Posts by dubla

29

U.S. says Canada cares too much about liberties

by ashitaka in

jw
friends

well, i've been paranoid of my own country for a long time, but this just makes me a little more nervous.

now, our neighboring countries must live by america's rules?

i could be reading too much into this, but canada is its own sovereign nation, and they don't have to live by america's rules just because they are our neighbors.

dubla

expat-

i think even simon realizes what a statement that was, considering after he was called on it he disappeared from the thread........hes got quite a fondness for the tactic it seems.

aa

865

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-

about powell....yes indeed, if these trucks would have turned out the be the ones shown on the satellite pictures i would agree....but they didn'T.

well, im glad that you agree....but i didnt see that they had ruled out that possibility.?. do you have a link by chance? it would have been since yesterday, because as of 5/13 they were still running tests on the new discoveries.

as i stated IMO it wouldn'T make sense for hussein to keep WMD. to give them to terrorists? there is no link between hussein and al-qaida terrorists.

you act as if al qaeda is the only dangerous terrorist group in the world. lets not forget the huge terrorist training camps that were found in iraq during the war.

he was very well capable of controlling the kurds and shiits without WMD in 1991.

he also gassed them.....he was probably capable of controlling them without the gas, but that didnt prevent him from using it. maybe he just used it for fun?

finally....where do the numbers come from about how much gas hussein had in 1991???

i dont know where blix gets his numbers....id guess straight from iraqs own admission, but id have to do some research to know for sure...........and dont forget, blix opposed the war.

do you have any info on how much he supposedly had? and how much supposedly was desroyed? also....how long can one store these gases??? i am pretty sure one can'T store them for 12 years.

ive seen the figures on how much he admitted to having (and obviously his admission would be much less than the actual amount....common sense), but no i dont have them at my fingertips....again, some digging would be necessary. as far as how long they can be stored, i havent heard about any "expiration date" on mustard gas, but i suppose thats possible....im not a chemical weapons expert....maybe someone else could shed light on that question.

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 ive supposedly misrepresented. surely it would be quite simple to point out? unless this is an empty claim...??

realist-

first of all, would you agree that powell lied to the UN when he showed the satellite pictures

i just have a question here......what if (now bear with me here, its a "what if" question) the trucks found recently turn out to be the very trucks that powell presented to the un in that report (the mobile bio factories)? does this add credibility to other areas of his report, or would it simply be a grand coincidence?

hussein's only chance was to convince the world that he had destroyed all WMD...why keep them?
the only reason to keep them would have been to use them in case of an attack...did he use them? no....only possible conclusion imo...he indeed didn'T have any left.

weve been over this so many times, that i almost feel bad addressing it again, but i cant help myself, lol. you are once again stating that "the only reason to keep them" would be for self defense....but remember, thats only your opinion. many have the opinion that saddam wouldnt hesitate to sell these weapons to terrorist groups (he could have already), or use them again to keep the kurds in check, or use them against american interests in the region, etc, etc. i respect that you dont feel he would have ever done any of these things, but you have to at least leave open the possibility, unless of course youve read saddams mind lately.

also, heres some words from hans blix:

"Mustard gas is not marmalade. You are supposed to know what you did with it."

hes got a point there, dont you think? and its the same point ive been making all along.....we all know for fact that saddam had large quantities of mustard gas (among other things), not from intelligence, but from saddams own admission, and the actual use of it on his own people. these quantities to this day are unaccounted for.....if he was so intent on proving to the world it was gone, why not simply show documentation that it had been destroyed? not one person, ill repeat that, not one person on the anti side has given a reasonable explanation for why this would be so difficult.....yet it was never done, and no one can say he didnt even have the opportunity to do so.

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

abaddon-

Why many pro-war and pro-Bush supporters try to make opposition equate to being pro-Saddam is just beyond me, as it devalues the arguements they do have to use a straw man.

i agree with you here....and ive been unfairly lumped in this "pro-bush" category so many times its hard to comprehend.......but youre absolutely right in saying that opposing the u.s. govt. or the war is not even remotely close to being "pro-saddam".

I also think almost everyone will agree it's good the US seem to be acting responsibly regarding Israel-Palestine. Many people might add 'finally' to this. If US treatment had been more even-handed in the past (in a situation where both sides are frequently in the wrong), they would have avoided creating the impression that many people have in the Arab world, that the USA is pro-Israel and anti-Islamic. This is one of the key problems the USA has to address, and it is one that they have allowed to develop, and this issue is avoided by many US supporters.

i agree.....and id add "finally" to it myself.

The precident set by the non-UN approved invasion means they USA has to try to pursuade countries to do as they say, not as they do, as with the India-Pakistan situation. Fortunately this is easy for a millitary megapower to do. But the double standard is clear, and is avoided by many US supporters, as it can only be interpreted as a 'might is right' status quo.

yeah, its a pretty scary precident, isnt it?

But I've no doubt powers that be are very worried about what would happen if they were wrong. Even if it was a genuine mistake, no one would ever believe them. For this, the US have themselves to blame, considering the bias and double standards they display in world politics, as discussed above.

just let me say right off the top that i appreciate your objective look at this. most of the posters on this issue, (like simon, for example) would never say something like "even if it was a genuine mistake", because they have absolutely zero objectivity.....instead i see statements like "we are being lied to", and "FACT: they lied to the whole world", etc....without even offering another possibility (even in their own minds).....those types of arguments are what enrage so many on the other side, imo. back to your above statement, id agree that the u.s. has made its own bed to a large extent.

Of course, all countries display bias and double standards in their dealing with other countries.

this fact escapes so many on this board, its hard to believe.

Of course, many American's are worried about America; the ones I know personally are, the ones I meet through business are.
Maybe these more liberal and less vocal people are the true heartbeat of the American people? Certainly a greater number voted for a more liberal agenda than is reflected by the winner of the election.

no doubt you are correct about americans worrying about america....and its not simply the liberal voice that feels that way....im worried about america, and i dont consider myself liberal. as far as the elections go, it was almost exactly 50/50, so id say at the time about 50% voted for a more liberal agenda.....but, since then, what happened in congress? what happened to that 50% that wanted a more liberal agenda? obviously many of them changed their views, as the republican party overwhelmingly took control of congress, a fact that many who keep pointing to the 2000 election seem to avoid at all costs.

aa

5

"Internet Outhouse": They will stop at nothing!!!!

by mustang in

jw
friends

the "internet outhouse" or "iloo" or "www.c" is finally here!!

http://msn.com.com/2100-1103_2-999509.html

what will the jw's do to counter this???

dubla

oh, those crazy brits.......

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-

i think the u.s. will indeed do something about it, and if bush keeps his hard line on the road map, itll be forced on them, regardless of sharons objections. sharon has already contradicted himself on key areas of the west bank.....previously he had said isreal was ready to part with beit el, for example, and now hes claiming beit el will continue to be inhabited by the jews and controlled by isreal. who looks like the ass? the settlements will be a key discussion in the sharon-bush talks that are forthcoming, so we will see how hard sharon wants to play it.

aa

37

LEGALIZING MARIJUANA IN CANADA.....

by Mary in

jw
friends

seems president bush is somewhat peeved that canada is considering legalizing small amounts of marijuana............those who have small amounts would no longer face jail time, but it would basically be treated as a traffice ticket.

hmmmmmm.............not sure what i think about this.

pot stinks to high heaven (no pun intended) and i don't want someone blowing it in my face...........any thoughts?

dubla

shutter-

i was just talking about bushs stance toward canada, toward the whole issue. obviously bush cant simply legalize it.

there are a number of posters that blanketly categorize everyone who is prowar as blind followers of bush, as if we worship the man and agree with everything hes ever done and will do. i was just using this as an example for t h, that every bush opinion doesnt necessarily have my blind stamp of approval.

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

abaddon-

would a pro-Bushy please react to these points, are are they too damn hard to come up with responses that make Uncle Sam look squeaky clean??

well, im prowar, but not 100% probush.......ill "react" anyhow, since no one else has, and i cant for the life of me see anything hard to answer to in your post.

It is a testament to the ingenuity of the Iraqs that even now the war is over, the Coalition Forces have not found anything that fits the description of the WoMD that they cited as one of the reasons for the invasion.

i agree. theyve certainly perfected the art of concealing over the last decade.

Of course, it is a good thing that Saddam Hussain has been removed from power.

agreed.

It is a good thing that the USA is apparently making its weight felt in Isaeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

agreed.

It is a good thing the USA are likely involved in efforts to keep Pakistan and India at peace.

agreed.

If India had followed the coalition's example and invaded a country with WoMD that represented a terrorist threat (and unlike Iraq, the USA and the UK, there is a common boader, active terrorist cells engaged in cross-boarder raids, and incontravertable proof thereof) and invaded Pakistan for the reasons that the coalition used to invade Iraq, we would have a war going on between two nuclear powers.

agreed.

This has not happened, but the risk is that even if India and Pakistan resolve the Kashmir question, there will be another situation where countries that cannot be trusted as much as the coalition will use the precident set by the coalition.

agreed....scary thought.

If WoMD are not found, then the trust that the coalition does have will be severely compromised.

no doubt about it.

The reason will be seen as a convenient excuse.

probably so.

All things being considered, I think it very unlikely they won't find something...

i think theyll find something too...because its there. the antiwar crowd has been putting out these preemtive implications of "planting" from the start of the war on........honestly, i think if the u.s. was going to plant something, they wouldve done it by now, but there will always be a reason to question, no matter what happens. we could find 100,000 tons of mustard gas tomorrow, and wed have posters screaming that it was planted (as if its as easy as dropping a gun at a crime scene), or why that doesnt justify anything thats happened, or how we were all lied to, because the u.s. said there was 101,000 tons, not 100,000....etc, etc.......itll never end for some, imo.

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-

please show me how ive misrepresented any of your opinions or words. i surely was not trying to. which part didnt i understand? did you or did you not say that the u.s./u.k. told the world they knew exactly where the wmd were (several times)? how could i misrepresent that statement? wasnt that the basis for your argument?

i took your first post, point by point, and responded......and got ignored. if you feel someone is misrepresenting your words, the easiest way to show this is by saying so, not ignoring. i honestly believe that you have no rebuttals for the majority of my points, and you sneak away with empty comments along the lines of "theres no reasoning with some", and, "im being misrepresented". these might feel like victorious statements to you, but they are transparent, and just continue to show that you have no answers, only excuses for ignoring.

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-

It must be very convenient for you to label anything that does not go along with your stance as "simply a regurgitation of antiwar arguments". Let us make one thing clear dubla. I did and still believe Hussein needed to be removed from power. He was a ruthless dictator. However I believe that the American public was misled and given false justification for this war. In my post I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the United States government and officials. Yet conveniently I see you decided to not address any of the FACTS I presented. People usually do that when they have no legitimate rebuttal.

im sorry youre offended by me not responding to your bait and switch. i responded to your points that had to do with the actual topic at hand.....but i decided not to get into a lengthy discussion that veers way off topic, and argue points that have already been argued and argued again ad nauseum. if you wish to start another thread, or maybe even better, add your thoughts to the many many threads that have already discussed the exact same issues (youve added absolutely nothing new to the entire discussion), then i suppose we could take it over there and start beating the poor horse again.

Instead some prefer to blindly DEFEND AND SUPPORT the questionable actions of a corrupt Administration.

this is a very common statement from the antiwar side....its effective because it makes anyone that supports the war look like blind followers of the bush administration and everything they do. ill keep pointing out that i do not follow every bush policy, and i hardly think bush is above reproach....quite the contrary. i happen to agree with the decision to go to war........incidentally, if it was al gore making the same decision, i would back him just as strongly as ive backed bush on this one. nice try though.

Yes. Read my last post on this page and then make a statement before blanket-categorizing everyone who speaks critically of your beloved President.

i noticed this statement in your post to jayson.....how ironic, as you are blanket-categorizing everyone who supports the war as "blind followers" of bush.....and of course anyone supporting the war is "willfully ignorant", and doesnt realize what a horrible leader bush is. i refuse to get into bush debates. why? because i dont worship the man!

aa