“C’mon Dan hold a sec.He’s not moving anymore.”
Really, I think your last post was the verbal equivalent of a liver hook followed by a solid uppercut.
Honestly, if I were this Jeffguy, I’d shut my yap for now.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
“C’mon Dan hold a sec.He’s not moving anymore.”
Really, I think your last post was the verbal equivalent of a liver hook followed by a solid uppercut.
Honestly, if I were this Jeffguy, I’d shut my yap for now.
[/quote]
Danke schon, mein freund. 
Learned a bit of German in school, gotta love the language of Goethe, Schiller, Hesse and Mann.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Every time we clash it is complete bizarro pot vs kettle material. Why even bother?[/quote]
I’m not the one claiming any moral high ground. That would be your department.
But for what it’s worth - I am glad to see that you finally understand that you are as much a partisan cheerleader as you accuse me of being.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
The US invaded Europe in 1944, by which time the Russians were closing in on Berlin. The Germans had about 300 divisions on the eastern front, maybe a fifth of that fighting the rest of the allies. The Americans showed up at the end just like in WWI, were they got into it in 1917. So much for that bit of history.[/quote]
Sorry Sparky - the U.S. was in Europe way before 1944. Which pretty much proves the level of you complete ignorance of anything even remotely approaching a relevant point here. The rest of your drivel will just be ignorant ramblings from a canadian dill-hole.
Once again, you piece of ignorant feces - Eurpope had no defanse apart from the United States’ manned military bases. These bases were installed as part of NATO - because the entire world knoew that the Europeans were fucking ignorant to defend themselves from the USSR. Do they teach you real history in Canada, or are you to busty smoking weed in the alley to pay any attention?
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
The ethnic disturbances in France were the result of decades of racism against arabs in that country. If memory serves, black in the US did not take too kindly to the same kind of treatment, and reacted in the same kind of fassion. Was that being apathetic too?[/quote]
My God. Is there not at least a minimum IQ for entry to T-Nation? You are equating free immigration BY CHOICE to forced slavery? Please tell me you are not truly this fucking stupid. Please tell me you are a 15 year-old troll that is up too late on a Friday night playing on mommy’s computer. That is the only acceptable excuse for your complete and utter stupidity.
I’m sorry, dickwelt - but you are going to have to use a better definition of fascism than what you think it ‘roughly’ means. You have proven yourself to be nothing but an utter ignorant fuck. So for me to believe anything else you have to say, you will have to prove it with a refernce beyond your own pea-sized cerebral cortex.
[quote]I’m not the one claiming any moral high ground. That would be your department.
But for what it’s worth - I am glad to see that you finally understand that you are as much a partisan cheerleader as you accuse me of being.[/quote]
You may be older than I, but do you plan on growing up eventually?
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m not the one claiming any moral high ground. That would be your department.
But for what it’s worth - I am glad to see that you finally understand that you are as much a partisan cheerleader as you accuse me of being.
You may be older than I, but do you plan on growing up eventually?[/quote]
This is not a matter of my maturity. It is more a matter of yours. Admitting that you are a partisan hack is the first step to actually growing up. Congratulations on your first step to manhood.
Either Rainjack has a mancrush on Vroom, or Vroom has a mancrush on Rainjack. Either way, I’m tired of the T-Nation “Brokeback Mountain” saga played out daily here.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m not the one claiming any moral high ground. That would be your department.
But for what it’s worth - I am glad to see that you finally understand that you are as much a partisan cheerleader as you accuse me of being.
You may be older than I, but do you plan on growing up eventually?[/quote]
Numbnuts here couldn’t possibly be older than anybody. He’s probably typing with one hand, and popping zits (or doing whatever) with the other.
I’ve met morons before, but usually they can be reasoned with. Considering his level of ignorance and his pathological hatred, would it not make more sense to ignore the idiot? He needs proffesional help, not reasoned argument.
Dan
[quote]doogie wrote:
Either Rainjack has a mancrush on Vroom, or Vroom has a mancrush on Rainjack. Either way, I’m tired of the T-Nation “Brokeback Mountain” saga played out daily here.[/quote]
Dude - that was just wrong. Wrong I say. I demand a retraction.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
vroom wrote:
I’m not the one claiming any moral high ground. That would be your department.
But for what it’s worth - I am glad to see that you finally understand that you are as much a partisan cheerleader as you accuse me of being.
You may be older than I, but do you plan on growing up eventually?
Numbnuts here couldn’t possibly be older than anybody. He’s probably typing with one hand, and popping zits (or doing whatever) with the other.
I’ve met morons before, but usually they can be reasoned with. Considering his level of ignorance and his pathological hatred, would it not make more sense to ignore the idiot? He needs proffesional help, not reasoned argument.
Dan
[/quote]
This coming from a jackass that doesn’t even know when the U.S. entered WWII (January 1942, FYI) or the definition of fascism.
Dickwelt, you wouldn’t know reasoned argument if you tripped over it. Do you even know what “reasoned argument” is? Your complete lack of knowledge suggests that you just see big words, and then try to use them so as to hide your cerebral shortcomings.
By all means - feel free to ignore me. Please. In fact - why don’t you get all of you little friends to ignore me as well. Hell - I bet as popular as your ass is here you could wind sponsoring a total freeze out of rainjack here on T-Nation. Why don’t you do that? It would be grand.
Start a thread in the Get a Life forum, and tell everyone to freeze me out. Hell - I bet it would be a raging success.
Well this has become interesting. (I also just discovered I have typing dyslexia. I just typed that last word halfway backwards.)
Anyway I really do not think anyone understands this conflict. Many are making the mistake of ignoring the facts, and falling for the propaganda about this issue. Instead of spreading myths we need to look at the real facts.
Also we need to quit reading our own beliefs into what other people say, or twisting their words
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You truly believe that Saddam was a direct imminent threat to the United States of America? [/quote]
No I do not think he was a direct imminent threat. He was an eventual threat in the process of becoming an imminent threat.
Now here is a word, imminent, that pops up all the time. People misquoting the president by saying, or implying, that he said Iraq was an imminent threat. The fact was Bush said we should not wait until Iraq becomes an imminent threat.
Now JeffR, I am not going to worry about semantics here. If people need it to be translated semantically, then they may lack the intelligence of understanding in the first place.
To go off topic, let me tell you a story. Many years ago I worked for a company that was having a Christmas party. To guarantee that people who said they would show up actually did, so they didn’t waste money on food and other crap, they charged $5 that you could get back either as cash, or as alcohol from their bar.
I went to get a drink, told the person that I just wanted one drink, and the change. She told me that I either had to use it all for drinks, or take the cash back. I knew they were taking cash for drinks, so I told her to cash it in for the $5, then take the cost of the drink out of the cash, and give me the change and the drink.
She didn’t even blink and eye, and proceeded to do exactly what she refused to do a second ago.
Now back to our little discussion. JeffR, you are actually wrong (at least partly) about the sanctions against Iraq. They were working, and Saddam was actually about to fall, and he knew it, when people started worrying about those people, and started the wonderful oil for fraud campaign.
What this accomplished is instead of 6 months of terrible conditions for the people, then Saddam falls, we gave money to Saddam, he didn’t use barely any money on those people, so they ended up with years of torturous conditions while Saddam used the oil for food campaign to rebuild his empire, strengthen his strangle hold on the people, and started planning his revenge.
You did find the quote I was looking for. “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.” - David Kay January 28, 2004
Everyone:
Now people are questioning why we felt we needed to go in shortly after 911. And that is the key.
Please understand what I am going to say below. If you actually read and understand this it will make sense. If you are still arguing, you will need to seriously explain yourself. It may also mean you didn’t read everything, or understand it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
This is the article I posted before. Read this first. If you do not, you may not understand how big of a threat Saddam was.
Now after the oil for food program was started, money was flooding into Saddam’s bank. After years of dealing with inspectors and the Americans, he learned quite a bit. He really started a cat and mouse game with the inspectors, and with the UN.
Here is an interview with Kay before the idea of a war was even suggested:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/kay.html
This article really shows how hard the inspection process was. Any argument that the inspections were working before the war are sadly mistaken. Kay says they did a good job, and found a lot of stuff, but the interview really shows how weak they were. Being shot at, having a real small group of inspectors, and receiving anonymous death threats to his family.
Now while some of the WMD’s that Saddam had originally admitted to, and proven to him having, he was suddenly saying they didn’t exist. It has never been properly explained what happened to those weapons.
The intelligence organizations all over the world were getting reports of massive WMD activity involving Iraq. That naturally led them to believe that Saddam had rebuilt his stockpiles.
Here is the truth. He in fact had rebuilt his WMD research and production programs, but he was not really building massive amounts of these weapons. Why was this? Because he was not planning on using them any time soon. He was preparing. He wanted to be able to one day turn everything on and in one fell swoop become one of the most powerful military powers in the world.
This was the mistake of the intelligence community. They thought he was building the things when he was just getting ready to build them. It was like having all the ingredients to make meth, all laying next to the bathtub, including the instructions, and hundreds of boxes of pseudoephedrine, but no meth. What do you think they are going to do.
How far did he get? After the war it was found that his conventional weapons cache was half of what the United States has. Read that again. He was 50% the way to having the equivalent conventional military hardware of the USA.
With Saddam receiving billions each year he was becoming a secret military superpower. This was not just a possibility, but an inevitability.
The question is when was he going to turn on the machine? I don’t know, and I doubt anyone does, but does anyone doubt he was going to? To become that imminent threat? In this discussion do not forget he despised America.
During the time after 911, the world, and especially America was so strongly behind Bush that he had the political clout to take care of this threat, and this was a temporary position to be in. This political clout was in the process of dropping, and he knew it. If no action was taken then, there may never be a politically opportune time to do it again.
Now Saddam was attempting to get his hands on uranium. No I don’t care about all the crap about yellow cake uranium, and all the bs that came out about it.
Read the above article. It is small. It also states that Saddam actually had enough enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb. He also had enough non-enriched uranium that he could enrich it into 142 nuclear bombs.
If you read the first article link I posted, it also lists the 500 tons of uranium stockpiled, and a rail gun used to test such material. In the second post, Kay states that he had the tools to enrich the uranium, and the know-how to build a nuclear bomb.
So should we have waited until those bombs were built? I really think that he wanted to get those bombs built first, at least double his conventional weapons cache to US levels, and then turn on the WMD plants.
And still we could have waited until that fateful day as so many people argue. People complain about 2,000 dead Americans. If he had all this stuff, he would not have ran and hid. He knew he wasn’t big enough yet.
Imagine going after him 5 or 10 years later after he started up his WMD program, had the nukes ready, and his military in place. We would have been lucky to have only 20,000 dead Americans the first year of that war.
Israel would have been wiped off the map with a nuclear hit, causing him to be a hero to the Mid-East. Imagine the political clout then. Imagine the Mid-East countries that would suddenly get behind Saddam as a result.
Is this conjecture? I don’t think anyone can truly argue against this. Saddam has attacked Israel before for political benefit. He had his weapons program in place and ready to start up at a moments notice. He had the precursors of WMD’s all over the place.
What does everyone think was going to happen?
Now as far as connections with terrorists. Check this link. Sure it is an opinion piece, but it contains real information:
[quote]rainjack wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
The US invaded Europe in 1944, by which time the Russians were closing in on Berlin. The Germans had about 300 divisions on the eastern front, maybe a fifth of that fighting the rest of the allies. The Americans showed up at the end just like in WWI, were they got into it in 1917. So much for that bit of history.
Sorry Sparky - the U.S. was in Europe way before 1944. Which pretty much proves the level of you complete ignorance of anything even remotely approaching a relevant point here. The rest of your drivel will just be ignorant ramblings from a canadian dill-hole.
[/quote]
Wow, someone’s pissed off apparently, I wonder why?
Nonetheless, Rainjack, if someone’s as loud as you, he’d better proof his claims.
As a kid I learned that America landed on the sixth of June, '44. Is this outdated?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Once again, you piece of ignorant feces - Eurpope had no defanse apart from the United States’ manned military bases. These bases were installed as part of NATO - because the entire world knoew that the Europeans were fucking ignorant to defend themselves from the USSR. Do they teach you real history in Canada, or are you to busty smoking weed in the alley to pay any attention?
[/quote]
Hmmm. Only one country, namely Germany, nearly beat Russia, in a war of AGRESSION. So you think the whole western Europe couldn’t DEFEND (which is way easier than attacking) against USSR?
Of course the whole situation was certainly more complex, but to claim Europe has had no balls is absurd.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
If you actually read and understand this it will make sense. If you are still arguing, you will need to seriously explain yourself. It may also mean you didn’t read everything, or understand it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
This is the article I posted before. Read this first. If you do not, you may not understand how big of a threat Saddam was.
[/quote]
No, if you were actually up to date you’d know that the information is totally outdated. To all the other guys in the forum: Don’t bother reading it. The laboratory worked on small amount of poison to be used in assassinations. Was a good laugh, though.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Here is an interview with Kay before the idea of a war was even suggested:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/kay.html
[/quote]
To quote Kay at the end of his work concerning the WoMD:“I don’t think they exist”. Period.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now Saddam was attempting to get his hands on uranium. No I don’t care about all the crap about yellow cake uranium, and all the bs that came out about it.
Read the above article. It is small. It also states that Saddam actually had enough enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb. He also had enough non-enriched uranium that he could enrich it into 142 nuclear bombs.
[/quote]
The plutonium deal was a FRAUD. It was one of the reasons Powell did resign. I hate to say it this bluntly, but you seem to be cleary misinformed.
Mage, I’m sorry. If Saddam was really that dangerous as you claim, I’d be the first to commend an invasion - but he was not. The links you’ve provided were goofs. The lies about uranium and the chemical laboratory are the reason why America has lost political credibility around the globe.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
vroom wrote:
Numbnuts here couldn’t possibly be older than anybody. He’s probably typing with one hand, and popping zits (or doing whatever) with the other.
I’ve met morons before, but usually they can be reasoned with. Considering his level of ignorance and his pathological hatred, would it not make more sense to ignore the idiot? He needs proffesional help, not reasoned argument.
Dan
This coming from a jackass that doesn’t even know when the U.S. entered WWII (January 1942, FYI) or the definition of fascism.
[/quote]
December 7, 1941. Pearl Harbor. Duh.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
December 7, 1941. Pearl Harbor. Duh.[/quote]
You said that the U.S. did not enter Europe until 1944. You are wrong. They first set foot in Europe in January 1942.
How’s that freeze out coming along? You evidently can’t keep from responding to me, so I’m guessing it was a totla flop, huh?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
December 7, 1941. Pearl Harbor. Duh.
You said that the U.S. did not enter Europe until 1944. You are wrong. They first set foot in Europe in January 1942.
How’s that freeze out coming along? You evidently can’t keep from responding to me, so I’m guessing it was a totla flop, huh?[/quote]
I couldn’t resist, I’m trying.
The only operation in 1942 in Europe was the raid on Dieppe in France, which involved only British and Canadian troops. It lasted only one day, and it was a complete disaster.
The American invasion began with Operation Overlord in North Africa in 1942, then Sicily and the boot of Italy in 1943, and finally the main invasion of Europe on D-Day June 1944.
By then the Russians had turned the war around in 1942 at Stalingrad and the last major German offensive on the Russian front was at Kursk in 1943; after that, they were just being pushed back.
By D-Day, the Russians were fighting across Poland, closing in on Germany.
As for the North African campaign, Rommel was fighting with a grand total of four divisions under his command; Hitler didn’t take the allies seriously until they were halfway up Italy, and even then the bulk of his forces remained in Russia.
The main American contribution in WWII was logistic. Without American supplies, I think both England and Russia would have collapsed, though I’ve heard different opinions.
btw, I don’t mind debate, as long as we both stay off the insults.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No, if you were actually up to date you’d know that the information is totally outdated. To all the other guys in the forum: Don’t bother reading it. The laboratory worked on small amount of poison to be used in assassinations. Was a good laugh, though.
[/quote]
Yes everyone, don’t read this article that lists all the WMD information about Iraq. Do not think for yourself here, let Schwarzenfuker do your thinking for you. You only mention the first bullet point, and it specifically states “may have been used” in the article.
By the way it is a little more then just about one stinking lab. Read the thing, don’t just gloss over it brainiac.
And again you didn’t even read a thing I wrote did you? This has nothing to do with what I posted here.
Are you a fucking moron? This has nothing to do about any freaking plutonium deal. I said specifically this was not that deal. As soon as you get your head out of your ass you can begin to comment.
This is about uranium actually found in Iraq after the war. Get that? We got the shit.
Here is a news story.
[quote]Mage, I’m sorry. If Saddam was really that dangerous as you claim, I’d be the first to commend an invasion - but he was not. The links you’ve provided were goofs. The lies about uranium and the chemical laboratory are the reason why America has lost political credibility around the globe.
[/quote]
And your ignorance is why we may just get our fucking heads blown up. Either you are so full of shit that you are trying to twist everything I just posted with lies to cover everything up, or you are such a moron that you are incapable of actually reading.
Mage,
Your arguments are great, but the fact that the administration admits they found nothing would go against your claims.
You surely realize the Bush administration would be very happy indeed to be able to make claims concerning Iraq’s possession of WMD’s.
Similarly, there are many stories, from both sides, to support their claims. The lack of claims from the White House is all the proof that I need. They’d make them if they could prove them reasonably.
–
Crackerjack,
Nope, no hate filled redneck here…
[quote]The Mage wrote:
… Schwarzenfuker …
…brainiac…
…Are you a fucking moron?..
[/quote]
Try to act like a man without using “fuck” or other insults over and over.
You’re funny. They may have found shit, but certainly no WoMD or recources for creating them.
If you continue using FOX as your main info source, you won’t realize this.
I recall reading the news over one year ago.
Why must I be the one, a guy from Europe, who tells you the background of this?
US Army uses depleted Uranium as a means to increase the fatality of their arms. The M1Abrahms, the Apache, the A10 and other weapon system make use of it. The so called “Bunker Buster” carries a tip which contains ONE AND A HALF tons of DU.
As a result, many villages or city blocks are pretty toxic by now.
Nontheless, it is nice that USArmy removes at least some of it’s nuclear waste.
You can call me blind or use some of your precious four-letter-words, but clearly, the Uranium was not Saddam’s.