Lone_Gunman
Member
Skunkape,
So you consider Saddam a more reliable source of information than the US?
So you consider Saddam a more reliable source of information than the US?
WMD Mega-Thread
- Thread starter SkunkApe
- Start date
- Status
Thumper
Member
I think what's being said is that when they're found has little relevence, politically.
I think Bush's approval rate was 61% last week.
I think Bush's approval rate was 61% last week.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Tom B, I'm one of those who cited WMD's as part of the reason to go to war. I believe Hussein had them, and had them recently. But I do think it matters that we find out whether they were destroyed, moved to another country, or scattered about Iraq. We aren't under any obligation to do so; again, the burden of proof was on Hussein. But not being able to account for them will just give steam to the campaigns of Kerry et al.
Thumper
Member
Of course he does.
He also considered the World Trade Center to be a "viable military target" and believed that the U.S. bombed a "baby food factory" (sign conveniently written in English).
He continually denounces the U.S (both parties) as liars and murderers. No big deal, just recognize him for what he is and realize that we DO have enemies. Some even have internet access.
He also considered the World Trade Center to be a "viable military target" and believed that the U.S. bombed a "baby food factory" (sign conveniently written in English).
He continually denounces the U.S (both parties) as liars and murderers. No big deal, just recognize him for what he is and realize that we DO have enemies. Some even have internet access.
Lone_Gunman,
I've told this story before, but I'll repeat it for you.
When boxing promoter Bob Arum was caught by a reporter in an obvious lie, his response was
"Yesterday I was lying, today I'm telling the truth."
That is how I seen the U.S. government. If I start typing all the obvious lies and exagerations of our government now, I'll still be here typing tomorrow. If you want me to believe you today, you'd better not have lied to me yesterday.
Some people unquestionally believe everything a person from their party of choice says and believe that makes them a patriot. I ask you this:
Do you prefer an honest man from the opposition party to a liar from your own party?
Does the end justify the means?
Should your government use propaganda and exagaration to gain your support for a cause, or should they tell the full truth and let rational men decide for themselves what is right?
Even if the cause is just, is it acceptable to lie to gain support for it?
When I was a child, a popular patriotic phrase was "America, if you don't love it, leave it."
I think "If you do love it, fix it" is a better plan.
I'm trying my best.
I've told this story before, but I'll repeat it for you.
When boxing promoter Bob Arum was caught by a reporter in an obvious lie, his response was
"Yesterday I was lying, today I'm telling the truth."
That is how I seen the U.S. government. If I start typing all the obvious lies and exagerations of our government now, I'll still be here typing tomorrow. If you want me to believe you today, you'd better not have lied to me yesterday.
Some people unquestionally believe everything a person from their party of choice says and believe that makes them a patriot. I ask you this:
Do you prefer an honest man from the opposition party to a liar from your own party?
Does the end justify the means?
Should your government use propaganda and exagaration to gain your support for a cause, or should they tell the full truth and let rational men decide for themselves what is right?
Even if the cause is just, is it acceptable to lie to gain support for it?
When I was a child, a popular patriotic phrase was "America, if you don't love it, leave it."
I think "If you do love it, fix it" is a better plan.
I'm trying my best.
- Lone_Gunman
Sorry, I didn't really answer this directly. The answer is "I don't know."
If you asked me "Do you consider David Koresh or the BATF to be a more reliable source of information?" while the seige was in progress, I'd have answered "the BATF".
Now I'd say Koresh was certainly not less reliable than the BATF.
If our goverment can villify and demonize Koresh and the Branch Davidians, what makes you think they wouldn't villify and demonize Hussein and Iraq?
- Lone_Gunman
If you think the six-headed space aliens in my basement did not exist simply because we have not found them, then you must logically also believe that Saddam and Osama never existed either, as they have never been found.
Whether or not we find one thing has no bearing on whether or not the other exists.
I wasn't calling you "stupid", I was calling your comparison "stupid".
I stand by my "grade-school logic" comment.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Skunk Ape,
Do you think the WTC was a viable military target?
Do you think the WTC was a viable military target?
If Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were, then yes, New York most certainly was. The West (mainly the United States) made the deliberate attacking of civilians in order to break morale an acceptable military strategy. You can argue whether or not intentionally targeting civilians is wrong, but you can't argue that the United States has done it on a huge scale.
And all that aside, if you are at war, wouldn't you think that your enemy's major financial center would be a good target?
And all that aside, if you are at war, wouldn't you think that your enemy's major financial center would be a good target?
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
It might shock some of you to hear me say this, and I'm shocked myself, as I consider myself a hardcore Constitutionalist. I am very supportive of my homeland, and proud of what we have accomplished over the years.
If GW can't turn up WMD, he should be impeached.
God bless him for what he's done, but he tied it to the belief that Iraq was concealing significant numbers of WMD.
We went in there to disarm Saddam believing he had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and that he was developing both biological and nuclear capacities as well. GW made the call, and unfortunately for him, he may have pulled a hand full of jokers.
He's accountable. Sure, his decision may have been made on faulty intelligence or an overeagerness to believe, but the buck stops at the Oval Office.
Find those weapons, GW, or do the honorable thing: resign your presidency. Don't force us to impeach you for gross misconduct.
If GW can't turn up WMD, he should be impeached.
God bless him for what he's done, but he tied it to the belief that Iraq was concealing significant numbers of WMD.
We went in there to disarm Saddam believing he had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and that he was developing both biological and nuclear capacities as well. GW made the call, and unfortunately for him, he may have pulled a hand full of jokers.
He's accountable. Sure, his decision may have been made on faulty intelligence or an overeagerness to believe, but the buck stops at the Oval Office.
Find those weapons, GW, or do the honorable thing: resign your presidency. Don't force us to impeach you for gross misconduct.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Skunk Ape,
I think that ended the discussion as far as I am concerned.
I am absolutely dumb founded.
I think that ended the discussion as far as I am concerned.
I am absolutely dumb founded.
Destructo6
Member
It wasn't unexpected though was it, Lone_Gunman?
You don't research your assertions, do you SkunkApe?
1940 is a bit early for the US calling the shots in Europe. Furthermore, it was discovered that high altitude bombing was unable to reliably confine damage to military targets near cities. The choice then was to either stop bombing or accept the consequences.
You don't research your assertions, do you SkunkApe?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/area_bombing_02.shtml
1940 is a bit early for the US calling the shots in Europe. Furthermore, it was discovered that high altitude bombing was unable to reliably confine damage to military targets near cities. The choice then was to either stop bombing or accept the consequences.
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria15_3.html#fire
On the night of March 9-10, 1945, LeMay's B-29 bombers attacked Tokyo, a city of 6 million people. Nearly 600 bombers dropped 1,665 tons of fire bombs on the Japanese capital, destroying 16 square miles of the city. The resulting firestorm killed 100,000 people, more than died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki from atomic bombs a few months later. Most of the victims were women, children, and old men. The B-29 crew members put on oxygen masks to keep from vomiting at the smell of burning human flesh.
LeMay's planes continued firebombing Tokyo and more than 60 other Japanese cities in the following months. He thought he could end the war quickly by destroying Japan's economy and crushing the morale of the Japanese people. LeMay argued against using atomic bombs. He believed that his firebombing tactics would force Japan to surrender before American forces were scheduled to invade the homeland.
On August 6, 1945, one B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, creating a firestorm that wiped out 70 percent of the city and killed 70,000 Japanese. The atomic bomb attack on Nagasaki three days later was somewhat less destructive due to the geographical features of the city. After some hesitation, Japan finally surrendered. The decision to use atomic weapons was fairly easy for American political and military leaders, given the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths already caused by the bombing of cities during the war. The outrage about such killing at the beginning of the war had been numbed by the horror of "total war" and the desire to quickly bring it all to an end.
The Allied area bombing of civilians played an important role in undermining the will of the German and Japanese people to continue the war. But unlike the predictions of military strategists before the war, this did not happen quickly. For a long time, the bombing of German and Japanese civilians only stiffened their resolve to fight on. They wanted to surrender only after their countries lay in ruins, hundreds of thousands had perished, and all hope of victory was lost.
On the night of March 9-10, 1945, LeMay's B-29 bombers attacked Tokyo, a city of 6 million people. Nearly 600 bombers dropped 1,665 tons of fire bombs on the Japanese capital, destroying 16 square miles of the city. The resulting firestorm killed 100,000 people, more than died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki from atomic bombs a few months later. Most of the victims were women, children, and old men. The B-29 crew members put on oxygen masks to keep from vomiting at the smell of burning human flesh.
LeMay's planes continued firebombing Tokyo and more than 60 other Japanese cities in the following months. He thought he could end the war quickly by destroying Japan's economy and crushing the morale of the Japanese people. LeMay argued against using atomic bombs. He believed that his firebombing tactics would force Japan to surrender before American forces were scheduled to invade the homeland.
On August 6, 1945, one B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, creating a firestorm that wiped out 70 percent of the city and killed 70,000 Japanese. The atomic bomb attack on Nagasaki three days later was somewhat less destructive due to the geographical features of the city. After some hesitation, Japan finally surrendered. The decision to use atomic weapons was fairly easy for American political and military leaders, given the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths already caused by the bombing of cities during the war. The outrage about such killing at the beginning of the war had been numbed by the horror of "total war" and the desire to quickly bring it all to an end.
The Allied area bombing of civilians played an important role in undermining the will of the German and Japanese people to continue the war. But unlike the predictions of military strategists before the war, this did not happen quickly. For a long time, the bombing of German and Japanese civilians only stiffened their resolve to fight on. They wanted to surrender only after their countries lay in ruins, hundreds of thousands had perished, and all hope of victory was lost.
Lone_Gunman, the first dumping of bombs on civilian centers in WWII was done by the British...... Muehlhausen.
The RAF picked a target they could hit (within range). They didn't care if the target was civilian.
Just in case you are interested.
Don
The RAF picked a target they could hit (within range). They didn't care if the target was civilian.
Just in case you are interested.
Don
Thumper
Member
Don,
I understand you wanting to help out your sock puppet, Skunkape and all...but do you really want to back him on his Total War "argument" (giggle)?
I mean, it's hard to keep spouting about "civilian casualties" when you're arguing FOR total war.
Perhaps you should PM him with some more help.
I understand you wanting to help out your sock puppet, Skunkape and all...but do you really want to back him on his Total War "argument" (giggle)?
I mean, it's hard to keep spouting about "civilian casualties" when you're arguing FOR total war.
Perhaps you should PM him with some more help.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I am not necessarily opposed to bombing civilian targets during a war.
But a surprise attack using hi jacked airplanes is not justifiable.
Skunk Ape, I am not bailing out because I have been shocked by the "truth"...
What dumbfounded me is that you could possibly rationalize 9-11 by citing references from WW2.
But a surprise attack using hi jacked airplanes is not justifiable.
Skunk Ape, I am not bailing out because I have been shocked by the "truth"...
What dumbfounded me is that you could possibly rationalize 9-11 by citing references from WW2.
Lone_gunman,
To clarify my beliefs:
1) War is a bad thing, and should be used only as an absolute last resort in defense of our lives and the security of our people.
2) The initiation of force is wrong, no matter who does it.
3) Civilians and financial centers have a strong precedence of being legitimate wartime targets, regardless of whether or not I think its right. The United States and her allies have targeted civilians and financial centers in previous conflicts.
This time, its me who's bailing out. Goodnight.
To clarify my beliefs:
1) War is a bad thing, and should be used only as an absolute last resort in defense of our lives and the security of our people.
2) The initiation of force is wrong, no matter who does it.
3) Civilians and financial centers have a strong precedence of being legitimate wartime targets, regardless of whether or not I think its right. The United States and her allies have targeted civilians and financial centers in previous conflicts.
This time, its me who's bailing out. Goodnight.
He called me a "sock puppet".
LMAO.
Is that better or worse than the conventional type with the strings? I need to know where I stand.
Oh, and if I have to be a puppet, can I be the kind with googly eyes and yarn hair? I always liked that kind.
LMAO.
Is that better or worse than the conventional type with the strings? I need to know where I stand.
Oh, and if I have to be a puppet, can I be the kind with googly eyes and yarn hair? I always liked that kind.
Another false report!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1048389497622
Don
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1048389497622
Don
Thumper
Member
Lone asked
Bone thrown, Don.
Skunk...I know you're missing this, but the hypocrisy necessary to say it's ok for one (I suspect your) side to kill innocents and clamor about the inhumanity of the other is astounding.
I'm using the word "hypocrisy" in lieu of what I typed first in an effort to remain civil.
Don and I are diametrically opposed in our viewpoints, but I can abide his diatribe because he at least tries remain abreast of the topics discussed.
Ape replied
Bone thrown, Don.
Skunk...I know you're missing this, but the hypocrisy necessary to say it's ok for one (I suspect your) side to kill innocents and clamor about the inhumanity of the other is astounding.
I'm using the word "hypocrisy" in lieu of what I typed first in an effort to remain civil.
Don and I are diametrically opposed in our viewpoints, but I can abide his diatribe because he at least tries remain abreast of the topics discussed.
twoblink
Member
My biggest concern is;
We know he had them before the war.
We can't find them during the war.
We can't find them after the war.
That doesn't mean Bush lied (Note: Bush is not a UN inspector)
So you are either saying the original UN Inspectors lied...
OR
These weapons are still out there, and we don't know where.
Both are not good conclusions, regardless which one you take..
We know he had them before the war.
We can't find them during the war.
We can't find them after the war.
That doesn't mean Bush lied (Note: Bush is not a UN inspector)
So you are either saying the original UN Inspectors lied...
OR
These weapons are still out there, and we don't know where.
Both are not good conclusions, regardless which one you take..
faustulus
Member
Art said:
Monkeyleg said:
Tell me again why they are less dangerous now that nation that controlled them has been disolved?
Monkeyleg said:
Tell me again why they are less dangerous now that nation that controlled them has been disolved?
- Status
