magnified 10 times over in this one........does neo even have emotions? can he muster a facial expression besides the "whoa" look that he cant seem to wipe off?

we are introduced to a plethora of new characters in this installment, and not one of them is developed in the least......nothing past the "this is capt. needermeyer" intros.....did anyone care about any of these new characters? did anyone care when the keymaker died? if the new ship operator dies in the first scene of revolutions...will it be a loss? its like all the new players are simply fillers.....and we arent asked to care for them or even know them like we were during the first matrix.

whats with all the captain/corporal/soldier talk? when did the matrix story become star wars? was anyone moved by the speech morpheus gave in zion? i know i wasnt.

the thing i loved about the first movie was a sense of reality......of course it was complete fiction, but it gave you the the whole dreamworld affect....the reality underneath. in the matrix rehashed, this feeling is completely gone, and it has given way to a whole new feel: youre reading a comic book. this movie viewed like spiderman.....only when i watched spiderman, i expected the comic feeling, and therefore embraced it and enjoyed it. the first matrix was like kung fu meets die hard, with a big dose of bladerunner......this one was like superman meets star wars..........and the new improved neo has now morphed into the dullest form of superhero possible: the invincible man. of course the fight scene with the hoards of agent smiths was awesome to watch, but did anyone else feel a real lack of threat there? did you get a sense of threat from agent smith at any time during the movie? i didnt.

obviously the wachowskis felt they needed to wow us even more than the first time, so we were also introduced to new villains that basically take on a spirit like form and move freely through the matrix as they please......*yawn*. i guess the vampire twins were cool until they became evil spirits with medusa-like hair and big scary teeth. frightening? nope, just silly.

the cg didnt bother me as much as it could have, but it was extremely obvious at times, which was a bit painful. painstaking effort was made in the first matrix to use actual actors during the fight scenes, pushing the limits and braking new ground........and now we have 100% cg neos and agent smiths forced on us......was that necessary?

ill probably see the third installment just to see how the story ends, but im certainly not excited about it. if the pattern continues, the third movie will have even more double-speak and philosophizing about the whys of free will (if thats possible), and another huge heap of explaining everything to death.......ill have to drink a redbull to make it through the yawn sections and stay awake for the action sequences, which are the only scenes left that are worth viewing in this trilogy.

aa

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

dubla

simon-

thank you for your response, even if overdue....i appreciate your answer. im sorry that you think ive tried to twist the argument on to another topic.....that has never been my intention. it has always been my intention to discuss wmd, which i thought was your intention as well....if you read back over my posts to you, i think youll find that they all center on wmd. the main point i was making was and still is that the u.s. never claimed to know exactly where wmd were....if they knew exact whereabouts, the inspectors wouldve found them long before the war, this is simple logic.

I have already said what I think and you have chosen to ignore things and try and change the subject to distract attention.

again, its okay to make a claim, but you have to back it up simon......please show me where ive ever tried to divert this conversation away from the subject matter, namely wmd, and whether or not they are in iraq.

A quick recap: I say that the US government told us they knew that Iraq had WoMD and that they knew this for a fact because they knew where they were (in fact, how else could they claim to have positive proof?)

and it is still very obvious to me after reading your links, that the u.s. never claimed to know the exact whereabouts while going to war. question simon: if the u.s. wouldve known the exact locations as you claim, and if this was supposedly public knowledge (that they claimed to have the coordinates)....why wouldnt they have simply targeted these locations during the war? wouldnt this have been an easy target? with all the questioning and skeptism from the "war experts", why didnt any of these experts question the decision to avoid the known wmd sites during air raids? the answer, as i see it plain and clear, is that they didnt have coordinates for confirmed sites, only suspected sites.

Note that these do not say suspected:

do you ignore the words given after that picture was displayed? do you simply think no one else will care what powell said after that picture? here was his words (again, bold/italic mine):

Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji. This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapons shells.
Here you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.

How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions. The arrow at the top that says "security" points to a facility that is a signature item for this kind of bunker. Inside that facility are special guards and special equipment to monitor any leakage that might come out of the bunker. The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong. This is characteristic of those four bunkers. The special security facility and the decontamination vehicle will be in the area, if not at any one of them or one of the other, it is moving around those four and it moves as needed to move as people are working in the different bunkers.

Now look at the picture on the right. You are now looking at two of those sanitized bunkers. The signature vehicles are gone, the tents are gone. It's been cleaned up. And it was done on the 22nd of December as the UN inspection team is arriving, and you can see the inspection vehicles arriving in the lower portion of the picture on the right.

The bunkers are clean when the inspectors get there. They found nothing.

can you not comprehend what a "cleaned up" bunker is? simon, the inspectors were AT THIS SITE, as powell states.....do you think the u.s. would be so stupid to claim there were active wmd at a site where inspectors just were? what would they say, "you guys must have missed the chemical weapons being stored there"..?? no, powell was claiming that taji was a major chemical site that had been "cleaned up". your willful ignorance about this fact is very troubling.

You can claim what you want, but that is what the UN and the world were told.
Now, you are claiming that the evidence they showed was that things had been destroyed ... but how could this be proof that they had WoMD? Are you saying that the US government is really that dumb?
"We give as proof that Iraq has not destroyed their WoMD, evidence that they have"

you say im simply claiming this, as if i have no backing.....but all i have done is quoted powell directly. how is that an empty claim? and no i wasnt implying that they destroyed their wmd....only evidence of wmd....big difference. cleaning up a site (moving chemical weapons to another site, bulldozing evidence) is not the same as destroying the actual weapons that were stored there. heres a very simple question, and in order for you to prove your point, it should be very easy for you to answer: what did powell mean by the bold/italic portion of his above quote?

Now, they have stretched that out to some indefinite timescale and claimed that Iraq could be a threat in the future. Shakey ground and you know it.

i honestly havent seen that anywhere.....can you show me a link? i didnt realize anyone was still claiming that iraq could be a threat in the future.....im not sure how they could even claim that, considering the u.s. and u.k. are currently ruling the country.....i would have to agree thats a shaky argument.

Do you, or do you not agree that the proof that the US gave of Iraq having WoMD was bogus and fabricated?

i think that the proof powell gave the u.n. will either prove to be fact or fabrication, depending on what is found or not found in iraq. if nothing matching any of his descriptions turns up, then the entire report will be invalid, imo.

Think carefully, if you think they gave proof then explain why they cannot produce the hard evidence now. If you think they didn't ... then why did they use it as an excuse to go to war?

as far as why they cannot produce hard evidence "now", ive already stated my stance on that several times, and youve ignored it every time. the last link i provided said that 60 major sites had been searched out of 700.......time will show whether the evidence is there or not. one conservative estimate had the search lasting until september. obviously this wont be quick enough for the skeptics, but either the evidence will be found, or it wont....and one of us will inevitably be proven right in our opinion. ive stated and re-stated that if no hard evidence is found, i will be seriously questioning the motives for this war. you are unable or unwilling to say the same for your side of the coin, namely that if evidence is found, you will re-think your skeptism. will you?

Now, I have neither the time or the inclination to waste my time trying to debate with someone who will not accept or comprehend the basic facts and logic of an argument

another empty claim, and i again must ask: where is your backing? what "basic facts" have i ignored? are they "facts" simply because you label them as such? i find this insulting, especially with the numerous times youve ignored key points in my arguments.....who has really done the ignoring? should i produce a list of my points that youve completely ignored? its a long list simon. you have accused me of picking points out of your posts to argue, while ignoring the rest.....but do you engage in this tactic? do you only respond to what you deem is valid? is that how a rational discussion works?

aa

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

dubla

simon-

im still waiting to hear what it is that ive misrepresented. i really dont appreciate you making false implications about me, and thats exactly what that accusation is unless you can back it up with a simple explanation. the fact that youve been unable to do so is very telling.

aa

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

dubla

search-

wow, the pot calling the kettle black...this is hilarious:

We've had similar reports for weeks and they have all been false and never mentioned again, just to keep the gullible, like you, from thinking that they have found something.
You two are really something else. You never comment on the posts of others except to belittle or criticise. TRY READING.

"try reading"? lol, you didnt even take the time to read thichis post (probably just the headline), because if you had youd have realized it was complete satire! how in the world did you call someone out and show your ass in the same two sentences? thats an accomplishment.......sorry, just had to point that out before it gets edited.

aa

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

dubla

reborn-

I apologize if I wrongly insinuated you were somehow a member of a "pro-Bush" camp.

no problem....it just gets a little old, and its not just you.......theres a good number of people on the "antiwar" side that have a habit of lumping anyone prowar into the "worshipers of bush" camp.

What I stated was extremely relevant to this discussion.

i suppose in the context of what simon was trying to accomplish with this thread, you are right....as he was trying to imply motives outside of wmd for the war, and your post did indeed talk about other motives, so maybe "bait and switch" was a little off as a description.

you addressed me about a statement i made though, concerning what the u.s. did or didnt claim to have known about wmd factories in iraq, and i was simply wanting to stick to that subject rather than veer off and argue about oil and vendettas....as these things have been argued to death already, and i honestly dont have anything new to add. even in your post you said: "Not to veer off topic (which is exactly what I did)..."

i did respond to what i felt was relevant to my comments, which was this:

Colin Powell marched in front of the United Nations and provided so-called evidence that they were certain beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Iraqi government was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. If the United States intelligence was so effective so as to take satellite imagery of locations believed to be factories for production, even going as far to provide detailed photographs demonstrating how they changed from day to day... yet now that the United States has TOTAL DOMINANCE of the sovereign state of Iraq, and can go as they please throughout the country, and in a matter of weeks is UNABLE to FIND ANYTHING.. when prior to the war they justified the very conflict by stating they KNEW the Iraqis have weapons, and they had the intelligence to provide evidence... who really is being duped here?

i have shown, through links, that the only thing powell marched in front of the u.n. with, evidence wise, was a stack of photos showing factories that had already been bulldozed and moved.

i also ask, how do we monitor changes in photographs, and truck movements at this point? there is no more movement or change because the regime is no longer in control.....so now we have to search through the rubble to find whats left, and i believe thats what were doing. as the article in my last post showed, theres plenty more sites to be searched, and more are popping up all the time as the iraqis continue to help.

one of us will be proven correct, so its really just a matter of time now. if no wmd are found, ive already stated that i would have to seriously re-think my stance on the entire premise for war.......are you willing to do the same if wmd are found? or will you simply look for a copout (they were planted, etc.)? if we find trucks like the ones powell described and showed photos/diagrams of, will some of you start stepping forward and admitting some credibility to the u.s. reports of wmd? or will they simply be trucks the u.s. designed and flew over to iraq?

aa

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

dubla

realist-

how exactly can one identify a terrorist training camp?

i believe the ones in iraq were easily identified by stacks of suicide bomb vests and instruction manuals, among other things.

and what do they train there? how to blow themselfs up? just curious.

actually, im sure thats part of it, yes. what they train depends on how sophisticated the camp is......for example, just to give you an idea:

Osama bin Laden's training camps, prime targets of the U.S.-British military strikes, mix religious instruction with terrorist disciplines, including guns, explosives, hijacking and assassination.
Instructors train students in math so they can calculate how much of an explosive it takes to destroy a building, according to terrorist trial testimony. Others teach fighters the arts of surveillance and kidnapping. Still others train them to use weapons, from bare hands and knives to belt-fed machine guns and surface-to-air missiles.

Some insight into life at the camps comes from the testimony during this year's trial in connection with the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. L'Houssaine Kherchtou, a Moroccan who said he trained at the al-Farouq camp near Khost, described his first two-month course of study, beginning with a month of training with pistols, rifles and submachine guns, followed by two weeks learning about mines, explosives and grenades, then two weeks on anti-aircraft weapons.

Blending in is the key. "You would wear clothing that would not bring suspicion to yourself; you would wear clothing that tourists wear," Ressam said.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011009-attack02.htm

the only vehicles i am aware of were found about a week ago....so since it doesn'T take too long to identify a specific gas or specific bakteria i assume it was once again a false alarm.

heres the latest i saw on it:

There is "pretty conclusive evidence" that this is a mobile chemical weapons lab, the official said.
The trailer was discovered near Mosul Saturday by members of the Army's 327th Infantry at a former missile production facility that had been heavily looted. It was made up of refrigeration units and piping, compatible with chemical weapons production. What was also believed to be a spraying device was found nearby, the source said.
The suspected lab has been turned over to the military's mobile exploitation team.

Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the defector's account of mobile laboratories to the United Nations in February in an effort to demonstrate that Iraq had violated U.N. resolutions requiring its disarmament.
Powell has since said the discovery "matches very closely" the information he presented at that time.

No biological weapons were found inside the trailer, which Cambone said had been washed with "a very caustic substance." But he said it contained equipment not normally used for "legitimate biological processes" -- including exhaust gas recovery systems that could hide evidence of biological weapons production.
"Part of the reason for wanting to continue with the testing is to be able to reach into those parts of the equipment that can't be reached by the superficial testing that we've been able to do," Cambone said. "So that process has to go forward, and we'll see what that yields."
Cambone said weapons experts have visited about 70 of the nearly 600 sites U.S. officials believe are related to Iraq's weapons programs, plus another 40 locations Cambone said they were led to from information discovered since Saddam's government collapsed April 9.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/13/sprj.irq.mobile.lab/index.html

the last truck they found (similar to this one) had also been washed clean with a bleach-like substance.....so identifying specific gasses/chemicals might prove tough with any finds. obviously it can be determined if there was any other possible use for a mobile factory such as this though. could be another false alarm, who knows.

aa

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

dubla

realist-

finally....where do the numbers come from about how much gas hussein had in 1991??? do you have any info on how much he supposedly had?

heres some of iraqs admitted numbers.....and imo, the actual numbers would be much higher than what they would admit to having........

30. In 1981, Iraq started producing the blister agent mustard
(HD). Iraq's earlier declarations of 3,080 tons produced have
been reduced in the latest disclosure to 2,850 tons. The
quality of the mustard agent was good (not less than
80 per cent pure) and was such that the agent could be stored
for long periods, either in bulk or in weaponized form.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1995-0284.htm

also....how long can one store these gases??? i am pretty sure one can'T store them for 12 years.

Even years after its production, the mustard agent analysed by the
Commission was found to be in good and usable condition.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1995-0284.htm

and how much supposedly was desroyed?

34. Over the period from June 1992 to June 1994, the
Commission's Chemical Destruction Group destroyed 30 tons of
tabun, 70 tons of sarin and 600 tons of mustard agent, stored
in bulk and in munitions.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1995-0284.htm

now, that was back '94, and i know in 1997 thousands of tons of chemical agents were destroyed by unmovic, but im having a hard time narrowing down (with links) how much of the mustard gas was destroyed. heres what blix had to say about unaccounted for chemical weapons in february 2003 (bold, italic mine):

To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were “unaccounted for”. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-578338,00.html

simple, right? apparently not for saddam....and again, ive yet to hear one reasonable explanation as to why this would be difficult in the time frame he was given..?

heres a little info on vx:

36. Iraq also had a research and development programme for the
production of a further nerve agent, VX. According to Iraq's
account, VX was the focus of its research efforts in the
period after September 1987. Iraq has stated that between
late 1987 and early 1988, a total of 250 tons of phosphorous

pentasulphide and 200 tons of di-isopropylamine were imported,
these being two key precursors required for the production of
VX. For the other precursors required, Iraq claims to have
used only approximately 1 ton of methyl phosphonyl chloride
(MPC) from a total of 660 tons produced indigenously. The
remaining MPC is claimed to have been used to produce DF, then
used in GB/GF production. The fourth precursor required for
VX, ethylene oxide, was generally available, being a multi-
purpose chemical.

37. Iraq states that it produced a total of only 10 tons of
choline from the di-isopropylamine and ethylene oxide and
approximately 3 tons of methyl thiophosphonyl dichloride from
the phosphorous pentasulphide and methyl phosphonyl chloride.
From this, Iraq states that it produced experimental
quantities of VX (recently increased to 260 kg from 160 kg).
Iraq has recently admitted that three 250-gauge aerial bombs
had been filled with VX for experimental purposes.

38. Iraq claims that further attempts to produce VX were
unsuccessful and the programme was finally abandoned in
September 1988. According to Iraq's account, the remaining
choline from the 10 tons was burned in early 1988 and the
remaining 247 tons of phosphorous pentasulphide was discarded
in 1991 by scattering it over an area of land and putting it
in pits. Iraq also claims that 213 tons of di-isopropylamine
was destroyed by bombing during the Gulf war. However, while
the Commission has found traces of these chemicals at the
sites at which Iraq states their destruction occurred, it has
not been able to verify the quantities destroyed. Thus,
precursors for the production of at least 200 to 250 tons of
VX cannot be definitively accounted for.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1995-0284.htm

and what blix had to say about it recently:

The Iraqi side suggested that the problem of verifying the quantities of anthrax and two VX-precursors, which had been declared unilaterally destroyed, might be tackled through certain technical and analytical methods.

Although our experts are still assessing the suggestions, they are not very hopeful that it could prove possible to assess the quantities of or testimony by staff that dealt with the items still appears to be needed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-578338,00.html

aa