eraser8:

Did elections in the Weimar Republic use single member districts, proportional representation, or both?

pontechango

VideoVader
"I reiterate: If there was never any real intelligence pointing to Iraq having banned weapons, how were we able to pick targets for our missile strikes after the inspectors got booted out in the late 90's?"

Well, if I believe what the rightwingers say, Clinton was just trying to steer attention away from the impeachment precedings. I don't know what we bombed. WMD program related activities, I supposed.

Nice try dodging the question. You're not debating Newt Gingrich; you're debating me.


eraser8
VideoVader, my apologies. I didn't notice my name all the way down in your post.

'sall right. Not sure what you're apologizing for, though.

Your argument is an interesting one. But, the Bushies must also contend with this excerpt from the report:
"Although we lack any direction information, Iraq probably possesses CW agent in chemical munitions..."
How can these uncertainties square with the rock-solid assertion of Bush and his minions?

Look at the State of the Union again. He keeps asserting that Saddam had, past tense, these weapons, and that he was trying to make more. Doesn't say whether the ones from the past were still good to go, though.

The Bushies also have to contend with the fact that existing stockpiles would not be enough to constitute a continuing threat.

Why do you think he was pointing out Saddam's ability to make more?

There is some evidence (presented most notably by Richard Butler) that Iraq was able to produce stable Mustard agent. But, Mustard gas requires enormous amounts to be at all effective.

From Kay's interim report:
"While searching for retained weapons, ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003. When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agent and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI he responded it would take six months for mustard. Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert in responding to a request in mid-2002 from Uday Husayn for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin."

So about 6 months for a batch of mustard, possibly less, according to intel. In reality, I'm guessing under a year, to account for exaggerations. Not sure about the amounts ordered, but if the order had gotten through, though, that could've been a lot of damage done.

Still need to question some more people about that mustard:

spelunking_defenestrator:

does bush have to tear off his wig and reveal devil horns for you to realize that this guy is no damn good?

I don't have a wig. That hair is all Dubya.

Tadlette -- thank you ma'am. Yours was cool, in spite of one overlong line and an awkward rhyme. And as for our cheerleading:

Ass-kissers seek a quid pro quo
the most we'll get's a verse, and so
rude calumnies would be misplaced
we've only toasted SherKhan's taste.

I liked it a lot better when the world was cool w/ us and our prez.

barjockey:

Be Bush not faulted by a committee on the WMD fiasco for direct misrepresentation, then the issue of his direct involvement should be set aside. However, as the Executive, he still bears responsibility for his actions and decisions, so he still bears some responsibility to the matter.

Liberals, conservatives, etc: these labels are just nonsense, nonsense which just simplifies and distorts reality, and simply too one-dimension to be useful for categorizing ideological values.

Allow me to pose the question a little bit differently: How would you, barjockey, feel had this exact fiasco happened during the Clinton administration? Perhaps because of your ideological affinities, you would have acted more strongly to the issue--and perhaps had been more appalled.

Setting that aside, can you not see what is at stake? The credibility, legitimacy, and reputation of the Executive, U.S., and the pretext for national security stand on unstable ground. Ideological affinities aside, how could anyone who would desire truth and fair-play in the political system not find this appalling?

In light of the shenanigans of the Nixon and Clinton administrations, public acceptance of this issue sets a rather sad precedent.

I do believe the President Asshat aka dumbdumb Mc'shamelection lied. Why do I think that? Because he stated over and over agian that Iraq HAS WMD. If he was so sure that they had WMD then he would have to know where to find them. If he was so sure about them wouldn't he have to have some satelite photos, or some eye witness to them that can say they exist and they are here? If you don't have something along these lines then how can you be so sure. And if you do have this sort of evidence than then where are the WMD's

Bush sucks donkey balls. He is stupid, He is a lier, and if he gets reelected this year I will lose all faith in the intelligence of the masses in this country.

If this ass-tard get reelected I will know for sure that I live among the Masses of the asses.

Bush is a farking lying piece of crap, if you vote for him again your an idiot.

anathama --
"I notice you mention mother's basements alot when you are attempting to put someone down. Why is that?
What we usually hate in others is what we hate about ourselves. Do you still live close to your parents? Or, with them?I for one moved 1700 miles away when I was 17, after I graduated high school. What did you do after high school?"


Actually, this might be the second time in a few months that I've said it. Since, we're playing Freud, how does mother like you trying to practice psychiatry out of her house? You got bagged.

As for me, I went to Brazil. No, you can't ask why. Thanks for playing!

Oh yea, give the wench some rent, free-loader.

widespot.... straight and to the point, good job.

widespot

That is a run-on sentence, and the word is "you're."

Peeperkorn

The awkward rhyme - guilty - but each line was 8 beats. It doesn't look pretty but if you say it out loud the last line fits.

/huffy poetry defensiveness :)

Happy Daddy

"you are" of course.

Don't get me wrong, this is America and it is your right to be an idiot.

not that you are, I mean, it's your right, ya know...

Tadlette --

Oh I see... your third line only LOOKS shorter because of the big words. My apologies, it reads fine.

Good link to how the Bush administration twisted Iraq intel to suit their own goals.

Tenet bends over and spreads for Bush

Damn, no one bit my obvious troll. Damn damn.

I wanted to be a troll so badly too.

I love France, they have my wife, Laetitia Casta.

Fools!

Why is this even a debate!!!

Everyone on this board is asking the WRONG questions! Why can't we see this!

Instead of everyone biatching and taking different sides on an argument that none of us have the information to truly be informed? We can sit here infront of our computers, typing on fark while we download porn all we want, but the fact of the matter is that's all we can do in our posisitions. I wish I was part of the Iraq Survey Group, then I could truly speak my mind. Or I wish I was one of the many CIA agent who was running Chalabi for who knows how long (Chalabi has already admitted he'll take the fall for the whole thing; I lack a "credible" link now but challange me and I'll find one). Better yet, I wish I was privy to the exectuive committee meetings between the various members who run the American and British government.

But we're not.

I can spew my opinions here all I want, chances are no one is going to change their view no matter how convincing an argument I make. Therefore, for the last two months on fark now, I have been using the following argument to illustrate a point that is lost on all of us.

People, WE ARE THE INFORMED ONES! We represent people who actually know politics. If you clicked and read the article (and the guradian's as reliable a left source as you can find these days), then you're already better off than 90% of your friends who think they know about international politics or the drunk guys you hear arguing at the bar. Because we are the informed ones, it makes me so scared that we can't even get our act together and do something right.

Damn, there were days when farmers, angry about silver, all met in Washington DC. We can't do that anymore, but we have to think of new ways that we can.

Anyways, enough biatching, here's my point. I've asked this question for two months, and no one has given me an answer (only support).

I challange anyone supproting the US/British coalition line to debate, please riddle me this:

$104 000 000 000 / 290 342 554 = $358.20

If your significant other/child took $358.20 from your wallet, and spent it on magic beans, how would you react?

If your government took $358.20 from your wallet, and spent it on magic beans, how have you reacted so far...

That, my friends, is the short, sweet, and simple answer.
If the above statement cannot unify us all around one thing, then I am afraid to say that we do not deserve democracy.

People of the USA...

Sorry I made a mistake and spent 7 trillion dollars.

Hope all is well otherwise...

Lurv
Prez

batcar01:

Slamming the democrats that supported the president? Well, after 9/11 alot of them just jumped on the ole' patriot bandwagon and threw their lots in with Dubya.

Why?

Because we _all_ wanted a _real_ leader. Not the kind that manipulates intelligence reports to back his own *personal* goals.

How do you explain this?


?????
[must be a "liberal media" fabrication, right batcar?]

Also, remember Colin Powell sitting in the UN holding that vile vial? Remember the "secret evidence" that Shrub et al promised us? The evidence that they couldn't disclose because it would endanger the mission (Operation Oil Grab)? How about punishing Valerie Plame for having the gaul to be married to someone that criticized the administration? So what if she *was* an active CIA operative? No big moral dilemma there for our draft dodging president dress up and his insane clown posse. And before you even *think* of trying to defend Devious Dubya about his *desertion*, understand this. For those of us that have lost people in the military, and have family currently serving, it's a slap in the face and a disgrace to the uniform, the office of president, and the country.

/born in Texas
/doesn't get his news from Fox

People of the USA...

Once again I am here to tell you I have made a mistake.

I actualy have no idea how much money I just blew up in the desert but boy its been fun.

Meanwhile I have a few million in my "war chest" because I am a "war president". Its off to campain land La la la...

Do not defy me or you will reach the same fate as those damn Dixy Chix.

Lurv
Prez

The Government took well over $358.20 out of my pocket last month and I have no farking idea why. I keep trying to think what the US government does for me for that money, and all I can come up with is stuff I disagree with. And that just plain pisses me off.

State government I can understand. It goes to schools, and roads, and a host of stuff that directly affects me. But the federal Gov. just keeps taking and taking and I don't see crap. They send billions a year out of our pockets overseas to help other countries, yet they won't lift a finger to get the bum off my street around the corner.

I see congressmen with 40 aids so they can sit around in thier office and sip brandy that we probably paid for too. And then some of these guys don't even bother to show up for votes. WTF they get 40+ aids to do all their work for them and then don't even bother to show up for the one thing they have to do for themselves. Makes me sick.


I want my friggin money back.

That bums on your street because we closed all the mental hospitals in the 80s. You can thank the advisors to the current administration for letting the crazies out for that one. Seems like private enterprise can't do everything.

To the Farker that bemoaned that we, the informed, are unable to reach a consensus...
WELL DUH!
Of course a bunch of people from radically different backgrounds are unable to reach a consensus. Some of us may have affiliations with the military, or rich parents, or lots of money from hard work, or children.
Others of us are in college or just graduated, or are single in our thirties, or had hippies for parents, or are poor or minorities.
Most of us are sheep, because we choose to massage our egos by only hearing 'news' that reaffirms our beliefs instead of challenging them.
Some of the people on here are smart though. They seek out information that conflicts with their pre-existing views, they don't stick with a party or a candidate just because thats 'what they are'. Those people, I salute. They at least have the capacity for critical thinking and reason. To the others, who respond to all facts and arguments that are posited to them with ad hominem attacks, beating up straw men, or changing the subject to Clinton, the Vietnam War, the imagined fact that your opponents are 'socialists' or 'fascists', I hope you contract gonhorrea and die.

Arrrrrrr!
We need the pirates of olde to raid the white house and burn it down! Hopefully with Bush in it.
Be taken that you land lubbers!

we need someone with the touch of the liberal and the axe of the conservative

You know what I hate? I despise these government pricks that forgive debt owed by other nations. We forgave like a few billion Egypt owed us something like ten years ago. I shudder to think who else we've been forgiving debt for.
Oh yea, the Panama Canal, there was a farking winner of the idea. We pay for it, build it, then just hand it over lock, stock, and barrel. Who owns it now? The Chinese?

That crap was my damn money. I didn't want it going to the arabs in the first place. Then, my freaking government comes back and says "screw it, consider it a freebie, you don't owe us anything." Fark that, if my damn money is going to other countries and I have to keep forgoing the jetpack I was promised by 2000, I want it paid back with farking interest.

It makes me really wonder what's going to happen to all the money we're dumping into Iraq. We get these damn republican presidents that will toss my cash around like it's nothing and then have a democrat president come in right behind him and say "nah, ya don't owe us a thing."

It's like a one-two punch to US citizens. If this country is based in business, I want to start seeing it run like one. I want that farking bottom line to balance every freaking six months. If you want to get into office and spread some joy joy cheer around the world so you can feel better about yourself then you give Iraq $89 billion out of your own pocket and not mine. If you want to set up a domestic fund that's going to cost us billions to get homeless off the streets then you get on the campaign trail and get NEW funding for it. You don't farking rape my social security bank for it, bastard.

I think we need a new branch of government. The Enforcer branch. You know, just one more check and balance in the system. If a president or congressman is trying to bilk us out of our cash without getting new funding for a new program, they're constitutionally granted the power to pay this farker a visit to his/her house in the middle of the night and beat the living shiat out of them. They do it again and they're shot dead.

If some damn country goes bad on a loan we made them, we invade them and run their country for them until we've gotten the money back out of them but, unlike a bank we give the country back to them. I bet that would balance the books fast.

Ahh well, probably too radical for most of you. I'll just have to wait til the day I can be king.

Before throwing stones, Mr. Kay should climb out of his glass house and admit the ISG has done a half-assed job of inspecting Iraq so far and is in no position yet to make the claims he's making on its behalf.

To be fair, the job they're doing is harder than anyone could have predicted. Everyone knew Iraq had WMDs at one point--the question remains what happened to them:
-- Destroyed in the early '90s?
-- Destroyed in the days or weeks leading up to the war?
-- Smuggled over the border into Syria?
-- Still concealed in some rat-hole in the middle of the desert?

Who knows? Thanks to the chaos unleashed by Saddam sending his government into hiding rather than surrendering like civilized folk, the looting and destruction of evidence has made the ISG's jobe next to impossible. It doesn't help either that every Iraqi official who would have the answer is either dead, in hiding, or lying through their farking teeth to avoid being hanged as a war criminal.

The jury's still out on this, folks. It may take years to learn what really happened to the WMDs, and there's no guarantee we'll ever know the complete story.

its more like a closed case, the bush adm just dont want admit it....damned biatches!!!

pacifisticradical...what a name. what does it mean and Who are you?

Generic Iconoclast

You spent over eight hours on this political thread....Get a Job

eraser8

VideoVader writes: "Not sure what you're apologizing for, though."
Tardiness in reply.
No prob, man.

[The Bush/Cheney] statements were made AFTER the DIA delivered a report in which it was unable to come to similar iron-clad conclusions. Bush and Cheney didn't say "little doubt"; they said "no doubt." They didn't merely say that Iraq was in possession of components of weapons or the means to produce more; they said that Iraq actually had weapons.

Yes, but the DIA said there were unable to come to iron-clad conclusions of chemical weapons, which, as you said, would have deteriorated considerably by now. However, that leaves the door open for biological weapons, whose sources can be regrown and maintained over longer periods of time. Bush and Cheney deliberately didn't specify, because they weren't certain.

"Why do you think he was pointing out Saddam's ability to make more?"
To heighten alarm, obviously. But, the question I posed had to do with the existence of actual weapons. That is what we were told was beyond doubt. The possibility of future production is not relevant to the question of actual and present possession.

See my above explanation. They were more certain of Saddam's possessing the more easily-produced biological weapons than chemical weapons, so the didn't specify which WMD he believed he had, while highlighting Saddam's potential to make more chemical weapons with his infrastructure, materials, and scientists. They knew that if they stated plainly that he definitely had chemical weapons, they would be faced with the argument that his old CW would no longer be as potent as they originally were.

"From Kay's interim report"
What's your point?

You said Saddam would have needed to produce a whole lotta mustard gas to wage a serious attack with it. Kay's testimony says that might well have been possible within a reasonably short time frame, along with several other types of nasty weapons.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BUSH IS A LIAR BLAH BLAH BLAH TERRORIST APPEASER BLAH BLAH BLAH WMD'S BLAH BLAH BLAH

Its time for a new argument. Re-hashing this one over and over and over eleventy farking hundred thousand times is changing the mind of exactly NO-ONE.

If you believe in asshat leftist Halliburton conspiracies vote for Kerry...if not, vote for Bush...Oh, and remember Kerry voters, the election is on November 10th.

Seriously, how many times has this EXACT argument been played out here on Fark? Isnt there something else worth arguing over?

HoodedWanderer
If your government took $358.20 from your wallet, and spent it on magic beans, how have you reacted so far...

Dude, $358.20 for this?



With all the lives this punk has taken, all the terrorists he's aided, and all the havoc he's caused in the Middle East?
If money is your only issue, then I call it a bargain.

I look upon the current administration with great envy, and I'll tell you why... Because they can get away with murder, literally, and not have to answer to anyone. Accountability has turned into saying things like, "we won't know the whole truth for a long time," and "weapons of mass destruction program related activities."

Come on. In any corporation, organization, or simple grade school student office, no one could get away with such blatant backtracking, flip flopping, and outright lying as this administration has.

I am GREEN with envy. To think, a world without consequences! I, as leader, can do, or say, whatever I want, and not worry about being held accountable, because the ones who can do anything about it are all in my back pocket, or so absorbed in self loathing and self indulgence that they won't lift a finger to excercise the power their citizenship grants them.

(disclaimer: I am not a hypocrite, as I have written my representative, my governor, and my mayor to voice my disappoval of the state of the union, as well as to lobby for the fairtax www.fairtax.org)!

If anyone knows of a website that holds politicians accountable on what they said they would do, and what they actually did, please refer me. www.factcheck.org is a good start, but still not good, or interactive enough for what I'm looking for.

BWAHAHA, I HAVE A JOB! AND I GET TO FARK ALL DAY LONG AT IT!

Its been said before, and I'll say it again:

"Arguing about politics online is like competing in the Special Olympics. You might win, but you're still a retard!"

MAN I like that, even though it applies to me the most, cuz I won, and I have down syndrome.

Seriously, how many times has this EXACT argument been played out here on Fark? Isnt there something else worth arguing over?

Whats not more serious about the country you live in and the people that run it? If your tired of the argeuments and you have made up your mind... I suggest hitting that power switch on your computer like you seem to have done to your head.

churchill72

Its time for a new argument. Re-hashing this one over and over and over eleventy farking hundred thousand times is changing the mind of exactly NO-ONE.

It won't stop until after the next election. If you want to shut us up, make sure the Bush admin goes. Run McCain and Rice, whatever, but the freakshow in power now must go.

If they cared about accountability they would have all resigned by now, for the good of the Republican party if nothing else. They care for nothing but themselves and achieving their agenda by any means possible.

Anyone but Neocons '04.

anyone but neocons infinity and beyond. honestly, neocons are the devil

Anathema: nice

Can puppets lie? Bush may be shouldering too much of this on his own. When the PNAC speaks, one should pat them on the head and give them a big ball to go play with. Instead they now run the country. They started with Clinton and are now our presidents most trusted advisors. If a president wants to make an impressive showing in office, republican or democrat, they will need to distance themselves from these hacks for starters.

No-one's gonna read my post! Whee!

Actually, I read it, but no one will read this one.

You're BOTH wrong!

2004-03-03 09:43:41 PM Omega Ohm
You know what I hate?

No, but I feel certain you're going to tell us.

I despise these government pricks that forgive debt owed by other nations. We forgave like a few billion Egypt owed us something like ten years ago. I shudder to think who else we've been forgiving debt for.

Nice thread-jack. Are you really making the case that it's more cost-effective to financially de-stabilize a moderate, US-friendly regime and let it slide down into the abyss of islamic extremism?

Oh yea, the Panama Canal, there was a farking winner of the idea.
Is this the new topic now? ADD much?

We pay for it, build it, then just hand it over lock, stock, and barrel. Who owns it now? The Chinese?
The Panama Canal is owned by Panama. I realize that sounds like science-fiction to you, but oh well...

That crap was my damn money.
If we're still talking about the Panama Canal, I think it was your great-grandfather's money.

I didn't want it going to the arabs in the first place.
Are we talking about Egypt's debt again?

Then, my freaking government comes back and says "screw it, consider it a freebie, you don't owe us anything." Fark that, if my damn money is going to other countries and I have to keep forgoing the jetpack I was promised by 2000, I want it paid back with farking interest.
Jetpack? I'm just curious...what color is the sky on your planet?

It makes me really wonder what's going to happen to all the money we're dumping into Iraq. We get these damn republican presidents that will toss my cash around like it's nothing and then have a democrat president come in right behind him and say "nah, ya don't owe us a thing."

Very well put. It's the fictional, hypothetical democrat's fault. It always is.

Get it right. Republicans like Reagan and GWB run up *by far* the biggest deficits in our nation's history. We were running surplusses and paying down the debt during the Clinton administration.

It's like a one-two punch to US citizens. If this country is based in business, I want to start seeing it run like one.

This country is not a business, and the last thing on earth you want is to see it run like one. Big businesses are the least democratic institutions on earth, and their primary function is to continually increase in size and crush what stands in their way.

I want that farking bottom line to balance every freaking six months. If you want to get into office and spread some joy joy cheer around the world so you can feel better about yourself then you give Iraq $89 billion out of your own pocket and not mine.

If by "joy joy cheer" you mean "shock and awe-style flaming and exploding death," then dude, I want to party with you!

If you want to set up a domestic fund that's going to cost us billions to get homeless off the streets then you get on the campaign trail and get NEW funding for it. You don't farking rape my social security bank for it, bastard.

Now listen, I'm going to say this once. I did not have sexual relations with that account...social security.

I think we need a new branch of government. The Enforcer branch.

Governor Schwartzenegger?

You know, just one more check and balance in the system. If a president or congressman is trying to bilk us out of our cash without getting new funding for a new program, they're constitutionally granted the power to pay this farker a visit to his/her house in the middle of the night and beat the living shiat out of them. They do it again and they're shot dead.

Hmmm...a modest proposal. I think I like it.

If some damn country goes bad on a loan we made them, we invade them and run their country for them until we've gotten the money back out of them but, unlike a bank we give the country back to them. I bet that would balance the books fast.

Again, if by "balance" you mean "bankrupt," then yes, you're right. Taking over the world militarily costs way too much. I say we go back to doing it economically. That's been working out pretty well for generations now.

Ahh well, probably too radical for most of you. I'll just have to wait til the day I can be king.

I for one, welcome our new Omega overlord!

Ignorance in the form of progressivism. He (omega) makes some terrible points, but he's at least right in distrusting the current saps and the way they do things. While crediting Clinton for his budget surplus is a bit like blaming Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression, you're right about Bush. He needs to be reigned in. There was so much pork on his last Omnibus budget it looked like "moon over my hammy" at Denny's. I like the enforcer idea, they should go to the president and congresspeople's houses in December, round them up, and force them to give us a budget that doesn't pander to every damned one of their electorates. Bastard politicians.... soon all of this will change.