Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/4/04 03:32 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/4/04 03:26 AM, deepthrought wrote:

Last time I hear, we found a single shell of outdated, worthless serin gas. If you care to drag up a link talking about proof of recent weapons testing, go ahead.

First of all, the reason for going to war had nothing to do with whether or not Iraq was testing weapons, but if they even had any in their possession.

As for whether they possessed any, a UN inspection committee recently made a very interesting finding as explained in this report...

http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

When this war started I was very skeptical of the accuracy of the intell that Iraq had WMD's. As the war progresses I find discoveries like this UN report to be pretty good evidence that Iraq was doing something illegal regarding weapons. After all, we gave Iraq quite a while before we actually attacked... plenty of time to hide any evidence or smuggle it out of the country. I think we have even more evidence yet to find.

At 7/4/04 04:45 AM, smurvey wrote: First of all, the reason for going to war had nothing to do with whether or not Iraq was testing weapons, but if they even had any in their possession.

They would of needed to be testing them and manufacturing them, because the sanctions of the nineties had succeeded in destroying any programs that they had, until Iraq was 'quantitatively disarmed' in '98, according to UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

So, what we're really looking for, is the ability to manufactor and test them. Because that is evidence of a weapons programme.

So far we've found a single serin shell from the 80's, from what we gave them.

As for whether they possessed any, a UN inspection committee recently made a very interesting finding as explained in this report...

http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

You should find some real articles. World Tribune isn't a reputable news source, by my standards at least, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you didn't read the .pdf they linked to to check what they reported.. Regardless, I downloaded it, and here's some interesting bits:

"In his testimony, the head of the Iraq Survey Group noted that the Group continued to look for weapons of mass destruction. He also said he did not believe that the Survey Group had sufficient information and insight at that time to make final judgements with confidence as to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes and to determine the truth of their existence."

Some talk about scrap metal, age unknown.

"In general, from 1999 to 2002 Iraq procured a variety of dual-use biological and chemical items and materials, including chemicals, equipment and spare parts. To date, UNMOVIC has found no evidence that these were used for proscribed chemical or biological weapon purposes."

More talk about trying to buy missile engines...

In short, this report contained nothing very new, nor anything explicitly about WMD's. You really shouldn't trust worldtribune, and you should read the reports yourself.

At 7/4/04 05:14 AM, red_skunk wrote:

They would of needed to be testing them and manufacturing them, because the sanctions of the nineties had succeeded in destroying any programs that they had, until Iraq was 'quantitatively disarmed' in '98, according to UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

Even if the sanctions did succeed in stopping any programs in progress, it was unknown whether Saddam was attempting to start any up again while sanctioned. It has been widely reported in the news that once Iraq was invaded, documentation was discovered showing that Iraq was secretly negotiating with North Korean officials to purchase a brand new missile system off the shelf starting in the late 90's. The talks only stopped once the country was invaded. These negotiations alone blatantly defy the sanctions.

In short, this report contained nothing very new, nor anything explicitly about WMD's. You really shouldn't trust worldtribune, and you should read the reports yourself.

Actually, I did read the .pdf file when I first read the article. Don't get me wrong, in no way was I saying this was undeniable proof that Iraq had weapons, just some information that raises some questions. Personally, I find it rather odd that all this stuff is just now showing up in foreign scrap piles with UN identification numbers from Iraq. And if all this junk is so worthless or has other uses besides making weapons, then why the rush for Iraq to get rid of it? And why send it off to several foreign landfills? If it's just old junk why not dispose of it, for much cheaper, in your own backyard like everything else? Just some stuff the info made me ponder.

Iraq was assuredly defying some of the sanctions (a few medium range missiles, etc). But I've yet to hear conclusive, credible evidence that they had a fully functioning bio or chemical weapons programme. This is what I'm waiting for.

all banning the movie would do is make more ppl want to see it, because it would give it some rebellious quality, and anybody who is anti-establishment will automatically think it must be amazing.

the best way to stop people watching this sensationalist, self indulgent crap is for bush to publicly come out saying its his favourite film of the year. then nobody would go see it

At 7/4/04 06:59 AM, delteated wrote: the best way to stop people watching this sensationalist, self indulgent crap is for bush to publicly come out saying its his favourite film of the year. then nobody would go see it

Nah, I think more people will want to see it, and maybe some more Republicans will, too. But then again, that move would totally screw his re-election.

I hope he does it

At 7/4/04 03:45 AM, deepthrought wrote:

You Liberals, starting out with the, "oh, there are no weapons" then when we find evidance you say its to small, not enough evidence, you only need 1 drop of blood at a crime scene to prove guilt, someone wouldnt pass up something like that.

Of course we are saying it is too small. Because for a Weapon of Mass Destruction to be classified as such, it must actually be capable of Mass Destruction. Confusing I know, but those lhose last two words are very important in the title. WMD must be able to kill many people with one attack. The single artillary shell only made a few sick.
If you believe that this artillary shell counts as a WMD, then attention shoul be brought to the point thatw grenades kill more people, and thus WMD also. And following that logic, we should overthrow any nation that has grenades. Death to all leaders who have these terrible grenade WMD.

At 7/4/04 02:27 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

If you believe that this artillary shell counts as a WMD, then attention shoul be brought to the point thatw grenades kill more people, and thus WMD also. And following that logic, we should overthrow any nation that has grenades. Death to all leaders who have these terrible grenade WMD.

Actually, according to the Federal Transit Administration smaller weapons, even grenades, used in mass amounts are defined as WMD's. WMD's are not just defined as single weapons, but also include using non-nuclear, chemical or biological weapons collectively to create mass destruction. For example, a conventional missile barrage is technically an attack with weapons of mass destruction.

http://transit-safety.volpe.do...wsletters/html/Vol34/Page1.asp

Prior to the Bush administration I had never heard of them being called WMDs, was always NBC <Nuclear, Biological, Chemica>.

WMD is just the hope phrase to say now days.

Ban the movie? Should we start burning liberal and socialist books, too?

Well, when people today say 'WMD', they mean the new, hot-catchphrase, meaning bio, chem or nuclear weapons. Simply because grenades or such are technically classified as such, doesn't mean they're WMD's in the public's, eye or in the rhetoric of the day.

postscript: The serin canister we found caused "two marines to seek medical attention".

At 7/4/04 05:50 PM, darkmage8 wrote: Ban the movie? Should we start burning liberal and socialist books, too?

Of course.

At 7/4/04 05:50 PM, darkmage8 wrote: Ban the movie? Should we start burning liberal and socialist books, too?

Indeed. The sad thing is, the more sarcastic we sound about this "ban liberal ideas" etc, the more one overdone topic keeps popping up in my mind (which should be checked out right away)

"Is Bush Worse than Hitler?"

At 7/4/04 10:29 PM, NiceOutcastAnderson wrote: Indeed. The sad thing is, the more sarcastic we sound about this "ban liberal ideas" etc, the more one overdone topic keeps popping up in my mind (which should be checked out right away)

"Is Bush Worse than Hitler?"

Hmm, now that you mention it there is a striking similarity. Rises to power questionably. Personally responsible for many deaths. In question with law at one point. Starts attacks on people based on very vague "terrorist" definition. Starts persecuting those inside own country by passing legislation that allows basic civil rights to be taken away. Huge scandals where prisoners are being kept, not as bad as mass murder, but sexual torture isn't anything to scoff at either. The more I think about it the more similar those two are.

At 7/4/04 11:48 PM, Evark wrote: The more I think about it the more similar those two are.

He was kidding. The forum went through a "Bush = Hitler" phase that I'd rather avoid happening again =P

At 7/4/04 03:17 AM, deepthrought wrote: You all speak of proof, but how can you say Moore has proof, was he there to sit in on all the meetings with the president regarding post 9/11 affairs? no. So dont tell me about facts, the only facts he has are the ones he think sound plausable or ones that are something a child could come up wth like a death toll.

Oh, so you have to actually be there to have proof of something? Thats ridiculous. He has proof in that he researched the topic, and found information regarding it after looking at many different sources. You don't have any proof that he is wrong about what he says anyway, you weren't there when he filmed it, you didn't sit in with Moore when he found all this proof. That argument is completely unsound.

As for yelling at bush and blameing him for 9/11 thats rediculouse, i mean cmon. Do you think that if he was forwarned about 9/11 he would have just sit back and watched the planes fly? No.

He was forewarned about this possibility. A memo was given to him that some time during the summer of 2001 an attack may take place that would use US commercial airlines to attack US soil. He also didn't react very well when 9/11 actually happened. Moore has footage of Bush when he is told about the planes hitting the towers. He sat there for about 10 minutes afterward not doing anything at all. He didn't want to do anything because he was afraid, and had no idea what to do. The look in his eyes tells me that.

He would have done something, thats why we are at war, thats why we spend so much on defense is to protect ourselves.

We are currently at war for completely different reasons. Maybe at first it was to get Osama Bin Laden, but it quickly turned away from his country, and that reason. We didn't even capture Bin Laden before we moved on to the next country. Bush is currently at war to cover up for his 10 minutes of frantic inaction when he was confronted with the WTC attacks.

I bet Moores movie didnt say anything about Clintons defense cuts did it? Of course not.

Why would it? Its a movie on president Bush, besides which, defense cuts weren't the cause of 9/11, it was Bush's inability to handle our intelligence correctly.

So dont tell me to look at the facts when your not presenting me with any.

watch the movie, that presents the facts you seek, just not in the tone of voice you wish to hear. Ours isn't any different so you might as well.

But id like all of your honest opinion on something, We are at war, we spend alot on our milittary, we are the number 1 hated country and with that we have enimies. are we to sit back or are we to defend ourselves?

If we hadn't been so trigger-happy in the first place we wouldn't be at war. If we weren't so anxious to go in and tell everyone what to do because we are so high and mighty then everyone wouldn't hate us. We wouldn't need to defend ourselves if we hadn't fucked it all up in the first place. Now that we've screwed up we need to make amends, and then ensure nothing will happen, not continue to attack and create more enemies for ourselves.

And if they attack us are we to just fend them off so they can continue or are we to show some spine and fight back, show them we are not weak and that we will not surrender, If you are thretened with your life i tell you what, you will do whatever it takes to to save it, even if it means takeing another.

Yes, we are to fend them off and then take it into their territory to ensure that they won't attack us again. We don't need to attack pre-emptively because they might not even want to attack us at all. Ever see the movie Minority Report? I think it has a very valid moral that we all ought to heed.

And dont give me self sacrifice bull, America isnt going to let those 3000 people die in vain, so we started a war, and guess what, dont act so surprised when someone dies in war, because thats what people do, they die in wars.

Yes, we started a war, and then didn't finish it before we moved on. We started a second war because of the possibility of Saddam having something that might be able to hit us and that he might use against us, maybe. That is too many maybe's for me to take when it comes to invading a country.

And for ever service man who dies out there i salute and pray for because they are over there defending my rights to freedom because think what you want but freedom isnt free and someone has to pay the price of freedom.

They aren't defending your rights to freedom. They are helping Bush continue his agenda. I respect service men, but not to the point of reverence. You like freedom, yet you support Bush... this must mean you have never heard of the US Patriot Act. This essentially allows anything in the Bill of Rights to be considered Null and Void if you are suspected of being a terrorist. What if I called you a terrorist and said you were doing business with an orginization known to have terror links. You could be taken into custody and indefinitely held without charges after being phone tapped and searched without a warrant. Bush doesn't support freedom and you seem to be his fanboy, so I'm honestly surprised you want freedom.

At 7/4/04 11:54 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/4/04 11:48 PM, Evark wrote: The more I think about it the more similar those two are.

He was kidding. The forum went through a "Bush = Hitler" phase that I'd rather avoid happening again =P

Oh, then I, uh, was kidding too.

(sorry guys, sometimes I get carried away and can't tell tone online, it is difficult sometimes.)

Whoa, I mean, I know you Republicans are scared about this little documentary, but you should rest assured that the Bushies are already taking it down.

Ex. The Carlyle Group whose ties include members of the Bush family and until recently the Saudi bin Laden family have bought the Loews Cineplex chain.

The film Fahrenheit 9/11 exposes links between the Bush family and the bin Laden family - links which were heavily glued by their mutual interests in the Carlyle Group whose other luminaries include former US Defense Secretary and Deputy CIA Director Frank Carlucci, former US Secretary of State James Baker and former UK Prime Minister John Major.

The US Republican Party has through its use of PR firm Russo Marsh & Rogers and a string of bogus grass roots organisations (see: http://www.moveamericaforward.org ) attempted to prevent cinemas from showing the film and moves have been made to block the film from being shown for technical legal reasons.

Now the Carlyle Group, who no critical account of September 11th or the wars in its aftermath ever omits to mention, have bought Loews Cineplex chain which has more than 200 theatres and 2,200 screens worldwide.

IF THAT DOESN'T SCARE YOU.... well, you're a braver man than I...

By the way, after speaking with such poise and resolve on these forums about this movie, I want all you Bush supporters to name for me the parts of Fahrenheit 9/11 that were 100% made up... no that's too hard, let's say 50% made up.... make a list and I'll check up on it, because most of the movie is just Bush and his buddies talking and lying on national news broadcasts anyways.... let's hear it.

Started building a bomb shelter yet Prune?

Way to avoid answering the question man, you're a true Bush supporter.

At 7/5/04 01:08 AM, PruneTracy wrote: Whoa, I mean, I know you Republicans are scared about this little documentary, but you should rest assured that the Bushies are already taking it down.

Ex. The Carlyle Group whose ties include members of the Bush family and until recently the Saudi bin Laden family have bought the Loews Cineplex chain.

Yes. Because the whole bin Laden family was responsible for 9/11.
http://subjunctive.net/images/2002/bin-laden-family.jpg

At 7/5/04 01:18 AM, PruneTracy wrote: Way to avoid answering the question man, you're a true Bush supporter.

Shut-up, you Republican.

Hey Evark, its a pain in the ass to read your post. If you are quoting someone and break it up please put a : and a space before the paragraph you are quoting, that way it grays it out so it doesn't cause so much confusion when we are trying to read it all, or mark your comments somehow like with a - or something. Would make life easier.

Saw it, liked it, was more factually based than Bowling. Seriously go see it.

I'm just thowing this out to everyone. I support Moore, and no one here has really given a clear definition as to how he lied in Fahrenheit (sp). But in another thread someone laid it out. Take a look at it and comment. http://www.lanlords.biz/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17&start=30

A few points on his post - The Bin-Laden family isn't as disconnected from Usama as some would have you believe - Moore illustrated that by talking about the family members that showed up to Usama's son's wedding.

The flying out thing, and who ordered it - Clarke has apparently given differing reports of who ordered it. First it was him and the FBI, then it was just him. Foggy stuff to be sure. But as far as I can tell, from news sources etc., Moore's right about the number who left, the dates, and the pathetic inadaquecy of FBI questionings of those who left (30 outta 140)

And still.... that's the only factual thing that 'johny' brought up. The rest was inuendo and slander.

At 7/4/04 05:50 PM, darkmage8 wrote: Ban the movie? Should we start burning liberal and socialist books, too?

Well, we have (right-wing, naturally) groups trying to ban the film being advertised, and a chain of cinemas won't show the film, even if it only seems to be Nebraska where they have cinemas. I know people corss state lines to buy fireworks and cheap booze/cigarettes, but to watch a documentary?!?

It'd be funny if it wasn't so terrifying...

At 7/5/04 01:23 AM, ReiperX wrote: Hey Evark, its a pain in the ass to read your post. If you are quoting someone and break it up please put a : and a space before the paragraph you are quoting, that way it grays it out so it doesn't cause so much confusion when we are trying to read it all, or mark your comments somehow like with a - or something. Would make life easier.

sorry, I wasn't quite sure how the whole reply thing worked. I had tried to put the colon before it in previous posts but I guess I forgot the space afterwards and didn't think it worked because of that. Thanks though, I'll do that in other posts. For now just keep in mind that if you are reading a paragraph I wrote, then the ones above it and below it are what the other person wrote.

At 7/4/04 11:54 PM, red_skunk wrote: He was kidding. The forum went through a "Bush = Hitler" phase that I'd rather avoid happening again =P

No, I was dead serious. BTW, SNL was great the other night! Dave Matthews is the best, isn't he, Red?

At 7/5/04 01:21 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/5/04 01:18 AM, PruneTracy wrote: Way to avoid answering the question man, you're a true Bush supporter.

Shut-up, you Republican.

... yeah, okay, moving on

At 6/29/04 12:22 AM, deepthrought wrote: Call me ignorant if you will but i for one will not EVER see ferenheit 9/11 because all Moore is interested in is furthering his career and not telling the truth. I am a conservative so you might think of course i will not see it but i beg all others who are disgusted not to see the movie. If you want to go just to see what its like or simply to yell at the screen, dont!!!

If you goto the movie you are just putting more money in his socialist pocket, makeing him believe that his films are good and that he should continue to bend the truth to hiw own whims, please all stand with me and ban 9/11.

I'm a democrat, and you obviously know nothing of the bill of rights, which is my best friend. Don't be an ass, let the smarty voice is opinion, I saw it, and found it quite intriguing.