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.

(BBC)   Danish troops in Iraq finds mortars testing positive for blister gases   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 594
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

9805 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2004 at 4:47 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



594 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-10 10:44:54 PM  
Drat! I was so hoping they wouldn't find anything until right after Howard Dean clinched the Democratic presidential nomination. Now there's a chance that Mr. Metrosxual might lose the domination to someone half-sane...
 
2004-01-10 10:54:25 PM  
TunaRevenge: "Ummm. No it's not. Schizophrenia is a multi-personality disorder."

I have to jump in here. Schizophrenia is NOT a "multi-personality disorder". Schizophrenia is a wide umbrella term of which Multiple-Personality Disorder is only one. Equating the two terms is like saying "all dogs are Pit Bulls."

/psychology nazi
 
2004-01-10 11:18:11 PM  
- took nine months to find the most famous man in Iraq and he was also buried. Probably take a little longer to find cannisters buried in a desert the size of Nevada...or in Syria.
- All the best intelligence agencies in the world were convinced Saddam had something, and we've already found the bare beginnings of a nuclear program.
- Of course Rumsfeld met with Saddam (21 years ago...to hear some folks around here they act like it was last month), he was at war with Iran who had taken Americans hostage just 4 years prior. We were allied with Stalin at one time...
- There were no "false pretenses" for going to war. The reason for the invasion was for not complying with U.N. Resolutions, which was true.
That is all.
 
2004-01-10 11:20:24 PM  
G-Rot?

Why bother arguing facts? They have no effect on the close-minded ultra-liberal Bush-bashers. Neither does common sense for that matter.
 
2004-01-10 11:24:54 PM  
mr:

why argue at all?

the day when liberals and conservatives reconcile their differences, abandon rhetoric, and move toward an objective consideration of each other's arguments in a fark forum is the day when dennis miller becomes funny.
 
2004-01-10 11:28:19 PM  


nearly impossible to take out of context, even if it did happen 20+ years ago.
 
2004-01-10 11:28:54 PM  
adammnky

Even I have to admit that Dennis Miller was funny at times on SNL.
 
2004-01-10 11:30:27 PM  
Farfisa Fark...

What then is the proper context? If a picture is worth a thousand words, what then does that picture say to you?
 
2004-01-10 11:38:30 PM  
It would appear that Farfisa Fark has committed a fark comment "hit & run"...posted her comment and ran...ducking any debate. Sad.
 
2004-01-10 11:40:57 PM  
"Why bother arguing facts? They have no effect on the close-minded ultra-liberal Bush-bashers. Neither does common sense for that matter."

dont be silly, bashing bush with facts is easy

here's an example:
George W Bush, a failed buisnessman who has trouble with the english language, became president on account of his famous name and his fathers buisness contacts.

argue against these points, esplain how they're not facts
and i'll concur i am a close minded idiot who hates america

1,2,3...go!
 
2004-01-10 11:41:20 PM  
oh sorry, I was watching the pats win..... just a sec...
 
2004-01-10 11:44:37 PM  
this is what it says to me:

-rummy is two-faced.
-he is willing to make nice with the enemy to progress his own ends (like we like Saddam 20 years ago? no, they just wanted to fark over Iran).
- it also says to me that he is disingenuous.
- rummy is a man not to be trusted.

could someone please post his creditentials? I'd like to know what wars he's fought in to be hired as secretary of defense.
 
2004-01-10 11:45:34 PM  
Fab: "George W Bush, a failed buisnessman who has trouble with the english language, became president on account of his famous name and his fathers buisness contacts."

Failed businessman? Sure. But then many people have failed at business? Do you despise them too?

Trouble with English? Sure. But most of the kids in this country do. People with speech impediments do. Legal immigrants to this country do. You hate these people too?

Elected by name alone? Sure. Kinda like....Hillary Clinton too.
 
2004-01-10 11:47:28 PM  
Farfisa Fark...

Fair enough...but wouldn't you agree though, that as a politician, you have to work both sides of the fence sometimes?
 
2004-01-10 11:47:37 PM  
mr perspicacious

just because someone doesn't like Bush doesn't mean they like Hillary. I think Bush is a retard, and that Hillary's an evil nutjob.
 
2004-01-10 11:49:01 PM  
I'm glad somebody mentioned how the U.S. helped to viciously rape the Congo of any hope for a democratic society.

Here's an excerpt from King Leopold's Ghost:

"After being arrested and suffering a series of beatings, the prime minister was secretly shot in Elizabethville in January 1961. A CIA agent ended up driving around the city with Lumumba's body in his car's trunk, trying to find a place to dispose of it".

And of course the U.S. supported the dictator who came in through undemocratic means. Mobutu Sese Seko could've payed his country's entire national debt with the money he had in his bank account, but the U.S. didn't a damn.

Now, instead of democracy, they get rape, disease, famine, and AIDS all courtesy of the U.S. and Belgium.

Of course, the U.S. also allied with Saddam Hussein. The U.S. never saw a fascist dictatorship it didn't like during the Cold War.
 
2004-01-10 11:49:15 PM  
Farfisa Fark...

By the way, I see that you are a Dean supporter. Don't you find his recent flip-flopping two-faced?
 
2004-01-10 11:49:17 PM  
mr. p

yes, I know you have to appeal to both sides, but IMHO Rummy is such a snivling, snide jackass that he doesn't even come across as diplomatic.
 
2004-01-10 11:51:55 PM  
Farfisa Fark...

You may be right about Rummy...I don't know...never met him. He does have a decent sense of humor though.
 
2004-01-10 11:52:35 PM  
Ouch said:
I'm glad somebody mentioned how the U.S. helped to viciously rape the Congo of any hope for a democratic society.

Here's an excerpt from King Leopold's Ghost:

"After being arrested and suffering a series of beatings, the prime minister was secretly shot in Elizabethville in January 1961. A CIA agent ended up driving around the city with Lumumba's body in his car's trunk, trying to find a place to dispose of it".

And of course the U.S. supported the dictator who came in through undemocratic means. Mobutu Sese Seko could've payed his country's entire national debt with the money he had in his bank account, but the U.S. didn't a damn.

Now, instead of democracy, they get rape, disease, famine, and AIDS all courtesy of the U.S. and Belgium.

Quite awful. Y'think Dubya will get impeached for that?
 
2004-01-10 11:52:51 PM  
mr p --

flip flopping, on the tax issue? why is this bad? all those people who were placated by their $300 check Bush gave out should be happy that they might get another.
 
2004-01-10 11:56:48 PM  
Not the tax issue. Have you not watched the news yesterday and today? They were airing clips of him as a guest on "The Insiders" (PBS I think)...a lot of what he said in recent years, he has done a 180 on today...including his feelings about Al Gore.
 
2004-01-10 11:56:58 PM  
1. get c-s at yale (at yale, for the love of g-d), rejected from u of t, and c-s at harvard.
2. ???
3. profit
 
2004-01-10 11:57:05 PM  
/goodnight and flame on... it's been interesting.
 
2004-01-10 11:57:40 PM  
mr p -- no, I have not seen that. thought you were tlaking about the tax thing.
 
2004-01-10 11:58:18 PM  
MB made a statement saying something like Iraqi teens will thank the Us for outing saddam when they have theri internet cafes and gay marathon disco partys, or something,
to which i say, how cruel/forgettfull can you be?

the US gave saddam their stamp of approval when he, like the US backed shah in neighboring iran years eariler, was
terrorizing his own people ... it's said that the middleast is a place swimming in half truths, well, i know for sure that while saddam gave a shiite less about the starving peoples affected by the sanctions, we KNEW, KNEW,
that the sanctions were killing, straight destroying the fabric of that culturaly rich country, and we tagged it all on one man who we KNEW wouldn't give two squirts of piss for the most affected as long as he remained in powered ... we dictated the suffering knowing full well saddam wouldnt budge, as if we were twisting his arm, waiting for him to yalp "UNCLE!", all the while "his" people were screaming "uncle" at the tops of their lungs for years

see, after farking over the iraqi people for so long i simply can not buy the humanitarian slant to the iraqi invasion, i mean, we shat and pissed and spat on these already imprisoned people for our political gain, that being to show hwat kind of monster we already knew saddam to be so we could depose him when most needed - we so
come off as flagrent oppurtunists it's not funny

so, no, iraqi teenagers will not thank the US for ousting saddam on account of these things ... all the while you jerks with out a grasp on their history questioning why they're being so ungratefull
 
2004-01-11 12:03:15 AM  
fab:

as long as we keep their little brown bellies full of mcdoos and coke and a cathode ray tube in front of their faces blasting away the latest video from mandy moore, of course they will be happy.

if not, we can always put prozac in the water supply.
 
2004-01-11 12:04:04 AM  
fab5freddykruger:

Unhappy with the sanctions, unhappy with Saddam, unhappy now he's gone... you must be one very depressed person.

Too bad we didn't have a political faction asking for the invasion of Iraq since 1991.
 
2004-01-11 12:23:33 AM  
"Fab: "George W Bush, a failed buisnessman who has trouble with the english language, became president on account of his famous name and his fathers buisness contacts."

>>>
Failed businessman? Sure. But then many people have failed at business? Do you despise them too?
>>
Trouble with English? Sure. But most of the kids in this country do. People with speech impediments do. Legal immigrants to this country do. You hate these people too?
>>
Elected by name alone? Sure. Kinda like....Hillary Clinton too.
<<<

HAHAHA! i'm dying! hillary clinton, who the fcuk is hillary clinton, some knob? who cares? you've agreed to all of my points, that's what counts... i successfully
"bashed" bush with out reverting to not using easily checked facts, doesnt make me a better person, but it does prove my point, that point being out president is a dangerously unqualified, inexperienced tool who should be
no where near honest politics (if such a thing exsisted)


on the bringing up of hillary clinton, wow? becasue i'm supposed to be some sort fo card carrying demoncrap?
becasue the clinton name is associated with pure, anti american evil? i think clinton is an equal oppurtunity oppurtunist like any politican, but come on, at least,
at the very least, she speeks gud englisch, ney?


ps i think bush is probably an awesome guy, on a personal level, i am glad he gave up the bottle, that was probably hard for him, but he's the president now, PRESIDENT, that means when people around the world see him, by extension they're seeing me and you (it is if yr a yank like moi)
and if i think he's a putz i'mma voice my opinion, it's that simple
 
2004-01-11 12:34:41 AM  
Appropos of nothing, there should be a law on Fark vis-a-vis "Godwin's" indicating that whenever anyone posts a picture of a crying baby in any political thread, that thread should be declared closed.
 
2004-01-11 12:36:05 AM  
The UN passed Resolution 1441. After further inspections to make sure Iraq complied with said resolution, no one was sure, one way or the other, that Iraq had complied. Show me where it states in the reports from the 1441 inspections that they were certain Iraq had complied. It was Iraq's burden to prove theis. They did not. Game up. The U.S. then enforced resolution 1441 militarily. The End.

Everything else is political spin and partisan propaganda.

France had billion dollar oil contracts with the Baathists (look up Total Fina Elf). The PM of Canada, another anti-war Liberal, has strong family ties to the same corporation. Russia had military contracts with the Baathists, which they honored even while U.S. troops were dying in the early stages of the war. China had lucrative telecomunications contracts with Iraq, mostly upgrading their military communications technology. All three of the most vocal anti-Iraq-war nations (Germany, France and Russia) were owed billions by Saddam's regime, debts that they knew they would have to burn when Hussein's regime fell, which they now have, begrudgingly.

Liberals want to talk about how the U.S. helped support Hussein TWENTY YEARS AGO, but conveniently leave out the part about France, Germany, Russia, China, etc. supporting his regime right up until the bitter, greedy end.
 
2004-01-11 12:45:21 AM  
shower:

that 1441 jingoism is all well and good, but you forget: only a UN-sanctioned, multi-national coalition force can legally lay claim to the authority to act militarily in order to enforce a UN sanction.

the US acted without the UN, above and against the UN. we cannot claim to be enforcing UN dictates when we ignore the legal processes of the UN. thats just silly.

asshat

/bored, ready to flame
 
2004-01-11 12:54:37 AM  
"as long as we keep their little brown bellies full of mcdoos and coke and a cathode ray tube in front of their faces blasting away the latest video from mandy moore, of course they will be happy."

the first civilized peoples reduced to teen pop oggling, fast food slamming, "brown bellies" ... yikkees, you just me made me hate my country alittle bit, good sir, if only because this scenario isn't completely impossible given
the amount of media saturation we in the west experience

i pray they arent so tameable, i would never think that of such a hardened peoples, i would hope you reconcider you're demeaning notions


"Unhappy with the sanctions, unhappy with Saddam, unhappy now he's gone... you must be one very depressed person."

nope, a sober one, the world isn't as polarized as Dubya would like his denizen to think (not to imply his stance is yours), once the greys come into focus; i am absolutely thrilled that saddam is out, i am also nervous as to what will take his place in such an effed up political landscape ... when one conciders iraq is floating on an ocean of untouched black gold, you have to be realistic about both the motives of the US in that region, and how much controll they'll allot to the respective religious sects once the country begins to steady itself

"Too bad we didn't have a political faction asking for the invasion of Iraq since 1991."

i wish we did "finnished buisness" then (i hate that redneck saying because it implys that that was part of the reason for kicking saddamco out of kuwait, it clearly wasn't, we accomplished exactly what we set out to do) i wish SR had made good on his promise to the minority sect in the south to support the uprising, i wouldve been so proud to know my country helped out in that, damn, that wouldve been awesome... but then it also mightve lead the country into a destabilizing civil war that couldve spread out and affected our buddies in neighboring isreal (ouch! that wouldve really pissed them off, and if there's one thing you dont do it peev off a nuclear power) i wish he had never been helped by us, but those were different times; growing up atop the 12th largest nuclear arsenal on the continent (a fact i learned years later) on wurtsmith AFB in michigan, i awoke to the sound of B52's warming up each morning before i went to school, seeing them land and take off was so common that no one bothered to watch ...
different times, ones i am glad are over!

i am glad we pulled a quick 180 on his ass with kuwait, i wish we hadn't hurt so many innocent iraqi's to prove our point, tho
 
2004-01-11 01:06:28 AM  
adammnky said:
that 1441 jingoism is all well and good, but you forget: only a UN-sanctioned, multi-national coalition force can legally lay claim to the authority to act militarily in order to enforce a UN sanction.

So... what? If we can use top secret informants and satillite info to justify our action against Iraq, certainly we can also point out matters of public record.

The bigger issue, which I think you're missing, is that this whole Iraq thing, from the end of the Gulf War to it's continuance in 2003 -- it brings into question the valitidy and effectiveness of international law as it currently stands. The U.N.'s failure to deal with the Iraq situation over the course of 12 years, well, put quite a damper on its credibility.

To sum up: Perhaps the United States broke international law, but maybe international law is wrong.
 
2004-01-11 01:12:24 AM  
"The UN passed Resolution 1441. After further inspections to make sure Iraq complied with said resolution, no one was sure, one way or the other, that Iraq had complied. Show me where it states in the reports from the 1441 inspections that they were certain Iraq had complied. It was Iraq's burden to prove theis. They did not. Game up. The U.S. then enforced resolution 1441 militarily. The End.

Everything else is political spin and partisan propaganda."


as i see it, that's actually were it gets murky

the US was all too happy to employ the UN to make it's sanctions/inspections legit, but when it came to deciding if the sanctions/inspections were effective, it was the US who told the UN to fcuk off when the UN disagreed
with bushco's conclusions by not agreeing to military action

i personaly have no positive or negative opinion of the UN, like anything else, it works and it doesnt work, but using it like we did makes us come off like childish jerks;
when bush said he'd bring military action to the UN for a vote, i thought he'd get it, no problem, saddam is a knob and people'll want him out ... well, while people agreed that saddam was indeed a knob, they overwhelmingly cited the importance of following through on inspections over bombing the shiate out of an already broke ass country
as THE route to take towards disarming saddam ... along the way it became resoundingly clear that simply disarming saddam wasn't the end goal of bushco, so the UN was pissed (wouldnt you be?)and that nothing short of destroying his whole ba'ath party dealy, rebuilding the country in the image of america and instilling a western friendly governing body would suffice ... and imo that's why the UN didnt comply, they saw they were being had being someone less then sincere
 
2004-01-11 01:18:48 AM  
" The U.N.'s failure to deal with the Iraq situation over the course of 12 years, well, put quite a damper on its credibility.


failure? um, what? dude, you have to be way smarter then then to parrot that line, i dont know you and i'll give you more credit then that

and why did international law fail? becasue of all of the
WMD's turning up in iraq? gimme a break, we had iraq's nuts in a vice those 12 years

please to esplain it
 
2004-01-11 01:19:45 AM  
fab5freddykruger said:


"Too bad we didn't have a political faction asking for the invasion of Iraq since 1991."

i wish we did "finnished buisness" then (i hate that redneck saying because it implys that that was part of the reason for kicking saddamco out of kuwait, it clearly wasn't, we accomplished exactly what we set out to do) i wish SR had made good on his promise to the minority sect in the south to support the uprising, i wouldve been so proud to know my country helped out in that, damn, that wouldve been awesome...

You know, it's funny, but the "Neo-Conservatives" -- who weren't in power during the Bush Sr and Clinton administrations -- advocated from the beginning of the Gulf War that Saddam should be overthrown. Took all this time for them to get their way... and they ended up having to bend some rules to do it, too.

If their motives weren't so suspect (what do they really want?) then it would almost seem like they're a great bunch of chaps. At least on the Iraq issue, anyway.
 
2004-01-11 01:22:49 AM  
can we all just agree that saddam is a farking wad?

morticanbaby is a gross user name, btw

if i had to rename myself here it would be
"howard the fark" or "langdon auger"

does anyone think my current name is clever?
 
2004-01-11 01:27:42 AM  
fab5freddykruger:

Oh, if you'll excuse me, I was considering the sanctions as a state of failure. You know, since they weren't hurting Saddam at all, and were instead killing people (with Saddam's help, mind you. He made sure Iraq suffered under the sanctions, so he could appeal for their lifting on humanitarian grounds.)

I mean, 12 years of sanctions? With no end in sight? Seems like something was awry to me.
 
2004-01-11 01:29:22 AM  
ray:

international law didnt "fail." law cannot, by definition, "fail" or succeed. it is not a dynamic actor, but rather a constant (as long as it is not changed by legislative action).

the safeguards of the UN functioned exactly as they were supposed to: they would not allow one nation to invade another when an overwhelming majority of the world disputed the legitimacy of the premises for action.

sure, the international law system seems to be ineffective if you are a hard-right party liner or ayn rand and it limits the amount of capital you can extort from countries (un)fortunate enough to have lots of ancient dinosaur shiat in their land. but if you are a citizen of pretty much any nation in the world with the exception of the us, the international law system functioned fine until the us decided that its mission and motives were supranational.
 
2004-01-11 01:30:04 AM  
sure, rayonic, but not kicking saddam out in 91 and then playing pocket pool untill 03 underminds the "liberation"
angle a bit, wouldnt you think, i do
 
2004-01-11 01:35:01 AM  
"Oh, if you'll excuse me, I was considering the sanctions as a state of failure. You know, since they weren't hurting Saddam at all, and were instead killing people (with Saddam's help, mind you. He made sure Iraq suffered under the sanctions, so he could appeal for their lifting on humanitarian grounds.)

I mean, 12 years of sanctions? With no end in sight? Seems like something was awry to me."


the sanctions were a marvelous success for everyone except the ones they affected most, the common iraqi
 
2004-01-11 01:40:04 AM  
adammnky:

Excuse my semantics. International law didn't "fail", it's "flawed". I'm not even talking about the pre-war push by the United States, though I could. I'm talking about the previous 12 years of fumbling and inaction. The current system is deeply flawed and is in need of legislative correction.
 
2004-01-11 01:45:58 AM  
i dont recall any iraqi aggression during those 12 years.
 
2004-01-11 01:49:55 AM  
To summarize:

The brutal murderer of hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, Saddam Hussein, has been deposed.

Investigations are now being conducted in Iraq to discover the scope and extent of Hussein's quest for weapons.

A second democratic government is being established in the Middle East.

The U.N. has proven once again that it is merely a debating society for expired empires and former colonies to feign "influence" in world events.

Even Khaddafi knows when to fold 'em.

North Korea and Iran are about to feel our undivided attention.

Osama got a good look at the future when he saw the raid on Saddam's hidey-hole.

I would rather be the sole witness at a mafia slaying than to be Howard Dean's campaign manager.
 
2004-01-11 01:50:12 AM  
fab5freddykruger said:
sure, rayonic, but not kicking saddam out in 91 and then playing pocket pool untill 03 underminds the "liberation" angle a bit, wouldnt you think, i do

"Pocket pool"? They couldn't have gotten into power now by just sitting around goofing off. They've been pushing and advocating the ousting of Hussein for years. Remember the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998? A product of NeoCon influence.

the sanctions were a marvelous success for everyone except the ones they affected most, the common iraqi

Hm... who benefitted from the Iraqi sanctions? Not really the U.S., as we didn't get much oil out of the Food-for-Oil program. The Iraqi people were shafted, and even Saddam was annoyed with them (not hurting, though).

Well, I guess it was a windfall to all the sanction-breakers smuggling stuff into the country.
 
2004-01-11 02:05:29 AM  
Wait a second, I just realized something.

I've seen people posting about how, if these indeed are chemical weapons, the only WMD we would've found would be the ones we provided Saddam. I remember from the 1994 Senate report listing our aid to Iraq before the Gulf War that we only provided biological agents, not chemical. The only possible contribution I've seen to chemical weapons on the part of the US was funds, but those could have come from anywhere.

Am I missing anything?
Discuss.
 
2004-01-11 02:06:03 AM  
adammnky said:
i dont recall any iraqi aggression during those 12 years.

There's a lot of things Iraq didn't do during that time. I'm just trying to say that it was deplorable to keep the Iraqi people in that condition for twelve years. A travesty. That the United Nations was ostensibly in charge of the situation makes it even worse.

Face it, the "selective sanctions", while nice on paper, were a disaster. And the legislative mechanisms in place for removing them were not functioning -- the U.N. couldn't bring itself to either punish Saddam or let him go, so the Iraqi people were stuck in a hellish limbo.

It was worse than regular Saddam rule, it was worse than invasion. Truly the worst of both worlds, and it was all legal. Tell me, is anything okay, as long as it's legal?
 
2004-01-11 02:07:36 AM  
DarthBrooks:
A whole lot of wishful thinking. Iraq a democracy? The US will invade Iran and N. Korea? Whatever.

Yes, Saddam was a mass murder. Who was his chief enabler?

Oiloiloiloiloiloiloiloiloiloil. Going going gone. Get some while it's hot.
 
2004-01-11 02:07:37 AM  
darth:

there will always be osamas and hussiens; their beliefs are not unique. capturing them in no way negates the existence of half a century of anti-western sentiment in the middle east.

and do you really think that the government we establish in iraq will be a representative democracy? perhaps it will be in name alone. it would be sheer idiocy to bomb the poop out of a nation, kill tens of thousands of its civilians, occupy it as a police state for a period of (probably) years to come, invest billions of dollars in rebuilding its infastructure, and then allow for a reactionary, anti-western government to be legitimately voted into power. most iraqis despise the us, both because of our recent hijinks there and because they have, as a nation, been subjected to a massive campaign of anti-western propaganda. they will not elect a friendly government. the idea is absurd.

more like we will pack the legislature full of vaguely authoritarian businessmen sympathetic to the aims of global capitalism and amenable to american influence in domestic policies. see chapter entitled "republic of vietnam, establishment of."
 
Displayed 50 of 594 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report