Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stryke 9 on May 11, 2003, 07:06:10 pm

Title: Nada
Post by: Stryke 9 on May 11, 2003, 07:06:10 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40212-2003May10.html

Argue away.

Title: Nada
Post by: Mr. Vega on May 11, 2003, 07:44:20 pm

Quote

"Why are we doing any planned targets?" Army Chief Warrant Officer Richard L. Gonzales, leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, said in disgust to a colleague during last Sunday's nightly report of weapons sites and survey results. "Answer me that. We know they're empty."

Enough said.

Title: Nada
Post by: Stryke 9 on May 11, 2003, 07:59:42 pm

I can see it now...

TEN YEARS LATER

US Team Unveils MDW Evidence
Paint Can "Smoking Gun"

In a surprise announcement today, President-for-Remainder-of-Unnatural-Life Richard Cheney announced the discovery of a "smoking gun", conclusively tying the former Iraqi regime with chemical weapons production.

In the middle of an otherwise routine speech on his new Arrest Everyone bill, Cheney was seen to imperceptibly crack a smile, and state into his robotic voicebox "And I've got something we've all been waiting for for a long, long time..." Ordering an attendant to lift on high a standard green aerosol spray-paint can, Cheney's speakers announced; "Last week, this canister was found among the remains of an old Iraqi military base, now converted into a car factory. Contained inside it are numerous toxic chemicals, which, if released in large quantities over an average city block, could kill or severely harm hundreds- or even thousands- of people. In addition to causing potentially severe brain damage and/or asphyxiation, this cocktail of chemicals had the ability to "tag" or "paint" the affected area with a distinct green material, no doubt so that bombers could know which areas to and not to strike on repeat campaigns. Ladies and gentlemen, today we have finally unveiled the extent and diabolic nature of the evil weapons program we were so lucky to have stopped in motion, all of ten years ago."

Cheney then seized up, apparently having imprudently ignored the advice of his doctors not to allow any trace of emotion into his cold mechanical replacement heart, and was wheeled offstage. Attendants continued throughout the event to describe in detail the financial benefits of developing a turban-seeking missile

Title: Nada
Post by: Rictor on May 11, 2003, 08:02:24 pm

US cant turn up ****?
I'm suprised. Not by the fact there they havent found any WMD, but by the fact that they havent fabricated them by now.

And they were yelling at Hans Blix for not finding what they at the time thought to be obvious...and now they wont allow the man back in, since he would constitute an independent confirmation body, which would get in the way of fabrcating evidence.

Notice how they lowering expectations.."We may not find WMD, but we may possible find circumstantial evidence that could possbile point to a dual-purpose WMD creation facility in the early stages"...I hope people wont but it, though I think most US citizens will

hehe reminds me of Lynel Hutz: "No, we dont have any evidence per se. But we do have plenty of conjecture and heresay, those are kinds of evidence"

Title: Nada
Post by: CP5670 on May 11, 2003, 09:48:36 pm

This is no surprise at all; as I said in that big Iraq thread, even if there were any WMDs it would be extremely difficult to find them, and multiply so with the pre-war political approach used. Even Hussein is not so stupid as to leave them behind in Iraq when he had all that time to smuggle them out without any trouble. If a surprise attack had been conducted without any warning and without six months of threats and inspections, then it is more likely that something would have been found, but in the current situation the chances of a Freespace 3 coming out are far higher than the probability of the US finding WMDs even if they exist.

I guess the reason that they are not making up evidence is that it would only lead to suspicion, since it is simply too ridiculous and unlikely that they are actually finding something. :D

Title: Nada
Post by: Galemp on May 11, 2003, 11:30:31 pm

So, when does Bush get tried for War Crimes?

Title: Nada
Post by: CP5670 on May 11, 2003, 11:32:00 pm

Nobody ever gets tried for that; the winners in a war make the laws while the losers in a war die. :D

Title: Nada
Post by: Bobboau on May 12, 2003, 12:06:23 am

we did just find two moble production thingys.

Title: Nada
Post by: Galemp on May 12, 2003, 12:08:09 am

So, tell me again, why did we decide to invade Iraq? We were going against the UN... they had no weapons of mass destruction... no ties to the 9/11 attacks... not harboring Osama... Saddam's vanished... and now all the 'liberated' Iraqis are looting and overrunning the country, causing it to degrade into anarchy.

Can't say I'm suprised. :sigh: The sad thing is that nobody in the government is going to admit they made mistakes, or be punished for them. Instead we'll probably abandon Iraq and move on to invade another country, in the name of The War on Terror, Liberty and Justice for all.

Title: Nada
Post by: CP5670 on May 12, 2003, 12:19:09 am

Read the big old Iraq thread for some info on why the UN is not worth bothering with (hey, we were going against Hussein's wishes too! it's an illegal war!! :D), why it does not matter what weapons they have at the moment, why Hussein (among others) must be linked to bin Laden if he is smart enough to run a country, and all that other good stuff. :D

I doubt they will forget about Iraq just yet because it would not be in American interests; it needs to prosper so that one of the anti-US extremists do not gain control (which would bring things back to the original situation), as these people always thrive in chaos and cannot obtain power otherwise.

Title: Nada
Post by: Bobboau on May 12, 2003, 12:21:02 am

I seem to recall quite a large number of anti-war people saying something along the lines of "well obviusly we all know he has weapons of mass destruction, every half decent dictator on the planet has them, the question is weather he is going to use them in a menner that threatens the US" I heard this argument from about 90% of the anti-war people, leading me to beleve that you were all convinced that he had them (but that you didn't think it constituted a threat worth going to war over).

and i had always countered that with a "well I realy don't care about the weapons, I want to remove him for other reasons", now that is not to say I didn't expect to find wmds, nor does it mean that I don't think it is important to find them, but the reasons for that is becase I would rather not give the people working against us something to use.

but before we start going after the second point I would like some work on the first, before the war how many of you (anti-war people specificly) thought that there were banned weapons in Iraq (for the sake of argument lets limit that to BCN weapons, so we don't et into arguments over missles and stuff)

Title: Nada
Post by: Shrike on May 12, 2003, 12:24:50 am

Quote

Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
So, when does Bush get tried for War Crimes?

When he starts pushing his populace into plastic shredders and sending out his secret police to brutalize and kill any suspected insurgents.

Title: Nada
Post by: Tiara on May 12, 2003, 12:25:40 am

Ow am I glad I'm going sailing for the next 5 days :p

Title: Nada
Post by: CP5670 on May 12, 2003, 12:29:40 am

be sure to check back when you return; there should be some fun going on in here by then. :D

Title: Nada
Post by: Stryke 9 on May 12, 2003, 01:06:55 am

Bob: True, but the fact that recently Bush has done more to disprove the idea that he had weapons than anything else is telling. And if you're trying to say that somehow it's acceptable for a nation to go to war on little more than a hunch and a character profile, well, that's just ****ing deranged. So what happens when the next president gets the idea that Germany, France, England, Russia, and Quebec-area Canada are in an international conspiracy against him personally? Is he justified then in blowing up the entire planet, even though he has no proof and indeed nothing more than a vague sense that people don't like him there?

Shrike: Those wouldn't be war crimes, those would be state crimes. War crime would be if he did it to the Iraqis. And he most certainly has indirectly slaughtered quite a few of them (and is continuing to slaughter, 16 the other day). Really, the generals in the field are more directly at fault, and unless he's defeated and brought to court in shackles he's considered innocent by default, but since he did wage a baseless war that involved the deaths of thousands if not tens of thousands (he's suppressing the bodycounts), he ain't exactly Nobel Peace Prize material.

Which is another thing that bothers me. What the hell kind of stupid sycophant would put warmonger Bush up for the Peace Prize? Why not, say, somebody who hasn't declared two ****ing wars in the past two years???

Title: Nada
Post by: Shrike on May 12, 2003, 01:11:46 am

Quote

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Which is another thing that bothers me. What the hell kind of stupid sycophant would put warmonger Bush up for the Peace Prize? Why not, say, somebody who hasn't declared two ****ing wars in the past two years???

Maybe because in a month of shooting he's done more to bring about some sort of stability in the middle east than twelve years of talking?  I've never been a Bush cheerleader, but I'm willing to give him and his administration the benefit of the doubt in Iraq.

Title: Nada
Post by: Sandwich on May 12, 2003, 01:21:54 am

Quote

Originally posted by Stryke 9
And he most certainly has indirectly slaughtered quite a few of them (and is continuing to slaughter, 16 the other day).

Can you find me a link to an article about this? I've been completely disconnected from news recently.

I like this:

[q]A little-known nuclear special operations group from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, called the Direct Support Team, has already sent home a third of its original complement, and plans to cut the remaining team by half.[/q]

What a round-about way of saying that they're gonna be left with a third of their original force. :D

Title: Nada
Post by: Bobboau on May 12, 2003, 01:37:15 am

Did someone actually put him up for a peace prize? :eek2:

Anyway, no I don't think any president has the right to arbitrarily wage war on anybody they want to, and this is not what I meant. Iraq is a supporter of terrorism, remember the (I believe it was) $20,000 prize families of suicide bombers got, that alone, to me, is reason for removal (especially when coupled with Sadam's generally bad rule) as it flys in direct conflict with our international objectives, specifically Israel. (Yes I know you don't think this realy affects them but I do, and there are other things like the terrorist camps in the north (which killed prominent Kurds, i.e. Sadam's enemies) ect...)
Can you name one thing that has gotten the Arab world more pissed at us than Israel (honestly the war with Iraq has not, yet at least). The simple matter is that we will not have security until the Palestinians have a state, and we will not allow Israel to be concord (although technically this would probably lower hostilities ;) ), and Israel will not give them there state so long as they are blowing themselves up, and they will not stop blowing them selves up until outside forces stop funding them,
Iraq was one such outside force, as is Syria (whom we have been threatening), Iran (whom we are probably plotting to overthrough), and Saudi Arabia (whom we are no longer dependent on for oil:))
So to wrap it up
Sadam,
~brutal ruler who invades countries I like and tortures people -  makes me want him removed (though it does not give me a good reason on it's own)
~suports terrorism - gives me a good reason to remove him, in addition to furthering my desire to have him removed
~has outstanding charges of illegal weapons production - gives me a legal reason to do it, as well as a real potential threat to me and my allies, and another good reason to have him removed

in any case I will be quite pissed if we can't find them, this will not change my believe that what we did was the right thing, but I will be quite pissed, at Bush, for doing such an incompetent job at finding the weapons or for having used that for the pretext for the war when he could not garentee we would be able to prove our allegations

Title: Nada
Post by: CP5670 on May 12, 2003, 01:40:14 am

I would be quite happy if he got the peace price actually. That is one of the stupidest prizes around so its reputation would really go down the drain if someone like him receives it. :D (after all, being a math guy I scoff at Nobel prizes anyway; Fields medal are superior :yes: )

Actually, best of all would be if Saddam got it instead. He is the true man of peace. :yes:

Quote

Is he justified then in blowing up the entire planet, even though he has no proof and indeed nothing more than a vague sense that people don't like him there?

Anyone is "justified" in doing anything they please. How many times must I repeat that to you? :p

Title: Nada
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 12, 2003, 05:01:57 am

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
but in the current situation the chances of a Freespace 3 coming out are far higher than the probability of the US finding WMDs even if they exist.

 

maybe they'll find a copy of Freespace 3 this time :D

Title: Nada
Post by: Rictor on May 12, 2003, 05:35:29 am

Sandwich:

according to you killing 10,000 of you own people is "horrendous, terrbile blabla" while killing 10,000 of someone else's people (those from another country) is "keeping the peace"


Bob:

They may have found 2 mible production plants. We both know this will probably turn out to be bogus, since the US is now jumping everytime they discover anything, hoping it'll be WMD. Even if they had the 2 mible plants, just how much of a threat is it. How much can 2 mobile (which means they cant be bigger they say, a truck) plants produce? Is that their entire weaons program?

__________________

And can someone (other then CP) give me a reason WHY Iraq should not be allowed to have WMD, since every major power (US, UK, France, Isreal) has them. On what basis can 1 country tell another country what they can and cannot have. In the days leading up to the war, Iraq could have said "The US has WMD and they have hostile intentions towards us, lets attack preemptively" and their logic would have been (according to you) sound.

Title: Nada
Post by: Sandwich on May 12, 2003, 10:34:09 am

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, best of all would be if Saddam got it instead. He is the true man of peace. :yes:

No worries, they already gavce the Nobel Peace Prize to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a true man of peace. :nod: :yes:



(barf puke gag)

Quote

Originally posted by Rictor
Sandwich:

according to you killing 10,000 of you own people is "horrendous, terrbile blabla" while killing 10,000 of someone else's people (those from another country) is "keeping the peace"

When a Palestinian is killed whilst aiming a loaded weapon at soldiers, I don't call that man-slaughter. Yes, he was killed. He was also doing something very very stupid.

Quote

Originally posted by Rictor
And can someone (other then CP) give me a reason WHY Iraq should not be allowed to have WMD, since every major power (US, UK, France, Isreal) has them. On what basis can 1 country tell another country what they can and cannot have. In the days leading up to the war, Iraq could have said "The US has WMD and they have hostile intentions towards us, lets attack preemptively" and their logic would have been (according to you) sound.

Yes - most nations "allowed" to have WMDs have proven to be responsible in their international behavior. Iraq hasn't.

Will write more later - gotta run now.

Title: Nada
Post by: CP5670 on May 12, 2003, 10:52:46 am

Quote

No worries, they already gavce the Nobel Peace Prize to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a true man of peace. :nod: :yes:

:wtf: really? :D

Quote

And can someone (other then CP) give me a reason WHY Iraq should not be allowed to have WMD, since every major power (US, UK, France, Isreal) has them. On what basis can 1 country tell another country what they can and cannot have. In the days leading up to the war, Iraq could have said "The US has WMD and they have hostile intentions towards us, lets attack preemptively" and their logic would have been (according to you) sound.

I already gave you all the necessary reasons; you really need to read the old Iraq thread again. :p The stronger countries dictate terms to the weaker ones, and that is the way the world works. And yes, that logic is indeed quite sound, so let them bring it on and may the best nation win. :D

Quote

maybe they'll find a copy of Freespace 3 this time :D

maybe Hussein played FS2 and liked it so much that he ordered his men to make an FS3 for him. what if he posted in the community forums as well? what if one of us is really Saddam? :shaking:

:D

Title: Nada
Post by: Rictor on May 12, 2003, 12:47:48 pm

CP: well the US isnt saying "we're the strongest so we can do whatever we want", they're saying "we are justified blabla"

if they just went ahead and admited to being the agressors and being unprovoked, I wouldnt have asmuch of a problem with them..its their hypocracy that I scoff at

Sandwich: You speak as if every one of the Iraqis killed had a gun in their hand and a bomb on the chest. We both know thats not the truth. But a life is a life. About 5000 people (innocents) died in the WTC thing. Do you honestly believe that since then the US has not exceeded that figure in the amount of innocent Iraqis (and Afganistanis) that they have killed. I dont know how when someone kills 5k Americans they make them out to be the devil, but when the US does it, its ok..

 And I am still to see ANY (independently confirmed) proof of Iraqs ties to terrorism or WMD. Who is giving you all the information about the "proof"? America. IN whos best interest is it to lie about ties to terrorism and WMD? America? And now, go ahead and believe whatever they tell you, since their viewpoint on the whole thing is SO objective

And hasnt the US proven several times that they are willing and able to fake evidence? What about the remains of that US missle that the Brit reporter found? What about the Uranium purchase document that turned out to be fake? If someone has a history of lying, why do you believe them?

Title: Nada
Post by: CP5670 on May 12, 2003, 02:03:04 pm

Quote

CP: well the US isnt saying "we're the strongest so we can do whatever we want", they're saying "we are justified blabla"

if they just went ahead and admited to being the agressors and being unprovoked, I wouldnt have asmuch of a problem with them..its their hypocracy that I scoff at

The two are not mutually exclusive; they are justified because they are strong. I'm not even sure what exactly your argument here is. Obviously they would officially say something like that because it is more popularly appealing; remember, the key in democratic politics is to lie effectively. As I have said before, their stated reasons may not make much sense, but there exist other, equally good reasons that can be used to obtain the "justification," so it does not really matter.

Quote

I dont know how when someone kills 5k Americans they make them out to be the devil, but when the US does it, its ok..

Every government says that their enemies are the bad guys when they are attacked or whatever, but only some governments are listened to. The Afghan and Iraqi governments probably said the exact same things as the US when they were attacked, but the world paid no attention to them since they were too weak.

Title: Nada
Post by: Sandwich on May 12, 2003, 02:09:56 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Rictor
Sandwich: You speak as if every one of the Iraqis killed had a gun in their hand and a bomb on the chest. We both know thats not the truth. But a life is a life. About 5000 people (innocents) died in the WTC thing. Do you honestly believe that since then the US has not exceeded that figure in the amount of innocent Iraqis (and Afganistanis) that they have killed. I dont know how when someone kills 5k Americans they make them out to be the devil, but when the US does it, its ok..

3k, not 5k. And I wasn't referring to the Iraqis - I specifically said Palestinians. And please note that that's not a differentiation I'm making because of who they each are, but because of the situation those two groups of people are in.

I haven't heard what the "final" tally was on Iraqi deaths from the American attack. What were they? And what percentage of that was comprised of soldiers (a "legal" target in wartime, I'm personally afraid to say), and how many were civillians?

Title: Nada
Post by: Stryke 9 on May 12, 2003, 03:31:08 pm

Since when have most of the major nations with WMDs been responsible? Sandwich, I do believe you've got a bit of a memory gap where the Cold War should go. Between the two, the US and Russia were at least indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent (and a handful of not-so-innocent) people, the conversion of peaceful democracies into genocidal dictatorships, and the near-destruction of the nations of South America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Never mind the nuclear tests the US (and undoubtedly Russia, and the various allies) did on their own soldiers, things like sending them out immediately after an atomic explosion to see what the effect of hard radiation on people for different periods of time was. For that matter, it's coming out now that the US (and, again, likely Russia) did radiation and chemoweapon tests on unsuspecting civilian communities.


We powers with the big bombs have been anything but responsible, and even a cursory look at history would tell you that. Get your facts straight, man, we killed more people than Saddam ever did.

Title: Nada
Post by: Sandwich on May 12, 2003, 03:50:53 pm

Cold War? What's that? ;)

Seriously, you have some very good point there, but I think you missed the point I was trying to make. It doesn't take possesion of nuclear weapons to do radiation tests - not that I'm saying that purposeful exposure to radiation is a Good Thing - far from it! But I was referring to the responsibility to realize the power you hold in your missile silos, and the holocaust you would most likely trigger if you actually used those WMDs.

Look at it this way: I'm a big boy - 6'3", 200 lbs or so (1.93 meters, 102Kg). I'm told by people that I'm quite strong, but it's strength that comes with my size - I don't work out. But even so, I'm aware of just how hard not to hold an egg. In "extreme" terms, I can be responsible enough to know how much strength I should or should not use in holding on to that egg. Yeah, I make mistakes - that has nothing to do.

You cannot expect a nation to be perfect. First of all, that perfection is completely relative to every person. But secondly, mistakes happen. We can try an avoid them, but there's a reason the word is still around. Yeah, it's easy to say that the Cold War was one big mistake now, but look at it from the perspective of those people who were not only living in that time, but who had to make the big descisions at the time. Their primary job was to ensure the safety of their citizens, a task which I believe they strived towards with the utmost of their abilities and with the knowledge they had at the time.

And don't pull a CNN on me, either. I said most WMD equipped nations. I refer to specifically the USA, Britain, France, Israel, and the like. I'm unsure about Russia, simply from a lack of knowledge about the situation. But take those four nations I listed. Can you genuinely see Saddam's Iraqi dictatorship being as responsible with WMDs as they were? Honestly?

Title: Nada
Post by: Stryke 9 on May 12, 2003, 04:19:12 pm

So... you're praising our responsibility in not saturation-nuking the world.



Perhaps you wanna think that one over a little bit more, eh? 'Cos last I checked, the nuclear setup was something like the WWI treaty system gone global, so that if one nuke was fired a million would be, and last I checked nobody stood to profit from destroying the entire planet, including (very much so) themselves. It doesn't take a "reasonable" or "responsible" commander to know this, nor does it take restraint to recognize it and act (or not act) on such- hell, there's damn near no person in the entire world eligible for any position of leadership beyond King of the Treehouse Club who is dumb enough to actually detonate a nuke over another country- they're bargaining chits, where the potential for destruction is many millions of times more useful than the destruction itself. Crazy as you or anyone else likes to think Saddam is/was, he was far from stupid, and he was supremely aware of basics like this- just like Kim Jong Il is, just like every leader is.

 If anything, the nations who set the MAD system up in the first place are irresponsible merely in setting up the conditions where one stupid, stupid person could blow up the entire planet many times over, even if nobody's likely to be so stupid soon. It's inevitable sometime.

It's like saying the guy being held at gunpoint by a largish SWAT team is being responsible for not pulling out a pistol and firing away. And considering how responsible that guy musta been to get in that position, it's doubly ludicrous.

Title: Nada
Post by: tEAbAG on May 13, 2003, 12:35:40 pm

Ahhhh...  Welcome to the weird wonderful world of Pax Americana.  The Empire that dare not speak its name.:D

Quote

Originally posted by Stryke 9
It's like saying the guy being held at gunpoint by a largish SWAT team is being responsible for not pulling out a pistol and firing away. And considering how responsible that guy musta been to get in that position, it's doubly ludicrous.

But, the SWAT team is being responsible by not blowing away the milita guy.  They have the power to do so easily, right?  But they don't.

BTW:  I don't think Kim Jong Il is all that smart; I mean picking a fight with the most powerful nation the planet has ever seen when you can't even feed your own people?

Title: Nada
Post by: Stryke 9 on May 13, 2003, 01:36:47 pm

And he's getting away with it, too.;)

Title: Nada
Post by: Bobboau on May 13, 2003, 07:25:42 pm

Sadam got away with it for 12 years.
...
/*pulls gun on SWAT team*/

Title: Nada
Post by: Stryke 9 on May 13, 2003, 08:11:28 pm

What, nuking Jerusalem? First I ever heard about it.