If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(OC register)   Powell, Rice say Iraq's arms will surface. Head and torso probably won't   (www2.ocregister.com) divider line 441
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

1824 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2003 at 2:14 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



441 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-06-10 05:41:57 PM  
Pontechango:

No link, but it was a front-page story in either Sunday NY Times (June 8 2003) or Saturday NY Times (June 7), although I'm almost certain it was Sunday.
 
2003-06-10 05:43:59 PM  
Mexican heroine (black tar) isnt really heroine. it is a mash made out of opium poppy.
 
2003-06-10 05:44:16 PM  
06-10-03 04:29:13 PM Vroomazoom
Cyberluddite:
I wasnt asking if people would be content that their children died you asshat


First, you can lick my nutsack. I won't be responding to you any more in this thread. There's no need to start name-calling simply because I point out an inconsistency in your "logic." Most people outgrow responding to an argument by simple name-calling along about junior high school. So unless you're still in 8th grade, you're a little behind the curve. If you want to discuss something or raise some points, fine. But to just say "asshat" rather than responding substantively is not really an intelligent adult response. It's just a signal that you don't have anything meaningful to say and you can't think of any intelligent response.

Second, the fact that people die is kind of the point, isn't it? In other words, you're saying "Hey, if you put aside all the killing, this war was farking great, wasn't it?" It's all well and good to play Armchair General and talk up the idea of a war, but if you do that you ought to think about what that means. And what it means is that people die, because that's what happens in wars, and that has to be a major factor in determining whether a war is worth fighting. But apparently nobody you knew died in Iraq, so you don't give a rat's ass about the fact that a bunch of strangers died--in your mind, it shouldn't even be a factor to consider.

Or maybe you can be the one to go to the dead soldiers' families' houses and say, "You know, I know the President said your son had to go Iraq to protect our country against an immediate and serious risk of harm, but it looks like that was a mistake. Sorry your kid got blown to pieces by a land mine. But hey, at least you get to keep this nice flag that we used to drape his coffin as a souvenir, and you can take comfort in the fact that the Iraq people are happier!"
 
2003-06-10 05:44:51 PM  
Based on Vroomazoom's beta, I might have gotten that backwards, with Mexico brown east and Colombia white west of the Mississippi

(anyway, it's more fun to talk narco than Iraqi)
 
2003-06-10 05:45:11 PM  
 
2003-06-10 05:46:28 PM  
Sopoforic:
How did we break her arms?
It's not as though we left her there to bleed to death?
 
2003-06-10 05:47:04 PM  
fark doesn't recognize css? do i have to use a font tag?
 
2003-06-10 05:47:51 PM  
Cyberluddite seems to need a nap.

Cyberluddite:

if you dont want to discuss it, im not bothering to read it. im sorry you wasted your time.
 
2003-06-10 05:51:27 PM  
Vroomazoom
I have to disagree with that. heroine from mexico can be found in the new england area. I will agree that mexican heroine is about all there is in the states by the border.


I'd ask if you were a cop but you seem to have a thing for female protagonists.
 
2003-06-10 05:54:15 PM  
Chad_beaverwood:

I think you had it right the first time. I just dont think it was an acurate report. mexican heroine is getting much more popular, because it is damn cheap. its much easier to get it through the mexican border than it is to get it across the ocean.

another problem has to do with the name. mexican heroine is called heroine in places like texas. it is exactly the same, but called opium in the north east.

i read.
 
2003-06-10 05:55:42 PM  
Pontechango:

female protagonists? what?
 
2003-06-10 05:58:34 PM  
This article was all about heroin. Potency way up. ODs up. Price way down. Non-injected experimentation way up.
 
2003-06-10 06:00:20 PM  
Chad_beaverwood:

very true. if your interested in that topic reaserch Plano Texas. rich suburb of dallas. had more deaths per person because of heroine than anywhere in the US a few years back. most of the people doing it didnt know it was heroine. they thought it was a new drug called "chiva".
 
2003-06-10 06:02:14 PM  
06-10-03 05:31:50 PM TheConvincingSavant

Nice try, but I've supported cleaning up those place as well. Don't assume you know a person's political views. It'll backfire on you.


So based on your stupid argument, how can you live with yourself knowing more and more children are being killed in these countries? Especially said countries were Bush has shown no interest in pursuing human rights abuses.


Read my post again. I'm not excusing anybody. If it's proven that Bush lied to us, then he should pay. That doesn't negate the fact that a free Iraq is better than an Iraq lead by Hussein.


That isn't a fact, moron. It is an opinion. You don't know what a free Iraq is going to look like. Unless you can tell the future. If you have any doubts, please see the US intervention in Chile, Venezuela, countless other nations.


Unfortunately, Big Al lives in a world where facts are only facts when they can prove him right.


In my world, "facts" are just that. In your world, facts are heresay, opinions, and spin.
 
2003-06-10 06:03:22 PM  
Almost every bit of news we get is spin. That's a moot point.
 
2003-06-10 06:05:16 PM  
Pontechango:

never mind. im a tard.
 
2003-06-10 06:10:20 PM  
lol, this was Albo's first quote, no wonder he is pro-war...

"Condoleeza Rice - attractive, smart and talented. I need her to spank me while wearing a leather teddy."
 
2003-06-10 06:14:55 PM  
Big Al

Do you think there is a chance at all that Iraq did have WMD's but got rid of them either threw the black market or countries like SYria or Iran? Or are you completely convinced that they didn't have them and Bush intentionally lied?
 
2003-06-10 06:16:20 PM  
Albo
"Condoleeza Rice - attractive, smart and talented. I need her to spank me while wearing a leather teddy."

You know I am all for people having alternative lifestyles and all but... GAH! you are a sick twisted pervert.
 
2003-06-10 06:16:26 PM  
I cant talk about heroine anymore. Im not going to get banned and have that asshat speedbuggy showing up again.
 
2003-06-10 06:18:53 PM  
Code_Archeologist

Was it you that I got in a discussion with over supply side vs demand side economics?
 
2003-06-10 06:20:33 PM  
Chad_beaverwood

This article, right? I was just reading an interesting piece about the NY Times Latin American writers. They seem to think Forero is as bad as Jayson Blaire.

/sorry this is getting so off-topic
 
2003-06-10 06:22:04 PM  
AcadianSidhe - remember first that we are still allowing all those other beatings by abusers who we like. And Iraq needs to be rebuilt and we did kill innocent people, not to mention we have wrecked a lot of infrastructure, so that's how we broke both the arms. Yes, we are there putting on the casts so she will get better, and I do hope we improve the situation. But, as I have stated above, I don't buy the humanitarian argument when the administration has made a clear point to look the other way for our "allies."
 
2003-06-10 06:22:37 PM  
"Blaire"

Dammit Vroomazoom, now you got me doing it!
 
2003-06-10 06:25:40 PM  
I call shenanegins!

/going to get my broom
 
2003-06-10 06:26:24 PM  
Pontechango:

Thar she blows!
 
2003-06-10 06:27:22 PM  
Pontechango

And how important is Iraqi autonomy?

The coalition working with the United States on forming a new government disagrees with the recent U.S. decision to delay handing over power and instead work with a handpicked Iraqi advisory council that would help Americans make policy for up to two years. The coalition is vowing to hold a national conference to pick new leaders no matter what America says or does, and it's expected that those leaders would seek real control.
That could put the United States in the difficult position of having to justify its advisory council over a group of Iraqi leaders chosen by a more inclusive and democratic process.


It's important so Iraq won't revert to another dictatorship once the power is turned over to them.

Big Al

So based on your stupid argument, how can you live with yourself knowing more and more children are being killed in these countries? Especially said countries were Bush has shown no interest in pursuing human rights abuses.

What do you expect me to do, single-handedly invaded every evil country in the world? Your question was pretty stupid to begin with. What can anyone do except speak out in opposition. Which is what I've done.

Big Al

That isn't a fact, moron. It is an opinion. You don't know what a free Iraq is going to look like. Unless you can tell the future. If you have any doubts, please see the US intervention in Chile, Venezuela, countless other nations.

After weeding through the trolling, I managed to find very little substance in your statement, but I'll answer it as best I can. I leave the fortune telling up to you. After all, you've had much more practice than I, i.e. already attributing Iraq as a failure based upon the outcome of a few corrupt governments.

Big Al

In my world, "facts" are just that. In your world, facts are heresay, opinions, and spin.

In my world, I back up my claims instead of throwing around blanket assumptions and mindless propaganda.
 
2003-06-10 06:28:12 PM  
Pontechango:

have you doing what?
 
2003-06-10 06:33:46 PM  
Vroomazoom
have you doing what?


Whate? You knowe damne welle whate!
 
2003-06-10 06:35:04 PM  
ChiTownJack:

hey! how are you? Earlier I was trying to figure out if anything would make the anti-war folk decide the war was benificial. any thoughts?
 
2003-06-10 06:38:42 PM  
Pontechangoe:

got it. ime a little sloe todae.
 
2003-06-10 06:40:01 PM  
Vroomazoom
Earlier I was trying to figure out if anything would make the anti-war folk decide the war was benificial.


Reread Father_Jack's post, Vroom. That's about as far as you'll get with that argument.
 
2003-06-10 06:40:11 PM  
ChiTownJack yes, and I did read up on Say's Law. Interesting read. But I find some problems with the way it is being applied to wealthy individuals instead of the manufacturing sector. But I think we are talking about Iraq today :)
 
2003-06-10 06:40:19 PM  
Soporific:
I mentioned this in another thread- I don't know if you caught it- but my father is currently helping with rebuilding that infrastructure. He's military governor of Wasit Province in Iraq. Day after day he has to juggle polotics, humanitarianism, and a million other factors, while taking the heat from his superiors for shiat that isn't his fault.

Don't tell me we're not trying. I know for a fact we are.
 
2003-06-10 06:40:31 PM  
LOL the Washtimes is using Iran, part of the "axis of evil", to support the Bush administration. That's rich.
 
2003-06-10 06:41:23 PM  
i think the Bush administration is milking this for all it is...

the second they declare theyve found WMD, the world will request for immediate UN control and all US troops will be withdrawn...

Maybe the threat was real and the CIA & military have already captured and stockpiled all such weapons in a secret location, just waiting till occupation plans in Iraq are over with...

just the same with Afghanistan, Osama is real, Al Queda is real, but the second they are found and destroyed/killed, all US presence there will be removed, and the US gov't doesnt want that...
 
2003-06-10 06:42:40 PM  
Vroomazoom -

I'm very much anti-war. I believe that I cannot be persuaded that the Iraq war was benficial (except for certain defense industry company stockholders).

If you care to list reasons why you believe the war was just, I believe I can list just as many reasons why it was not, and probably a good many more reasons.

No flames, no caps, just a discussion of whether war works or not.
 
2003-06-10 06:43:56 PM  
Pontechango:

I read that. Father_Jack doesnt hold the standard liberal position though.
 
2003-06-10 06:44:14 PM  
"The White House did not overstate the threat from Saddam's banned weapons". Right. Now we've pretty much lowered the bar to the point that finding any quantity of a biological or chemical weapons and the administration will claim vindication. Iraq was never in its entire history a threat to the US, just to our economic interests.
 
2003-06-10 06:45:11 PM  
AdamK do you think Bush would risk his credibility that much just to keep a hold on Iraq? Wow... you are more cynical than me.
 
2003-06-10 06:45:32 PM  
Chad_beaverwood :

who has a longer list is kinda like who has a bigger package. other people might care but i really dont need to know the size of yours. if you want me to, i'll give you some reasons I support the war though.
 
2003-06-10 06:46:47 PM  
Chad_beaverwood

war never works...

however, in 30 years it will be obselete anyways...

think of "extreme-rapid reaction peace keeping forces, going in before such & such dictator takes over, or such & such leader launches a war, or such & such leader presses the nuclear button"
 
2003-06-10 06:47:50 PM  
Vroomazoom

Assuming that mainstream democrat politicans hold the standard liberal position, you might want to be aware that most of them supported the war. You might want to refine your goals a little.
 
2003-06-10 06:49:53 PM  
Vroom

I don't know if that's possible because people are so loyal to their party line. I imagine if Clinton would have gone to war with Iraq most people on the left wouldn't of cared. I think it is intellectually dishonest to say that Iraq did not possess or at the very least had a active program to pursue WMD. I personally feel that do to our lack of moral certainty and concensus seeking it gave Hussein plenty of time to get rid of whatever he had. I try to remind people that one of the main values of the inspections was to see what they had. So much was discovered after the first gulf war that was unknown to the outside world that inspections were the only way to have accurate information on the extent of their weapons programs. Hussein refused for 12 years to comply and enough was enough. I think we had to go in there to see what they had. Unfortunatly just like in Afghanistan our delay's and capitulations to world opionion gave these people a head start and that is why we don't have Bin Laden or Hussein. As far as Bush is concerned he messed up by excepting the terms of his enemies that there had to be a "smoking gun" to justify war and now that there are no WMD"S etc it makes him look bad. If he would have gone at it differently then his detractors would not be having a field day with him as they are now. So to sum up I think the war was completly justified but Bush went at it the wrong way and we will probably not get much gain out of it especially if they do not handle the process of instituting the new government correctly. Which as far as I know that does not look good. Unfortuanly people think democracy is a value and that is what protects freedom and as you know that couldn't be more wrong.
 
2003-06-10 06:51:40 PM  
 
2003-06-10 06:51:51 PM  
Shut........UP

snip apologist garbage

Time for a history lesson.

The Soviets actually supported the Kurds, who, as you should know, were hated by Saddam. The Ba'ath Party murdered lots of commies and that's all the U.S. really cared about. That's why they helped Saddam and his political party come to power through a coup. They saw the Ba'ath Party and Saddam as a bulwark against Soviet expansion.

Have you heard of Christopher Hitchens? The Right are so busy jerking him off and crowing about his "defection" that they don't listen to him when he says the people who suffered the most were those belonging to Iraq's Communist Party. Why would the Soviet Union support somebody who slaughtered all the members of an ideology they support? They didn't. But the U.S. loved every second of it.

That's why they didn't condemn him for gassing the Kurds. All of the conservatives who won't shut the hell up about Reagan and how big his cock is like to forget the fact that he didn't say an unkind word about Saddam's use of torture, rape, and murder. You apologists just shove that under the carpet and then pretend you're morally superior after the fact.
 
2003-06-10 06:53:02 PM  
Code_Archeologist

I wasn't sure if you ever saw my last post telling you to check out Say's Law so that's the only reason I brought it up. Not looking for a discussion about it. I'm glad you looked into it a little.
 
2003-06-10 06:53:32 PM  
Vroomazoom -

My main point is that a reasoned, well thought out stance against war is difficult to sway. A secondary reason is that I like to show people a reasoned, well thought out stance against war, because, let's face it, the typical anti-war protest is a rather asinine affair.
 
2003-06-10 06:53:38 PM  
Good post ChiTownJack
 
2003-06-10 06:53:46 PM  
Pontechango:

I never said democrats, and my Boobies said "anti-war folks" or somthing like that. they should be anti-war.
 
Displayed 50 of 441 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report