Slashdot Mirror
White House Lied About Iraq Nuclear Programs
An anonymous reader writes "This New York Times article reports that in 2002, the Bush Administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program were based on evidence that was doubted by the government's foremost nuclear security experts. Specifically, aluminum tubes most likely meant for small artillery rockets were interpreted by the administration as parts for uranium centrifuges." In a nutshell: while Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were announcing to the American public that these tubes were slam-dunk evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions, they already knew that there was completely overwhelming evidence that the tubes were just for artillery rockets (as Iraq said) and that the tubes were totally unsuitable for use in centrifuges.
Politicians? Lying??
Bullshit.
"Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
They went with the CIA judgement that they could be used for nuclear projects. Regardless of whether they were or weren't, the other option is for Saddam to build rockets. Why would he need rockets? Oh, that's right, he was a dictator that killed lots of people.
"Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States."
So where are those tubes now Dick?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People
... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
by John Hawkins
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may l
Does this extend to the President?
The same question dogged Nixon to resign.
Seastead this.
I keep reading stories like this, hoping the American public will finally "get it". But it never happens. Richard Clarke, the 9/11 commision, Abu Ghraib, whatever. If it's not there kid in Iraq, they don't care. We just need to face it: about 45% of this country is going to support Bush no matter what. I'm not saying people should switch to Kerry, but if you still support Bush at this point, you must have constructed a very elaborate little fantasy world in your head.
The saddest part is that there is a very high chance you guys will have this team back in business (?) again for the next four years. I read the transcript of that debate last week and it amazes me that GWBush still has the balls to stand in front of people and talk about it when he managed to bomb the f#@$ out of a country for no rhyme or reason. Damn shame.
Free XBox, PS2
Weren't some of the news channels telling us that before hand or am I the only person that remembers history? I feel like we're living in the world of 1984.
I intentionally gave party members syphilis, et all.
At some point, we had to say "enough" to his gamesmanship, and make good on the resolutions to do something about it.
Just because it looks like he was screwing with us instead of building weapons doesn't mean the casus bella was wrong. The ball was in Saddam's court.
The tubes episode is a case study of the intersection between the politics of pre-emption and the inherent ambiguity of intelligence.
This was a case study in lying and having the fucking people fall for it because we were told to have faith in the leaders of our country or be labeled unpatriotic.
On Aug. 17, 2001, weeks before the twin towers fell, the team published a secret Technical Intelligence Note, a detailed analysis that laid out its doubts about the tubes' suitability for centrifuges.
Perhaps this is partially why the administration originally claimed that Hussein was not a credible threat to the United States?
One senior official at the agency said its "fundamental approach" was to tell policy makers about dissenting views. Another senior official acknowledged that some of their agency's reports "weren't as well caveated as, in retrospect, they should have been." But he added, "There was certainly nothing that was hidden."
Let's not fuck around here. It's called making the viewpoint you want noticed more apparent than those you don't regardless of whether or not it's true... This is what any good position paper should do.
"Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
Sounds like exactly what the United States ended up doing. It decided it was right and it had the power to make sure it got what it wanted out of the deal. Notice the reference to oil... Not to the safety of the United States' populace. Oil. Cute.
I'm glad we don't have a bias one way or another here at /.. I mean, "In a nutshell: while Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were announcing to the American public that these tubes were slam-dunk evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions, they already knew that there was completely overwhelming evidence that the tubes were just for artillery rockets (as Iraq said) and that the tubes were totally unsuitable for use in centrifuges" screams "I'm a Democrat, I hate Republicans!" to me.
Location: Mt. Xinu
I don't get it... How is this news for nerds? In light of all the other political blather going around, it isn't news that matters, either. Can we stop the political BS and just get back to the nerdy stuff?
Slashdot, let's not try to be a site you're not. Let's leave the political discourse to the other sites and leave it out of here. Please!!
If y'all would tone down the rhetoric, you would have Bush out of office, but instead you use inflammatory terms like the headline here. You wind up turning off the undecideds/moderates out there with the over-the-top Bush bashing.
What concerns me most is the ability of this administration (or the potential of any future ones) to pull a veil over the collective US public to go to war against an enemy that was a perceived threat, not a real one. What worries me most is that this could very well happen again, if we let this one slide. That in the future, a Republican or democrat white house could choose to shift its focus on a nation that it deems to be evil and take its own young men and women in to a hail of bullets and ill will.
Bush was brilliant or clueless enough to have his administration divert the public's gaze from Afghanistan or Iraq, forcibly or otherwise and even the critics in the media remained largely silent over the unjust war the country was being dragged in to. The esteemed Bob woodward said it himself that he finds himself guilty of ignoring stories that were of relevance, that could have proven to the public time and again that this war was being fought in the name of lies, that this was an unjust war. But men, who shirked their duties when their country asked of them to fight, chose to send young men and women in to harms way.
It were a crime then to question the legality of this war, it was unpatriotic to do so, it was simply wrong to doubt on the ability of our Commander in Chief, who chose to surround himself with yes men instead of criticism, like a clueless King who was fed what he needed to know by his courtiers, and never the truth.
It happened once, and it will happen again. And its a shame that it does, in this age when media remains omnipotent, the public has access to information of any nature, that a group of men and women could pull a veil over our collective judgement and lead many a mother's kid in to a nation in peril and a war that never end.
Rapid Nirvana
"Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were announcing to the American public that these tubes were slam-dunk evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions, they already knew that there was completely overwhelming evidence that the tubes were just for artillery rockets (as Iraq said) and that the tubes were totally unsuitable for use in centrifuges."
Not that I buy it, but the claim the Bush administration is going to be making (and this is covered in the article) is that the CIA didn't highlight or even mention the debate going on in the intelligence community over the use of these aluminum tubes. Condoleeza Rice appeared on a lot of Sunday shows today (I saw the CNN one) claiming that back when she claimed that the tubes could "only really be used for nuclear weapons", she knew of the debate but thought it was a marginalized dissent and that the overwhelming consensus in the intelligence community was that these tubes were to be used for nukes.
Of course, the response to these claims is: you couldn't have afford to have just based your information on the CIA briefings. If you're leading the nation to war, call in the advice of every relevant department and organization. The path to war shouldn't be a light one. And of course, since the nuclear issue was one of the major ones that drove us to war, supposedly, then the Energy Department clearly should have been consulted. And their overwhelming views were that the tubes were to be used for rockets.
Two points that are interesting in this article (that deserve a read)...
#1: The fact that the CIA endorsed the nuclear threat theory through the aluminum tube evidence, knowing the yellowcake evidence was bullshit. Meanwhile, the Energy Department endorsed the nuclear threat theory through the yellowcake evidence, knowing the aluminum tube evidence was bullshit. And yet, this was just read as a double endorsement.
#2: Dick Cheney's roll throughout all this (the fact that he was basically demanding evidence before any surfaced, or at least any that he was aware of).
You COULD be a terrorist. I think we should lock you up just in case. We'll let you out when the War on Terror is over.
Or not...
The failure of Congress to voice even token dissent on every foreign policy decision since 9/11 is the biggest failure of the entire system in my view. Every Congresscritter should be voted out of office and barred from even running for town dogcatcher for the rest of their miserable lives.
Half the country knows George Bush and Co. are a bunch of half-wits with their own agendas, but we deserve better from Congress. That they chose to goosestep to the White House's tune with nary a word of protest is unforgiveable.
Wouldn't caution entail _not_ attacking a country for extremely questionable motives and alienating most of the world?
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Im not a fan of Bush 100%, but I do believe we had a just reason to go over there. If my leader was commiting genocide and I could not get out of under his control, I sure would want somebody to come kick his ass. We dont have to police the world, but make sure everybody atleast has the right to life(or atleast those who want it). Now if somebody would have came out and said this is why we are ousting Saddam, it would have been better than trying to convice people of WMD's...
but i also always thought their trumped up reason was laughable
couldn't the administration had just said "look, we should have killed this snake saddam in 1991, but we couldn't deal with a lot of body bags then. we now know a basket case of a middle east is bad for the us, and so we can stomach the body bags, because it's better a couple hundred dead servicemen in iraq than a couple hundred thousand dead civilians in washington dc. osama is not a cause, he's a symptom. and the cause is a f**ked up middle east. so to war with iraq we go, to begin the the process of fixing the middle east. because september 11th shows that the middle east will export its problems to us, so it is our responsibility to fix the middle east, whether we deserve it or not."
and i fear it's tehran, here we come, and a draft, in 2005. because i don't know about you, but i don't trust those mullahs with nukes, and i know for certain the neocons, or even the dems, don't either.
i just hope that when we go to iran, they level with the us citizen, rather than play let's make up a stupid excuse.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ugh, the spin on this article, both the headline and the editorial comment by Michael, is annoying. (The actual NYTimes piece is worth reading.)
1) Old news. All this analysis that the tubes could have, or even
were fairly likely to have been used for rockets, not centrifuges
was known and public in Dec2002-Mar 2003. If you don't remember
it, you just weren't paying attention. It's even old news that
the Energy Department and State Department experts were the
ones disagreeing. (What *is* news is that the caliber of experts
that said the tubes were likely not for centrifuges was not
made public at that time to the best of my knowledge.)
2) Michael grossly mischaracterizes the Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld
position at the time as saying the "tubes were slam-dunk evidence".
That was *not* the way the White House or the administration
presented the case at the time. The tone of 95% of their statements
was basically... well, we're not sure but it doesn't look good.
There is evidence that Saddam is reconstituting his nuclear program, etc.
What are we going to do about it?
In fact, the "slam dunk" comment was made *in private* by CIA director
Tenet to George Bush when Bush told the director that the case seemed
weak and was that the best info he had? At least that's the
story documented by Bob Woodward's book that came out a year after
the war, "Plan of Attack" (WSJ opinion,
a longer CBS News summary.)
Now why Tenet said it was a slam dunk is a bit of a mystery to me.
And it presumably is the basis for the 2-3 statemtents pre-war
made to various obscure audiences but reported in the mainstream
press where Bush or Cheney said things like "we *know* Iraq
has WMD"... statements that were remarkable and notable precisely
because the administration was generally not so definitive in
saying that Iraq had WMD... most of their statements centered
around Saddam's recalcitrance in the light of various UN resolutions
and inspectors.
Hey, I'll go so far as to say Bush misled the American people
and/or made a poor decision to go to war, knowing that the evidence
was thin. And I think that is a #1 reason not to vote for him.
But I don't think a Slashdot article heading "White House Lied
About Iraq Nuclear Programs" or a editorial comment that the
administration was announcing that the tubes were "slam-dunk evidence"
is right. It's really sad to see such misrepresentation of what happened.
--LP
Michael: When you rip off posts from Drudgereport.com, The New Scientist and other well-read sites, make sure you follow the thread through to the point where they explain that the story was nothing more than a political hit piece.
For instance, check out an earlier NY Times piece that actually reinforces the administration's position. Or you could review that this hit piece was to be joined by CBS News in another attempted effort to push fraudulant information and sucker all the sheep out there.
Or should we expect a post from you about "critical national guard documents damage Bush" and experience a deja vu Slashdot experience?
Slashdot readers - you too can read it before Michael (or some alleged anonymous reader, just like the CBS anonymous sources) reads it and makes up a libelous headline damaging Slashdot credibility and objectivity:
Drudge Report
The New Scientist
and other excellent critical reads include:
Power Line
Weekly Standard
Little Green Footballs
Oh... I should warn you - if you're determined to vote for Kerry in spite of everything, do NOT go to the any of the above sites. It'll destroy any opportunity for ignorance you might have.
Oh, okay. So the nuclear-electric stations that produce power for much of Ontario "could" be re-engineered for evil usage. Better start bombing Canada!
Don't tell me you're one of those guys who reads "pull in case of fire" on the alarm panel, and pulls the thing, just in case there's a fire?
-ben
myselfmusic
* It is becoming difficult to find articles that are not tainted by ppc on /. lately, I will concede that. Perhaps things will settle down slightly after the election...
My patience is infinite, my time is not.
Oh wait, presidents can only be impeached for lying about their personal life, not for something that actually affects the American people.
And when the plan entails thousands of US casualties, and tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, do you call that "caution?"
If by "Flip-Flop" you mean "Being able to change his opinions based on new information", sure.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Easy to say when it's not your country that was invaded. Easy to say when it's thousands of non-American civilians that are paying the price.
"Far from "group think," American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes. A "holy war" is how one Congressional investigator described it. But if the opinions of the nuclear experts were seemingly disregarded at every turn, an overwhelming momentum gathered behind the C.I.A. assessment. It was a momentum built on a pattern of haste, secrecy, ambiguity, bureaucratic maneuver and a persistent failure in the Bush administration and among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to ask hard questions."
If this were a surprise, it might matter more. However, I have trouble believing that an intelligent person can believe most of the things the Bush administration says. I do not think this will hurt Bush because his supporters are completely uninterested in knowing the truth.
Do you remember the cost estimates of the Republician Drug Plan? (e.g. here, here).
What about WMD?
Do you believe him when he talks about how much better is the economy?
Did you believe Bush or Greenspan when they talked about the need for tax reductions because the federal government was going to have too large a surplus?
"But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.
"I believe, as I have noted in the past, that the federal government should eschew private asset accumulation because it would be exceptionally difficult to insulate the government's investment decisions from political pressures. Thus, over time, having the federal government hold significant amounts of private assets would risk sub-optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency, and lower overall standards of living than would be achieved otherwise.
"Short of an extraordinarily rapid and highly undesirable short-term dissipation of unified surpluses or a transferring of assets to individual privatized accounts, it appears difficult to avoid at least some accumulation of private assets by the government." (From here)
When I hear Bush or his crew talk, I know that the truth is the exact opposite of their opinion.
Iraq was a hotbed of terrorists before we invaded? NO!
Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorists because Bush invaded? YES!
Did Bush look like a "little boy" who did not really belong in that first debate?
What about the 4 Al-Quaida related attacks on the US interests during the Clinton 8 year reign? 1. World Trade Center 1st attack 2. Khobar Towers 3. Embassies in Africa 4. USS Cole The whole Clinton administration should be thrown in jail due to negligence. Eight years in office and we bombed a tent in Afghanistan, got dragged through the streets of Somalia and bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Wow. Bush is kickin' ass and taking names. Leave him alone.
as the NY Times article points out, similar quality aluminum is found in tin cans and other commercial products. And the same material (with similar specs) was used to make rockets for the US Military.
If you RTFA it's very clear that the tubes would be completely useless in a nuclear program. And that the specs were consistent with the Iraqi army's requirements for these rockets.
And, as the article shows, all this was known to the current administration months before the Iraq war began.
Great reporting by the Times. Very eye-opening.
So the argument that Sadam was developing nuclear weapons was based on the discredited Yellowcake report from Niger. And on these aluminum tubes. Both of which were known to be suspect before the war began.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
First of all, since only about 50% of the population will vote, it's only about half of that 45% who will be voting for Bush. Basically, one-quarter of the country falls into this category, and one-quarter into the Kerry camp, and one-half in the Who Knows? category. OK, with that out of the way, let's play devil's advocate and speculate on why those people will vote for Bush despite what you say:
Liberal Attacks: "Yeah sure, figures it's in the New York Times, that bastion of liberal thought. Let me check Fox News to get the real story. Heh, just as I thought, they don't even mention it, must not be true. Just more liberal lies."
Patterns of Birth: "I was born Republican, my pappy was Republican, his pappy was too, and I'm gonna die Republican."
One-Issue Paramount: "I wish Bush would be more forthcoming about these things, but hey, he's going to (fight abortion / put conservatives on the Supreme Court / fight for school prayer / put tax money in my pocket / keep them liberals away from my wallet / keep America safe)."
Shared Beliefs: "We got ourselves a born-again Christian in the White House, and by God, we've got to keep him there!"
Shared Geography: "He's from Texas! Not like them panty-waists from Taxachusetts."
Rambo Syndrome: "He got tough with them terrorists, and he's gonna keep getting tough, and that's the way I like it!"
How do you reason with such persons? Basically, you don't. If they want to microfocus on one particular issue, ain't nothing you can say to negate it. Just remember, it's really only 25% of the country.
I think the point is that this is another indication of this administration's willful disregard for advice and information from the scientific community if it conflicts with their agenda. If that isn't news for nerds (or news that should worry nerds) then I don't know what is.
If you care to RTFA, you will find that they'd been ordering these greater tolerance tubes and USING them for small artillery rockets for years. Our nuclear experts said that if Iraq wanted them for nuclear centrifuges, we SHOULD LET THEM HAVE THEM, because they were a HUGE step BACK from the last centrifuges they constructed.
Iraq, North Korea, China, India, Wales, etc, actually any country, has a right and a duty to defend itself. If the US and other countries have nukes, then every sovereign nation on the planet has the duty to defend itself with similar force.
GWB can rebut any statement by just saying the same simplistic catch phrases that cite only the successes in Iraq. For better or worse, Bush really knows his constituency. People can take "Saddam is in jail" to the polls, but not the three-paragraph (well reasoned or not) statements Kerry makes about why he thought Saddam was a threat but would have relied on inspectors using war as a last resort with a larger coalition of nations, etc.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
I don't know about liberal eyes, (or even what a liberal is exactly), and I don't know about aluminum tubes either. But I do know that anybody who claims that the Bush government doesn't lie and manipulate on a regular basis is not in the business of viewing the world at all.
-FL
What the hell are you talking about? They threatened to fire the Medicare auditor if he told anyone their actual estimated cost, because it exceeded Congressmembers' upper tolerance of $400B by at least 10%, now nearing 50%, before the program is even fully underway. This is the truth, and your tired denial with "liberal" as a smokescreen is sleazy. How do you like Representative Tom DeLay's criminal inducements to his fellow Republican, to vote for the bill in exchange for DeLay backing the reluctant Rep's son's campaign? Your own words apply only to the extent of not believing your Slashdot posts: they're part of the pack of lies destroying this country. Happy?
--
make install -not war
And your computer as stated COULD be used for large-scale distribution of child pornography. Perhaps some men in black should take it away and lock you up -- in your own words, "I, for one, would rather NOT take that chance."
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
"Great thing about politicians, though, you can always tell when they're lying: their lips move."
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Considering how many stories the times has 'gotten wrong' and 'had to retract' about Bush in the last four years, and all the other crap they write about, you have to take everything they write now with a grain of salt. A very large grain.
The NY times is so partisan, that they are no longer credible. So I have a very hard time believing any of this, nor anything they write. Besides nuclear weapons were only ONE of the reasons we went in there, read the state of the union address! And Sadam did have illegal weapons, he even used some of them in the war.
So please, get down off your cross already, somebody needs the wood.
Oh you mean the same NY Times we trust to report the made up news...excuse....news.
j m2 0040629.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
You should read the article. They actually went and asked the Iraqis in question.
At a rocket facility in Iraq, they found something like 16,000 rockets that had been built with the exact same tubes that had been ordered. They questioned why the newer orders were at the higher tolerances; the response was that they were trying to improve the accuracy of their rockets without doing a complete redesign. And, in fact, they weren't to extraordinary tolerances anyway... *aluminum cans* are better built than the tubes Iraq wanted.
Further, intelligence analysts specifically warned Powell that it was untrue to claim the requested tolerances were excessive for rockets. Our own rockets (the Model 66, from memory) that are most closely similar, use the exact same material at very similar tolerances. Claiming that Iraq's request was not suitable for weapons use was grossly untrue: we did/do the same thing!
Further, the tubes were of anodized aluminum, which is not suitable for use in a centrifuge. (uranium gas, apparently, doesn't react well with anodization... and you really want to keep uranium gas under control) They also asked the rocket guys about this, and they said that they wanted to protect them from the weather. The inspectors went outside and looked, and saw that many of the existing tubes were badly corroded, so it was very sensible to order the anodization, if their real use was for rockets and they would, like the others, be stored outside.
The evidence that the tubes were for rockets is extremely compelling, from the dimensions to the weight to the material. The evidence that the tubes were for nukes is, essentially, a paranoid fantasy that is not related in any way to the truth. The tubes were the wrong size and shape, they were anodized, and they were a huge step backwards from the technology Iraq had been using in 1991.
In the words of one analyst, per the article.... if the tubes were meant for centrifuges, they were so poorly suited that we should have just given them all they wanted.
It was mentioned in Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell them paper back edition that was released months ago.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
BU__ SH__!
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Well since I'm a citizen of the United States, I'm only able to hold my own government accountable directly. When our vice president says "There is no doubt that Iraq has reconsitituted it's nuclear weapons program", he has made a very strong statement.
It is our governments job to guide the country. When they are guiding the country into an unpopular direction, they need to justify this. I think it is irresponsable to make statements like the one above when there is in fact much doubt.
Lied is a bit strong, but I believe misled is an understatement. It's only right to hold our leadership accountable.
-- john
Unless there was some reason to believe that he did have weapons, there was no reason not to simply continue with the inspections. Anyone with any sense knew this at the time -- why do you think Powell tried so hard to convince the UN that Saddam really did have WMD?
Even if you feel that at some point something had to be done, why that particular point, if there was no evidence of WMD? And why this particular action -- even if something had to be done, why did that "something" have to be invading and taking over the country?
More importantly, this is no excuse to lie to the American people. If the war was justified regardless of whether Saddam was building nukes, why not just say that? Why lie to us about it?
The answer, of course, is that the American people would never have accepted going to war unless they felt threatened. So basically, Bush tricked us into going to war, and now he wants us to be OK with that because he thinks the war was justified anyway. That just doesn't work for me, and I think a lot of the American people feel the same way.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Considering the utter shit that Michael's been approving lately, I'd just about decided to kill the bookmark to the site and go my merry way.
/. Preferences
Then I remembered that you *can* exclude stories posted by any of the Slashdot supermods, or whatever the hell you call them. Just go to:
Click on the tab titled "Homepage," then under "Exclude Stories From the Homepage" locate the author you don't want to see again (in this case Michael) and check the box.
Now, the suggestion to Slashdot coders: Why not create a special section called "Ignore shitty articles by Michael?" After all, it's not that I want to exclude stories as much as I don't like my time wasted by a jackass like him.
I read this story Saturday evening and the tubes that Iraq was shopping for were of a much greater tolerance than needed for their small artilery rockets.
Wrong wrong wrong WRONG!!!!
From the story:
To sum up: a low-level analyst found an old centrifuge design that he thought the Iraqis were copying. He ignored the fact that the tubes were an exact match of rockets the Iraqis used earlier, and didn't even bother to ask the inventor of the original centrifuge whether or not the tubes could be used in that centrifuge.
End of story, WRT the "much greater tolerance" line.
-jdm
On the one hand, the Bush administration has been roasted by the Democrats for not taking pre-9/11 intelligence seriously enough.
On the other hand, the Bush administration is getting roasted by the Democrats for taking post-9/11 intelligence too seriously.
It sure is nice to have your cake and eat it too, eh Democrats?
Oh, and Michael, the little personal spin you decided to tack on the end of that submission -- I'll never buy a Slashdot subscription thanks to that. I come here to get the facts, not your personal anti-Bush agenda.
Anyone else want to boycott Slashdot subscriptions?
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
Bush and Kerry had the same information presented to them before this all started and they both chose to go ahead with military action. If Bush lied, Kerry lied. Period.
Mistakes may have been made, but if so they were made by both candidates. Now, one opportunistic candidate is pretending that he had nothing to do with it and using his own mistake (if one was made at all) against his opponent. Shameful really.
To be honest, I am quite disappointed in the cognative skills of most Slashdot posters regarding this topic. I thought this particular community of people were smarter than many posts suggest.
Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete. Most of you that are planning to vote for him have no other reasons in mind than he isn't Bush and he isn't a republican, and that is really pathetic.
The problem with this whole post is this: Just because I disagree with Bush out of doesn't mean that I like the Democrats. I dislike both parties. They're both up to their ears in risky foreign policy that earns us the hate of the rest of the world. How many dictators (including Saddam) have the Democrats and Republicans installed over the years? Remind me why they supported (or orchestrated) the destruction of several democratic governments in the Americas alone?
It's time to get rid of both of our main parties.
CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS (Their caps, not mine)
First three docs:
Iraq Oil Map.PDF
Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.2.PDF
Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.1.PDF
So, before the war, the Vice President, like, has this task force thing, and they won't tell anybody what they talked about. But they had a map of the Iraqi oilfields AND lists of people who would be intersted in those fields. Oh, and the VIP himself? He's still pulling down mad money from Halliburton, to the tune of about half-a-mill a year.
But "War for Oil"? Man, that's just CRAZY talk right there. CRAZY.
In the international press it was widely reported that the WMD claims that the US made were very dubious e.g. compare this Guardian article from Feb 6, 2003 that took Powell's presentation to the UN security council apart bit by bit.
That is why the world opinion was so critical of this war as it was clear from the beginning that this was a war of choice and not necessity.
The scandal here is twofold:
1) An administration that set out to send troops into harms way for very dubious reasons (I still don't understand what they hoped to gain).
2) A complacent American press that allowed the American public to be suckered into this pointless war.
I think this weapons technology sale to China in the mid-90's is the sale in question.
The politics category is slashdot is kind of out of hand.....There's not really any discussion whatsoever, just a bunch of agreement going on. I feel there's being very little new that's been brought to the table, or any new thoughts on the subject from any of these posts here. Sure you can say the same about me and mod me flamebait, but I'm not posting this from my political beliefs, I just feel nothing is being accomplished from these one-sided "discussions" which feel more like a high school pep rally with everyone chanting in unison. C'mon lets's add something new aside from Clinton gets sucked off and impeached...so why the fuck don't we all go abu garib on Bush's ass!?!?
For instance....The NYtimes, which has a history of perjurers (Jason Blair) and playing up toe the 5th avenue aristocracy has an anti-bush article which mainly sites known liberal only authors. Not that partisan writers cannot be effective, but a little variety should spice it up.....
http://www.commaecho.com
So, how many people have read the 9/11 Commission reports? How many people believe, verbatum, everything the media spews?
How many people really know who said what, when, and based upon what evidence? I'd bet 99% of the people responding in this forum really don't have a clue as to the real facts.
I have read excerpts of the 9/11 report. I don't believe everything I hear from the media. I actually listened to Bush's initial speech about going into Iraq and know that WMDs were not the only reason. I also know that not only Bush and his administration, but Clinton and his, and every government agency in the federal government screwed the pooch on the whole damned deal. How do I know?
I pay attention to the facts (and research them when they seem to be lacking), and ignore the editorializing, half-truth telling, spin-doctor journalists. I won't even waste my time reading the NYT article. Maybe Bush (or his administration) lied, maybe not, but I won't take the word of the NYT on it.
PGA
In this time just before a national election, expect the worst from everyone. Be it Dan Rather, or Slashdot - PULEEEZEEE the NYT?
On matters of the body politic in the US, the NYT has to be one of the leading non objective papers running. Period. When they aren't making up the news - they are slanting it, but I digress.
Even after reading the 15 pages, I still come away with the following.
1. The intelligence community latched onto an idea and passed it on up.
2. The executive branch wanted very much to believe this evidence.
3. Neither the intelligence community, nor the executive did a lot of vetting.
Lets be honest here people. You've been systematically lied to for more than a decade. For some reason a country starts ordering a bunch of tubes and claims a legitimate use for them. Considering past behaviour you go looking for non legitimate uses - and you find one. After a decade of deciet - which concept for the tube's use do YOU latch on to?
Lets not forget, that for some reason we can't find WMD, but we can find pesticides. Lots of them, all stored in **tada** ammunition bunkers. Now either the Iraqi army was extremly fastidious, and had really bad crabs, or something else was going on there. Another honesty check folks. The difference between weapons of mass destruction and pesticides is the intended target.
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
And if one talks about policy... US policy was always massive response to any attack of any sort on the US. For those of you old enough to recall it was called MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction. For sixty years it keep the US and USSR from fighting each other on their respective lands.
According to the MAD doctrine any attack on the US mainland should be met with a massive nuclear response.
By this logic one could hold Bush at fault for not launching a massive attack after 9-11 in the general direction of the perps.
In-fact, by not following the MAD doctrine, Bush made the US nuclear deterrent effectively worthless. No nation will believe the US stance anymore and will be more likely to attack the US with nukes. Why? Because Osama has proven that the US will try and find perps and reasons instead of just blindly lash out. It makes the inconceivable attack conceivable.
Now some claim the doctrine was dropped earlier but it has never been stated to be the case.
I am not advocating this action rather pointing out that Bush took a "nicer" course of action than doctrine suggested toward the Middle East. A course of action that reduced the USA's security according to the logic of MAD.
Much of the evidence presented as "proof" had been discredited before the President's State of the Union address that presented the evidence as unequivocable. The yellow-cake evidence had already been determined to be a forgery, the British intelligence report that figured prominently had been shown to be a cribbed-together mishmash of outdated sources (a 5-year old thesis available off the 'net, and some stuff from one of the Jane's military references), the the "aluminum tubes" evidence had been widely discredited by experts in the nucular field. I read all of this after the UN presentation by Collin Powell, and before President Bush's State of the Union address.
The one piece of evidence that was kept rather quiet, mentioned obliquely as reports from defected Iraqi citizens, turned out to come from one or two con artists.
There was not one single piece of evidence that was valid, and anybody following the leadup to war could tell. Anyone who questioned the legitimacy of the evidence was labelled a "liberal," as if it were a dirty word. Hell, even Anne Coulter called those folks traitors.
To place so many citizens in harm's way (and to perform a national variety of vigilante justice) based on such questionable evidence took either an unbelievable amount of self-deception, or a desire to attack Iraq *in spite* of the evidence.
Considering there was *no link whatsoever* between bin Laden and Hussien, I can only interpret the evidence in one way: President Bush intentionally lied to the US citizens to follow a path to war with a beaten enemy. I don't know why. The "liberal" in me thinks it might be to benefit Halliburton and Bechtel. The realist in me realizes it might be nothing more than a distraction from the complete disaster in Afghanistan. Or there might have been a *real* reason to go after Iraq, one that had to be hidden from the world.
Considering the price tag in human life and our nation's honor and credibility, I'm not sure which would be worse.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"screams "I'm a Democrat, I hate Republicans!" to me."
I know. Reality is SO freakin' biased. Why do the facts hate Bush and his followers? Why oh why? There should be a law!
The scary thing is that at this rate I could actually see one being created:
The RightThink Homeland Defense Act - "Because only a terrorist would question the President's motives!"
Is this slashdot.org or moveon.org? I think if Bush pushed for the government to move to open source, some slashdotters would probably explode.
Trust me, there won't be a draft. Nobody wants it. The bill was started by a democrat and is "dead" in the senate because no one will even think of sponsoring it. The military doesn't want people forced into a job they don't want. How well do you think those people would perform? The public doesn't want a draft, and neither do any politicians. And for the people who say Bush is sending your sons and daughters to die; The individuals who signed up for the military know they can be called into action at any time. If you don't want to be in Iraq then you shouldn't have signed up. Sounds easy enough.
I suspect this bill was started just to try and hurt Bush later in the election. The media picks up the story about a bill for a draft and the public goes apeshit.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Wow..that sooper sekrit plan to...let me see if I can follow this...get their supporters to vote on election day?!?!?! What will those wacky Republicans think of next?
"...according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity."
Oh yeah, there's credibility just oozing from this story. We're talking two years after the fact and these anonymous sources are only now growing a spine? On conditions of anominity??? Oh, and it just happens to be election year! What a coincidence!
And while we're on the subject of amazing coincidences, where was this scandal coverage in 2002? I mean, you supposively had top CIA officals who knew, you had the Department of Energy who knew, America's leading nuclear scientists who knew as well as any number of intelligence experts and Martha Stewart who knew. No doubt the current administration put the screws to all of them to supress this damning story and loosened them just in time for the Primaries. I mean, what better time is there to shoot yourself in the foot by letting key sources blather away about political secrets that you'd managed to keep anybody from knowing for the last two years?
Are we stretching the bounds of credibility yet? No? Then it's a good thing for the NYT that investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. I mean, you'd almost think this administration acted without cause...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I imagine George Bush has a sign on his desk: "The buck stops, um - somewhere else."
Whether or not the Bush administration foisted known lies or used mistaken judgement, whether or not the war in Iraq was planned from inauguration or if it was really meant to combat an immediate threat, the fact remains that the war was a big fat mistake and the administration refuses to take responsibility for it.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
Bush and company called the evidence conclusive and worthy of going to war; it was used as justification to both US citizens and the international community. If you're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, kill a thousand plus US troops, trash carefully crafted diplomatic relations...THEN sell all that as a "success" AND the reason you should be elected- you goddamn well better have your I's dotted and your t's crossed.
It was publicly reported that at best the evidence was inconclusive, and now we see that it was quite positively false, and further that they KNEW it wasn't conclusive. Fact is, to date, not a single fucking piece of evidence has been uncovered to support any of Bush's claims that Iraq had any "weapons of mass destruction", and certainly not the claim that Iraq posed an imminent threat to national security.
That fits my definition of "lying" pretty well, thanks.
Please help metamoderate.
You officially fail it.
Scott Ritter was a U.S. Marine who served in the Gulf war and acted as chief inspector of the United Nations Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). He resigned his role as chief inspector after the CIA was caught trying to into the inspection teams in 1998.
In an interview with Paula Zahn, one of the United States' leading experts on Iraqi weapons programs left no question as to his feelings on the justification for war:
Scott Ritter was bashed by the media, who painted him as a traitor to the United States for failing to accept the White House's justifications. It's interesting how the media, often accused of being quite liberal, went out of their way to discredit Ritter and show loyalty to the White House in late 2002, yet reported of just which mouths had engulfed Clinton's penis could hardly be avoided during Monicagate.
The real story here isn't that the White House lied -- if you pay attention, White House officials "flip-flop" so much over the supposed motivations for war that even their caricature of Kerry looks rock solid. The real story here is that the media fell for the Iraq justification (or lack thereof) hook, line, and sinker, while doing the dirty work of discrediting Scott Ritter and ignoring or discrediting any other voices asking for more investigation for military action against Iraq.
You want links? Try these:
Documentation of "flip-flops" by the "liberal" media -- reporting the truth (that UN inspectors voluntarily left in December 1998), then
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
"We train our children to drop fire on people, but we won't let them write 'fuck' on the sides of their airplanes, because it's obscene." -- Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now
My site: Free Nature Pictures
While I generally agree with you, that statement assumes a situation like the Cold War, where both sides understand and want to avoid the result: complete annihilated by the other (mutually assured destruction). Does Kim Jong-Il care? Would Osama Bin Laden care if he had a nuclear arsenal? You don't start a nuclear bluffing match with a madman who has nothing to lose.
Obviously you're right, pure MAD only applies to situations such as that during the cold war, and any degree of asymmetry at all ruins it. However, having nuclear weapons is a great bargaining chip, or, more accurately, not having them renders you pretty much irrelevant.
I'd be willing to wager that a whole lot more Al-Q activity goes on in Pakistan than Iraq (Iraq as it stood before the invasion that is, obviously it's seething with hardline islamist nut-jobs now). However, Pakistan has the bomb, and therefore doesn't have to be pushed around, similarly to Nth Korea - no US administration is going to attack them if they can nuke even Japan in retaliation, let alone land one in California.
This has been the big give-away from the start. If Saddam had nukes (or even plenty of chem- or bio- weapons), the neo-cons would never have invaded. Why would you put thousands of troops in a position where they would likely be nuked? If you still don't get it: Iraq was invaded because it DIDN'T have WMD. It was a soft target*, with oil, and invading it no doubt served many other political purposes, but it clearly didn't have WMD, that much was fairly transparent before the invasion began.
* for invasion, evidently occupation is a different story.
A Secret background investigation involves financials and court records. They don't go through your past contacts and they only ask about drug use after the age of 18.
You can explain away a _lot_ of things on a Secret investigation. A TS or above is much, much harder. I'm aware of a person with a felony conviction who got through a Secret investigation with a bunch of testimonials from govt employees to his upstanding character. Admittedly, he was rejected once before.
There is a Judge Advocate who makes decisions on such things.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Gosh darnit, I am so sick and tired of the liberal media twisting and spinning all the news into some sort of Conservative conspiracy story. I wasn't too thrilled watching that PBS commie Jim Lehrer moderate the presidential debate, either. Jesus, if you're not going to place your faith in God and the * elected * president's office, and trust that the men in the closed meetings know a bit more than you or I know, that what are you going to place your faith? Bush and Cheney are smarter, and probably more honest than 75% of the bleeding heart liberal whiners that keep wrecking my day. I hope you all go back to your gay bars and stay the hell away from my ballot boxes.
to click on the article. Some nerds care about politics. You can't possibly argue that the president lying to the American people doesn't matter, can you?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
This is definitely classic G.W. He hasn't quite caught up with the times. He has totally bungled the "war on terror' since pre-9/11. His admininstration didn't pick up where Clinton left off. They were looking at Iraq when the planes hit the towers. They half-ass the whole Afganistan campaign and let bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora. Then, they move onto Iraq and took valueable resources away from the hunt all the while creating the perfect recruitment poster for al Quaeda and alienating most of our allies. He didn't quite comprehend that Sadaam was a vanquished threat and that there is a new player on the block using a whole new bag of tricks. I believe he had to prove to himself that he could do better than his dad against Hussein. (Silly rabbit)
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Like flashing a tit at the Superbowl. Oh, the humanity!
As someone who invited a bunch of teenagers from church watch the Superbowl together at a youth group superbowl party, I found the whole halftime "tit show" disappointing.
And rather disinginuous on the part of the stars involved who had been promising "a big surprise" for weeks. There's enough sexual cr*p on TV... does it have to even be on during the Superbowl? Showing the tit was only the culmination of a build up of various gyrating actors wearing leather S&M-type outfits...
Don't get me wrong... the Superbowl broadcasters can do whatever they want to get an audience. Us people who think sexuality matters and should be encouraged to be channeled into a bonding experience between monogamous partners for the benefit of both those partners' emotional security and the emotional security of their offspring will adjust our viewing accordingly. But the broadcasters can't ultimately have it both ways; either the Superbowl broadcast is family-friendly or it's an MTV pseudo-veiled sex-fest. They've tried to stretch to catch both audiences, and last year was merely the breaking point.
In hindsight, the Britney Spears shakeathon at the prior year's halftime show should have been a warning of what was coming. Oh well, live and learn. Dunno if we'll be having a church Superbowl party next year. We'll see. Maybe we'll all just watch it at home. Or not watch it. The ads are half the reason I watch the game, and I can catch those on the Internet advertising agency websites the next day anyway.
--LP, who apologizes for letting a one-line off-topic post spur an additional lengthy off-topic alternate-perspective-posting.
Lost my Job in 2002 spent 6 months getting new one at lower pay.
My health care premiums have risen every year.
The first Tax break was really a loan to be repaid the next year. Funny I had to pay it while I was on my unemployment.
My friends are now fighting a war and have emailed me several times to never believe what their superiors have said. Believe the News.
No WMD's and I'm sure Saddam is still laughing inside about it.
Our freedom is threatened by the Patriot Act.
Bush wants to amend the constitution a document that has historically given rights to individuals. This time he wants to take away individual rights.
Cuts money to the police while at the same time allowing the assault weapon ban to expire.
Oh despite a 87billion dollar boost in money soldiers (I was one) are still getting raises that are lower than inflation and many make much less than poverty level with housing and food considered.
That second tax break amounted to 15 dollars a month for me and I make 60k a year. However I'm paying more than 40 dollars extra a month in Gas for my veichle and nearly 50 dollars extra in energy costs for my house.
Oil prices are high reguardless that there's no shortage and in fact Saudi Arabia has consistently said consumption is far below supply. Yet nobody is doing anything to stop the price runup's.
Also I've learned something. Americans need to pay attention to who they're voting for. That senator or govenor you're voting in may have more ambitions than just helping your state or their constituents. Cheny is a grand example of who we may not of had to put up with if they didnt vote him into congress years ago. In fact he may never of joined up with any of the Bushes and Gore could be president today.
fear, uncertainty, denial.
9/11 proves that the middle east exports its problems. thousands died on that day who had nothing to do with the middle east. so it doesn't matter if the us is center of pure evil in the world or the us is a beacon of good, all that matters is that the us is a target. and its also pretty obvious that the us is the only one who's going to do something about it.
so all of your fud: us being south african whites in the days of apartheid, nobody buying us goods, the us not respected or liked, doesn't matter at all.
no really: stack up everything you've said, and throw in a few more anti-american sentiments. i am honestly responding: who cares. really, why should the us care what anyone else thinks? can you give me a solid, justifiable reason why anti-american sentiment should matter when confronted with a world environment that creates something like 9/11?
so you show me a list of problems in your post above. fine, my response: 9/11 is a problem many orders of magnitude larger than everything you have indicated above. therefore, the problems you have indicated to me can be dismissed, there is a larger problem at hand. simple analysis i think, don't you?
in other words, you show me indications that the us is unpopular in the world due to it invading iraq. well, 9/11 says to me that that the us has larger problems than a popularity contest. so invade iraq, and to hell with what you think, really. you're not helping us, so please, be my guest: go sit in a corner and talk abotu how evil americans are. so what? what can you offer me? you can't offer me any help, so i don't care what you think of me.
because thousands of my fellow citizens incinerated is a whole hell of a lot bigger issue than who is loved or not.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sorry dude, but Hussein provided volumes of proof on paper as demanded and inspectors had finally achieved free reign. The U.S. censored much of this material before providing it to the United Nations, then invaded Iraq as they had planned all along. We now know Hussein didn't have squat and had obeyed the WMD dismantling that Pappy required of him in the '90s. It didn't matter what proof Iraq provided to President Twitchy because Twitchy was dead set on invasion. We now know what the CIA knew all along, that Iraq was a neutered kitten -- a mighty cry, posing no threat except to its own tail. The only thing Twitchy has accomplished with his two invasions is giving terrorists a second wind and wildly successful inspiration for recruitment. America is 100 times less safe because of this administration.
Can we please, just for a few minutes, remove our tinfoil bodysuits and think??
So, Bush lied to the american public in order to get us to to go war. Why would he do that? For political advantage? That's maybe a plausible theory, so let's think about it. He got a rise in the polls after septh 11th, so maybe he wanted to take us to war in Iraq as a way to keep his approval numbers up, and maybe just line the pockets of his corporate cronies. At first glance, this sounds plausible. That's how you can explain the president's willingness to wage a war in Iraq - it's close to afghanistan, right? And those terrorists were arabs. He thinks that should be enough to convice the average shmuck american. Then when you consider that we know we could crush the Iraqi army easly, he can spew a bunch of feel-good rhetoric: we're ridding the world of a dangerous tyrant and liberating the iraqi people. As an added bonus, he can give the contracts for getting all of that iraqi oil to his corporate buddies. It sounds like a decent plan.
Now, please, think critically about that for a second. The hypothesis is that bush's desire for going to war was based on purely political (and perhaps montary) reasons - so that he could get a boost in the poll numbers. A few big questions should present themselves:
My blog
We stepped in, overthrew their government, and deposed their leader. In doing so, we were able to put our own (US-chosen) leader, the "Shah of Iran" (yes, THAT shah) into power, with a very specific set of rules and policies that were to be followed by his people, dictated by... you guessed it.. the United States Government.
We've been screwing around with the Middle East for several decades, even long before radicals like Osama and Al Zawahiri were even born.
Also, lets not forget that the same Afghanistan rebels that the United States helped and funded with money and military arms to beat the Russians out of Afghanistan... were the the same Afghanistani rebels that became Al Queda, and attacked us on 9/11. Yes, the very same group.
There's a lot more to this than people are seeing at the surface.
You could make the same claim against the NYTimes couldn't you? That:
You will find that the real truth actually lies somewhere in between thinking that the Bush administration lies on a regular basis and the NYTimes always tells the truth and thinking that the Bush administration always tells the truth and the NYTimes lies on a regular basis. Both are extremist views."Where are your hidden weapons labs?" "We have none!" "Well, show us." "Show you what?" "Your weapons labs." "But we have none." "Well, prove it." "All right. Where would you like to look?" "You tell us." "But if we have no weapons labs, we have nowhere to tell you about." "Ah, so, then, you refuse to be cooperative."
At the last, when the inspectors were still in there, just before they were pulled out, the Iraqis were cooperating to the fullest extent of their abilities. There were some major paperwork problems, apparently generated because when they destroyed some of their weapons they didn't document them sufficiently. But they were even being allowed to inspect within all the places that had previously been off-limits, and in fact were even allowed unannounced visits with no warning time.
Strangely, the rest of the world thought they were doing fine. Given that, one must either assume that every single other country with the exception of England* is bone stupid, or that we are warmongers who above all else didn't WANT the inspections to work.
Makes you feel good to be an American, don't it?
-fred
* - (Yes, we had other allies eventually. But at that point we still hadn't scraped them together, so it was just GWB and GB)
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete.
Bush constantly accuses Kerry of his flip-flops, or whatever you want to call them, and cites them as evidence of him being unfit to lead. Let me share an excerpt or two from the transcripts of some public lecture by the late RP Feynman (who should need little introduction here, if he does, just google it ok?):
"The government of the United States was developed under the idea that nobody knew how to make a government, or how to govern. The result is to invent a system to govern when you don't know how. And the way to arrange it is to permit a system, like we have, wherein new ideas can be developed and tried out and thrown away. The writers of the Constitution knew of the value of doubt. In the age that they lived, for instance, science had already developed far enough to show the possibilities and potentialities that are the result of having uncertainty, the value of having the openness of possibility. The fact that you are not sure means that it is possible that there is another way some day. That openness of possibility is an opportunity. Doubt and discussion are essential to progress. The United States government, in that respect, is new, it's modern, and it is scientific. It is all messed up , too."
So, to wit, as most geeks should be aware, uncertainty is key to progress, and the american constitution rates well, having been written according to these principles. He continues in the next lecture:
"... has to do with whether a man knows what he is talking about, whether what he says has some basis or not. And my trick that I use is very easy. If you ask him intelligent questions - that is, penetrating, interested, frank, direct questions on the subject, and no trick questions - then he quickly gets stuck. It is like a child asking naive questions. If you ask naive but relevant questions, then almost immediately the person doesn't know the answer, if he is an honest man. It is important to appreciate that. And I think that I can illustrate one unscientific aspect of the world which would be probably very much better if it were more scientific. It has to do with politics. Suppose two politicians are running for president, and one goes through the farm section and is asked, 'What are you going to do about the farm question?' And he knows right away - bang, bang, bang. Now he goes to the next campaigner who comes through. 'What are you going to do about the farm problem?' 'Well, I don't know. I used to be a general, and I don't know anything about farming. But it seems to me it must be a very difficult problem, because for twelve, fifteen, twenty years people have been struggling with it, and people say that they know how to solve the farm problem. And it must be a hard problem. So the way that I intend to solve the farm problem is to gather around me a lot of people who know something about it, to look at all the experience that we have had with this problem before, to take a certain amount of time at it, and then to come to some conclusion in a reasonable way about it. Now, I can't tell you ahead of time what conclusion, but I can give you some of the principles I'll try to use - not to make things difficult for individual farmers, if there are any special problems we will have to have some way to take care of them,' etc.,etc., etc.
Now such a man would never get anyhere in this country, I think. It's never been tried, anyway. This is in the attitude of mind of the populace, that they have to have an answer and that a man who gives an answer is better than a man who gives no answer, when the real fact of the matter is, in most cases, it is the other way around."
This is why I consider Kerry better than Bush, he's not so damned sure of everything. The fact that he changes his mind atleast shows that he THINKS. It also illustrates very well the fundamental flaw not only in american politics, but democracy in general.
How is this news for nerds?
Nerds have strong opinions about many things, even things that are political. Software Patents are a political issue, for example, as is Linux vs. Windows, to a large extent. GPL vs. BSD licensing has had its share of politically-motivated discussion. So has pretty much anything regarding Sun Microsystems or HPaq or IBM, lately.
Adding in election politics, at least until November, doesn't seem entirely out of line, given that the Presidential election is weighing more on many minds than whether Java 5 supports syntactic sugar for type casting.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Not that I think this justifies what they did, of course, I don't think global domination is a legitimate goal. But if you think it is, this move makes perfect sense.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
What do you say to Poland? Poland! Why does everybody forget that we were supported by Poland!
The real question is what does Poland say to us. Here's what the President of Poland says about the Bush administration's justification to going into Iraq:
"That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."
-President Aleksander Kwasniewski
(March 18, 2004)
Great way to build a coalition.
Full Story
Apparently they didn't teach you in school that Opinion Pieces (i.e. the Op-Ed piece you linked to above) are the opinion of the author of the piece and usually have a loose license to the truth. While on the other hand the article in the actual story is reporting which comes with a much higher burden of proof for facts.
m ocraticunderground.org/c om/ (remember the Kerry Intern story he broke, and turned out to be a pile of...
Don't use Op-Ed pieces as source for 'facts', also don't use an extremist site to get 'facts'. Examples of sites that do not qualify as reliable on facts are:
http://www.freerepublic.org/
http://www.de
http://www.drudgereport.
http://www.commondreams.org/
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
It's bad enough that the Dems and Reps are pretty much the same party at this point. But it's even worse that the Reps are trying to take over every branch of government. This completely breaks the system of checks and balances, as if it weren't broken enough already.
We need to go in the opposite direction as fast as possible. That starts with getting a Democratic president now, so that we'll have some sort of check on the Republican Congress.
In the long term, this means we need to move beyond the one-party-two-names system and develop some real alternatives. But we have to take that one step at a time, and the first step is to break the Republican stranglehold on power.
That said, I agree completely that congress failed miserably in this regard. Sen. Byrd stood up at the time and waved a copy of the Constitution, saying "our job is not to rubber-stamp the president's resolution, our job is to protect the text of the Constitution!" Nobody listened. Kerry is as accountable for that as anyone. But at least he no acknowledges that going into Iraq was a mistake. That's a start, and right now, it's good enough for me.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
You're building up a case to go to war.
You're assembling the evidence for that case.
You find that some of the evidence wasn't substantiated.
You find that some of the evidence was false.
You find that some of the evidence is in dispute.
You find that some of the evidence is hearsay.
At what point do you STOP and have ALL the evidence re-examined?
Rather, what we saw was a continuing onslaught of new "evidence" and fear.
All since proven false.
Now, how is it possible to get ALL of the "evidence" wrong? Not part of it. Not some of it. But all of the "evidence".
Bush and Co. lied to get us into this mess.
the man is consistent
... then he cuts benefits.
This was pretty simple to scare up off the Internet:
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will.
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq (no matter what the outcome). Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
Education is the silver bullet.
Mod me down if you want, but this has to be said.
The rest of the world knew that Iraq had no WMDs. Everyone knew it was a "war to boost the economy". Nobody did anything. Why didn't America know? Ask your media that question and ask yourselves how much international news you actually listen to? Ask yourselves why.
Then you'll see why it isn't surprising. It is always easier for a government to go in for the wrong reasons and explain later, just like it's easier for us to do something we've set our minds on and explain later.
Look at the U.S's foreign policy from the outside (try some independent and known-to-be-unbiased news agencies for a change) and you'll see the difference.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
With all due respect, in your culture, a bare breast may seem especially sexual. In other cultures there is no stigma attached to a woman's breast being revealed in public. In Austin, Texas, where I live, women are free to walk around topless if they so choose. ANYWHERE. In fundamentalist religious cultures,such as the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, women were forced to cover their skin from head to toe. In Austin, Texas, our children seem to be growing up just fine. Sometimes they see breasts naked in public. Not unlike when they are walking around the house and their mothers are changing clothes. Kids across America see breasts on the internet anytime they wish. As a result of our nation's children seeing a naked breast on the Superbowl Halftime Show, were they harmed? What damage was done? If you choose to respond to this question, please cite as many scientific studies as possible that indicate children who view naked breasts are likely to have been psychologically harmed.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Bush uses CIA (bad) intelligence when it suits him and ignores it (assessment of Iraq in the next five years) when it doesn't. Remember, the uraninum and aluminum tube intelligence came after 9/11 and the entire intelligence community was sharply rebuked for not doing its job. How can they NOT double check all the intelligence after 9/11? especially when making the case to go to war? Bush says 9/11 changed the way we look at the world and nowhere is this more obvious than with intelligence. The intelligence community needs a new outlook with lots of scrutiny after 9/11. The question is did he give the intelligence for going to war in Iraq the 9/11 scrutiny or the 9/10 scrutiny?
They only answer can be that the buck doesn't stop with George Bush. He's not looking to take responsiblity but rather he's looking to get his way. He wanted to invade Iraq and he found intelligence that agreed with him and he wasn't concerned with due dilligence of having it doubled checked.
Of course now he doubts the intelligence about the bleak outlook for Iraq.
He's only using intelligence as propoganda to get his way. It is transparently obvious.
Like you, I wish (at least in hindsight) that Congress should have checked Bush. And I agree that Congress has that role and responsibility.
But let's be realistic about what happened. A) There *was* token dissent. The problem was that it didn't go beyond being token. B) Congress can't be trusted with highly secret info because they leak it to satisfy their own political agendas or due to their own incompetence. It's happened over and over. C) Because of B, both citizens and Congress presume that the Executive branch has info they do not release to Congress. D) Because of C, when there is a really critical, intelligence-driven decision to be made, the US citizens and the Congress will tend to trust the president due to the additional information available to him but not to us. Plus for a congressperson there is the following pragmatic logic. For a congressperson to buck the tide, they risk a career-ending looking-foolish moment if the intel turns out to prove the Executive correct. And if the congressperson goes along with the ride, the worst they suffer is having to claim the Executive duped them and they run on the issue in the next election.
This is a structural problem with Congress. While you might claim its a moral or ethical failure of many many congresspeople, it's tough to argue they are not acting in a perfectly rational way.
The solution for this problem it to vote out your local duped congresspeople, Republican or Democrat. If they face getting voted out in either case, maybe they'll start taking responsibility for knowing what's going on and they'll start taking keeping confidential info secret more seriously.
--LP
I say who cares. Clinton lied, Bush lied, they learn how to do it from very early on in politics.
Here's what should really be focused on.
The US and the World should have a ZERO tollerance policy towards genocide of any kind. WMD's should never have been the reason that got america to go to war. But for some reason, the US and it's allies (and some partial allies like France) seemed to be fine with this prick ruling a country the way he was. Kerry says he think we should have gone down more of a diplomatic road. Well, I ask what they hell we are supposed to call the entire decade of the 90's. Was that not diplomatic? Time and time again we let him get away with shit and never said enough is enough. EVERY single time we said, "do that again and that will be it"
We can't let countries be ruled by terror. All they do is create environments where terrorists are born and thrive. And terrorist's just love to place blame for their problems on anything but the real cause. Pretty much every country in the Middle east is ruled badly. 9-11 should have made the world say enough is enough.
That brings up other questions though. Was Iraq our biggest threat? Probably not. It is probably North Korea and our friendly allies in Saudia Arabia. The problem facing the US government though was that our more immediate threats were not and are not as easy of a situation as Iraq. We've had a good amount of troops posted in Kuwait for some time to deal with Iraq. Every time in the 90's that Iraq did something that caused us to respond, it cost the US billions of dollars. (every time we redeploy troops to show a show of force costs a hell of a lot) So something had to be done. Oh, must I not forget to mention, that Saddam was a mass murderer.
Iraq was the easiest conflict for the US to choose as a next step in the war on terror that actually could have a result in the entire war. It accomplished several things. It gives the terrorists a battlefield. (and we needed more than just afghanistan) It also got rid of a dictator who caused the middle east and the world a great deal of trouble for many many years. And, even the odds are tough, creating a democratic Arab country, if successfuly, would be a HUGE thing. If Iraq can rise from the ashes, then it will give hope to millions of oppressed Arabs all over the world. Remember, hope is something most Arabs only get when coming to the US. (this being from my conversations with them)
So, put your anti-Bush aside. Focusing on the WMD issue is not only a waste of time but it turns the worlds attention from something greater.
I write this in recognition that the world taking a stance against genocide is going to be a issue where the world turns its back on issues that are to complex for it to deal with. I also write this in recognition of how anti-Bush slashdot is. Please take a minute to put politics aside and truly think about whats going on in the world outside of our own borders.
Anyway, there is much more I can say but I'll leave it at that. This probably won't be modded up anyway to make any difference.
There are intelligent people on both sides, so why are so many people acting like anyone that votes for someone besides your candidate is an idiot? That's just rude, and it's not going to help anything except for civil war.
Look I'd like to vote for someone better than Bush, but I don't think Kerry is the man, if you think Bush lies, guess what, so does Kerry. People are attracted to voting for Bush because we always know where he stands, and yes I do want him to send the military to kill terrorists and terrorist networks (and yes I do know somewhat of the sacrifice military people make, my dad was in the military, and was half paralyzed and half brain dead from the time I was 7 due to his injuries in the service).
Does anyone remember September 11th? Does anyone remember Osama declaring war on the U.S.? Does anyone remember the feelings they had that day, or the day after 9/11,... the feelings that justice must be done for these several thousand people that died, and we must prevent it from happening again. Look, Kerry voted for this war too, he supported it. Bush just stuck to his guns, I know where he stands and that's why I'm voting for him.
Even if there weren't WMD's, remember Saddam was a tyrant dictator that killed thousands of his own people with WMD's and then threw them in mass graves. He also financially supported the people that want to kill U.S. citizens, which I think most of us are. His sons would torture their own Olympians after they returned to Iraq if they didn't perform well. There's more, but I'm not going to continue on the tyranny for now. I don't care if he had WMD's or not, there were several other reasons to go to war with him (supporting terrorists, being a tyrant and killing his own people). There are too many parallels between Saddam and Hitler. Remember what happened when we tolerated Hitler, it cost over 50 Million lives to stop him. If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. We have learned from history that 'dictators that kill their own people because they don't like their point of view' are dangerous, and need to be stopped. So we learned from history, we took him out before he got out of hand. And yes, this means we should be at war with other countries now too (i.e. North Korea, Iran), but I'm pretty sure we can't support that many war fronts without reinstating a draft.
Now you may say we're stuck in Iraq. Does anyone remember how long we were in Japan after WWII? about 7 years. How about the U.S.'s own revolution how long was it before the 13 colonies could agree... 11 years if my memory serves me correctly. Remember history, the rapid progress in Iraq is unprecedented. Yes it costs human lives and that is horrible, but it is a choice between less people dying now or more people dying later. It's a tough choice to make, but we made the right one.
And if you don't think that the media is slanted left, why is it that they call President Bush "Mr. Bush" and they call President Clinton, "President Clinton." or any other former president, is called "President." It's just one more way they undermine him. Just something interesting to think about. Also why is it that the media only reports the bad news and the deaths from the war, they never tell about power being restored, or schools being built, I've never heard a letter from a soldier who's actually in Iraq on the media on the T.V. I have heard several of their letters on the radio, and they paint quite a different picture from the one we see every night on the evening news. I'd talk more about their slant to the left, but I've been too long winded already.
There isn't any news in this "news" for anyone, it seems like just another excuse to be able to trashtalk Bush, rewrapping an old story using people "all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity" (NYT quoted). In addition the NYT article states "American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes", it should seem obvious for all that choosing which point of view or arguments to believe is not lying even if you are later proved wrong.
For all those who are tired of loudmouths endlessly repeating their favourite rants ("Bush/Kerry is a liar" etc.) here's a link to FactCheck.org: http://factcheck.org/.
Go - Read - Think - Think some more - Read some more - Doubt your assumptions - Think again - Vote (if you're an US citizen) for whoever you agree the most with but please respect that others do not see the world through your eyes, heart and brain (observations/feelings/thoughts).
Please differentiate yourself from the Moore/Limbaugh crowd and be proud of it. Please don't base any vote on who shouts the loudest or for that matter on whoever shouts less.
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
The WMD fiasco is nothing but a sideshow to keep you from seeing the real underlying issues here.
Ever since Vietnam the Presidents have totally pissed on the Constitution they swore to uphold. The President has NEVER had power to declare war, that was granted to the Congress. I don't recall Congress declaring war against Iraq, for whatever reason.
The Congress does not want the political heat of declaring war. So they attempt to push that over to Bush by signing a letter of "support for our troops". They can then blame the President for whatever goes wrong, or take credit for whatever goes right. This way, they keep their offices relatively unspotted in the view of the people. Offices which in reality consist largely of shoveling money towards corporate interests.
All this reeks of the same corruption that occurred when the Senators of the Roman Republic shoveled all their power over to Octavian... making him Caesar. Those Senators did not want to risk alienating the people by taking stands on issues, they would rather let Augustus do it, and then blame him when things went sour. Thus, those Senators could hide their incompetency and accountability from the people, while continuing their corrupt business dealings.
We read in Article I Section 8 that Congress has power...:
Article I Section 8 (Powers granted to Congress):
"...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;...."
In Section 1 or Article II we read: Article II Section 1 (Executive branch, office of President):
"...Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Now that Congress has no gumption and represents corporations instead of the people-- the President does whatever he wants. So we go to war at his say so, over whatever he wants us to fight and die for. The leaders of our country swore to uphold the Constitution, yet they piss on the balance of power that was built into it for their own political and personal gain.
And these people are going to bring "freedom" to Iraq. Physicians... heal thy selves.
"I'll liberate you peoples' fate
Spoke the Burnin' Bush
But the song of beasts
Growl with oil soaked teeth
Their dollar is mighty and true
Now the eagle soars the sky
Over refugee and child
And to all there is no end
Another day in perfect Hell"-- Flogging Molly
al qaeda is not the ghost of us cold war sins past
Apparently, you are unaware of the fact that Al Qaeda is literally "the ghost of U.S. cold war sins past." We armed them to fight the Soviet Union. This pretty much decapitates your entire argument.
"orginal sin"
9/11 was not "original sin." These people hated us, and they thought they had a pretty good reason to do it.
if the us turned into a lake tomorrow, al qaeda would not celebrate and become pastoral sheep farmers. they would go right on with their agenda: bali, chechnya, madrid. capisce?
Well, first, they would celebrate - and second, the next stop on their list is Israel.
I think we should work towards a peaceful Middle East. Going to war in the Middle East will result in more basket cases, and breeding more terrorism, as increasing casualty rates in Iraq indicate.
9/11 says to me that that the us has larger problems than a popularity contest
You have presented no basis for why the 9/11 attacks occured. In fact, you've dismissed as irrational the belief that they attacked us because they didn't like us. So, what? They attacked us because they love us?
Even the most simple-minded terminology, such as "they don't like us" seems to be lost on you, and you attack me with "high school" criticism.
Idiot: I'm using dumbed-down terminology, and you can't even understand that.
Al Qaeda hates the United States and Israel, and pretty much everyone who doesn't believe in all power residing in the hands of their religious leaders. The U.S.'s perceived interference in Palestine was a major cause for the 9/11 attacks. The teachers of hatred are beginning their lessons when children can barely walk and talk. When we invade an Arab nation, unfortunately we will fuel their hatred. Does that mean we should never do it? Of course not. But we have to understand the issues. And when you start off this whole conversation by stating that "the us not respected or liked, doesn't matter at all", I call your argument BULL FUCKING SHIT. That is precisely the problem - these people hate us and want us to die. Can you explain it better? No? Then shut the fuck up.
Education is the silver bullet.
that al qaeda is more than osama bin laden?
that al qaeda is a systemic problem created from various socioeconomic, geopolitical, theohistorical problems?
that al qaeda is a symptom, not a cause?
then you agree that the patient, the middle east, is the real issue, and that you have to confront the problem of a world that created something like 9/11 as a long range problem, with many long range steps, including invading iraq to serve as a base for fixing the sick patient that is the middle east
got it?
iraq is but step 1, there are many steps to go before we have a middle east that does not launch it's madmen around the world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Let me guess you believe in the bible as well. Must be hard to be so gullible
Help fight continental drift.
I'm Korean.
I am always curious whether the Americans really didn't know that GWBush was lying when he started invasion over Iraq. Didn't you really know? There is no WMD there. American bombers drop huge amounts of bombs over Iraq almost weekly-base since operation desert storm.
Were you really not aware of that? or you just don't care about diying people just because they were not visible to you?
Please open your eyes and see what's happening there. Everybody in the world knows about GWBush's cruel invasion and massacre hurts world peace. American people are only people unaware of the truth blinded by there media companies.
Mercy please. Stop killing innocent people of the world. Don't just drop your bombs anywhere you want.
The fact is that Hussein destroyed the weapons because we forced him to. Another fact is that we pulled our inspectors out and invaded because their demonstration that no WMDs existed got in the way of our invasion. Then there's the question of an insane, paranoid tyrant defending himself from not just American flyovers and domestic attempts at freedom, but serious threats from neighboring Iran and Israel, both of which successfully attacked him from the air in the 1980s, and both of which likely have The Bomb. So he said he had one, too, in a way that wouldn't violate his house arrest, but which put those enemies on notice.
Here's another fact: NO WMDs. The inspections worked, because there were NO WMDs after they got underway shortly after Iraq War Sr. And, there were NO WMDs.
--
make install -not war
For a good discussion of centrifuge enrichment plants see this brochure for a German centrifuge plant. This gives the basic design formulae for sizing rotors and cascades, and has pictures of a large centrifuge cascade. There are more advanced designs, but they are experimental. That 1991 plant is proven. So that's probably what someone would try to copy.
Public reports are vague on what materials are actually used for centrifuge tubes in existing plants, but high-strength steels and carbon fibre are mentioned. Still, if you're willing to accept lower performance, aluminum could work. That German plant is commercial, and has to be cost-effective. A country that only wants a few bombs need not be as efficient.
I think "Flamebait" is a bit strong.
--
make install -not war
What? You're the one who basically said, if it doesn't involve the US then I don't care.
"so it doesn't matter if the us is center of pure evil in the world or the us is a beacon of good, all that matters is that the us is a target. and its also pretty obvious that the us is the only one who's going to do something about it." (As if there was no response to Chechnya. Holy crap.)
"no really: stack up everything you've said, and throw in a few more anti-american sentiments. i am honestly responding: who cares. really, why should the us care what anyone else thinks? can you give me a solid, justifiable reason why anti-american sentiment should matter when confronted with a world environment that creates something like 9/11?"
"in other words, you show me indications that the us is unpopular in the world due to it invading iraq. well, 9/11 says to me that that the us has larger problems than a popularity contest. so invade iraq, and to hell with what you think, really. you're not helping us, so please, be my guest: go sit in a corner and talk abotu how evil americans are. so what? what can you offer me? you can't offer me any help, so i don't care what you think of me."
Now, you are the one who is freakishly centered on the U.S. You are interested in the world in only two divisions 1) those who attack us, 2) those who can help us kill them.
By ignoring everybody else, you are making more of Category 1, and ruining any chances of finding anyone in Category 2.
You're the one who said that if they don't directly relate to us, they don't matter. I was indicating that everything relates to us, in an attempt to prove to you that we need to pay more attention to what the world thinks, not less. I've focused on that one and only one point, because your first post was so blatantly "Island-Fortress U.S." that I felt I needed to show you the error of your ways.
If you want to criticize me, that's fine - but this laser-like focus that I've shown on How Things Affect Us was in direct response to your irrational argument that "the us not respected or liked, doesn't matter at all".
YOU TYPED THOSE WORDS. I've spent all of my effort on that one issue.
So your psychobable (It's "maladaptive", by the way), is understandibly predicated on the false belief that I only care about how things affect me; you seemed in your first post on the subject to be freakishly unaware of how the rest of the world affects you.
If you want to try to turn the tables here, then please go back and read this post of yours again. You sounded absolutely fricking nuts in it.
Education is the silver bullet.
The "basket case" of the middle east has not been fixed and the current actions of the US administration don't even go close to addressing them.
Can you even articulate what the problems are in that region? The historical causes of the problems in that region? There are a highly complex set of issues that aren't easily solved by the "simple and easy to understand" solutions proposed by your President.
Bashing it with a hammer won't make it better - yet that is the approach that has been used. The occupation of Iraq is failing. Do you believe it to be a success? Do you believe that what is happening today is really solving the "basket case" issue? Here is a hint. It isn't. It is making things worse.
The solution to this problem is the sort of nuanced diplomacy that, in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's the United States used to excel at. Not the ham fisted "you are with us or against us" rubbish that the current administration uses.
New York, directly after 9/11 is not the place where policy that influences the next century or so should have been written. Approaching world affairs with a revenge mindset is unlikely to lead to good outcomes.
Yes, we were. By whom? This is the important question you're missing. The main problem with your line of reasoning is that you're conflating Al-Qaida with Iraq or perhaps the entire Middle East. If you cannot distinguish between enemies and neutral parties, or even between different enemies, or even keep track of which enemy was responsible for which offense, then you cannot know how to react. The enemy who attacked us on 9/11 was Al-Qaida, an international terrorist network based in Afghanistan but with operatives in several different countries worldwide. Al Qaida was not in league with Saddam Hussein, because Al Qaida saw him as a "secular infidel." And "Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." (9/11 Commission Report, page 61). They were two quite separate enemies. (In fact, America wasn't an object of Hussein's aggression; his problem with the U.S. was that we stopped his aggression against his neighbors.) Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to George HW Bush, laid the situation out pretty well here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h
Top U.S. military commanders argued against invading Iraq because it was at best tangential and at worst entirely counter-productive to the war on terror. These include General Anthony Zinni, http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/zinni.html, General Joseph Hoar, http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/s803482.htm, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded U.S. forces in the first Gulf War http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2705275.stm.
Yes, we absolutely need to get the guys who attacked us. But to do that, we need to get the guys who attacked us. This "hit 'em where they ain't" strategy is just bloody stupid. Afghanistan is a justifiable war. Iraq is not.
Heh, well, at least you didn't forget Poland. But you did neglect to note something about Poland: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1069242.ht
"[Polish President] ALEKSANDER KWASNIEWSKI (translated): They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."
Eh?
Getting a piece of the oil field action was a big part of it, but there's also another aspect: Poland feels threatened by Russia, and it needs alliances, both economic and military, to help defend itself. Going into Iraq proved to be a bad strategic move, since it managed to get most of Europe pissed at Poland, without getting anything tangible from the US.
4 &s=ost
And Bush's chummy comments about his buddy "Vladimir" were definitely not reassuring to his Polish allies.
On a related note, here's a report from Warsaw by an old professor of mine:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=2004100
I remember reading this story when it was happening more that 2 years ago. At that time it was reported that experts were highly doubtful that the tubes were for nuclear refinement.
Why does it seem that nobody listens to what anybody else says if the president claims something contrary. Do you think the guy in the Oval Office is some kind of God handing down holy truth and his word is to be trusted above anyone else's -- even if they are experts on the issue?
Grow up, Americans! It's time you got over your infantile fixation on hero figures and giving them divine, infallable status.
I don't know what it is like in other countries, but here in Canada, even people who generally like the Prime Minister will treat things he says with a measure of healthy scepticism. And if a bunch of experts line up saying the PM is full of shit, people will listen to the experts, not the PM.
When this was in the news 2 years ago, it was easy enough to conclude that the White House was off base in its assertions. Why is it just now that people are thinking "Hey! Maybe the experts were right and the president was wrong"?
Ideology is for ideots.
Several were. Guns that I owned at the time could no longer be legally manufactured or imported.
And in fact, the legislation Clinton got the Republican-dominated House to pass was a restriction on the sale of certain newly-manufactured or imported guns that look like military weapons.
Check your facts. The House and Senate were firmly in the hands of Democrats in the spring of 1994, when the ban passed. It was in November of 1994 that the Republicans were elected en masse.
Remember Clinton's 1995 state of the union speech?
Here's a quote for you.
- I think everybody in this room knows that several members of the last Congress who voted for the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill lost their seats because of it.
That vote was the reason why Democrats lost Congress.One guy even shot a nazi skinhead with a 22-caliber rifle.
Hopefully he shot him in the face.
You seem to take great delight in the fact that missed a "g" in my last post. Why is that?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
In Afghanistan, women were beaten and sometimes executed for showing even their naked ankles in public. Here is a website created by Afghan women where they describe the restrictions placed on them by the Taliban. So, probably those women were psychologically harmed by their fundamentalist abusers.
It is up to you to prove that naked breasts are detrimental to our society if you are going to advocate that women be restricted from baring their breasts in public. I submit that you oppose women baring their chests in public because you are uptight about a woman's body. If you disagree, then tell me how it's bad for a woman's breasts to be displayed.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I guess that means the war was unjustified.
Except for those 17 U.N. resolutions that Saddam violated, but no one cares about those.
Welcome to 2 years ago!
No, seriously, that's rather old news (out of the U.S. anyways) and the rest of the world always had strong doubts about the administration's claims. Powell's Powerpoint demo to the UN was fun too...
Come on, get over it: assholes rule the world.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Actually I did loose my high paying IT job. And I choose to discontinue my insurance because it was too expensive, and I would have lost it anyway. After that, my second daughter was born, and every month I wonder if it's the one they'll forclose on my house, because I'm sixty days on both mortgages.
So in order to keep the lights on, and eat, (literally, we went several weeks when the only food in the house was baby formula.) I started a business, and sent out resumes. No takers on the resume. Now my credit is shot, so I can't work for a bank, or work under a waiver while I wait for a new DoD security clearance. My business phone line was disconnected, followed by my home phone. Things looked bleak. Some of you will know who I am from these details, so you know what happened next. I got back up, and kept working.
The government didn't help me, and I didn't ask. i got knocked on my ass, and I got up. I got knocked down again and got back up. I'm looking for work and finding it. I'm turning things around, and the only reason I that businesses are able to afford to hire my company is that the Bush cut taxes on the "rich" freed up capital, and reduced drag on the economy. Don't tell me the economy hasn't turned around. I see it every time I go in for a sales meeting and come out with more work. (which is difficult since I'm and engineer, forced to become a salesman.) Kerry wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts. I, quite literally, can't afford to see him elected.
So, you whished ill on me not knowing it had already happened. But being true to who we both are, I would never do that to you, and you will never succeed in life because you have no desire to. This also explains our political leanings which are an outgrowth of the kind of life we lead. I found the strength to survive and move forward, Helped by the lessening of government restraints. While you lack even the courage to be known by a psudeonym. And this speaks volumes of the cause you espouse.
Oh, and my dad died of cancer a few years ago. He had insurance, but strangely enough, it didn't help. Maybe if we elect enough "caring" liberals such as yourself to office, we can pass a law to make having cancer illegal. But like most failed social programs, it won't cure cancer, it'll just put a bunch of cancer patients in jail.
You're right about the likely connection to upright walking, but a more direct reason for the sexualization of the female breast has to do with frontal coitus, largely unique to homo sapiens, although also practiced on occasion by those fun loving bonobos ("pygmy chimps").
... for sexual purposes.
Big fat orbs are a basic sexual signal to the male ape, and breasts provide the "big fat ass orbs" signal when having sex face to face, in place of the ass.... And of course face-to-face coitus is facilitated by the skeletal structure associated with upright walking. So likely the transition to upright posture, the development of face to face coitus and the enlargement of breasts to function as a "sexual" organ occured together in evolutionary time.
Breasts in short, and in part, are an ass transplanted to the chest
But beyond that the REAL REAL reason for the sexualization of breasts is very modern and has to do with the decline of breast feeding.
Western and American children, deprived of the NORMAL two to three years of breast feeding that homo sapiens have enjoyed throughout recent evolutionary history, never got enough of the boob and spend their lives lusting after what they missed.
The hyper-sexualization of breasts is DIRECTLY related to the decline of breastfeeding.
American men in particular are known to be breast obsessed as adults, while breast feeding rates in America are among the lowest in the world - That's a correlation that does suggest causation!
Go to cultures where children derive significant portion of their nutritional needs through the first 3 years of life from the breast and you will find that (1) it is the buttocks and legs that are more sexualized and (2) breasts are freely displayed (often) becase they pretty much thought of as feeding tubes, quite unconnected to sex. http://milkofhumankindness.org/
That's the real story, you breast deprived American men.
(Yes, I'm an American man too.)
How John Kerry could make Shrub look Stupid and win the female vote, all with a Diet Coke...
(Kerry steps to the podium, tranquilizers eating away at the patrician's stiffness...he's feeling good. He looks out on the crowd and gets higher. He begins to speak...)
My fellow Americans, we were sent to Iraq because George Bush was sure that Saddam Hussein was going to use aluminum tubes to go nucular on us. Our best national security advisors were...(incredulous...err, no, no)...DARN SURE they didn't have any nukes, let alone aluminum tubes that would magically make them some. Now I've got an aluminum tube right here (raises diet coke), and the only thing magically nucular about it is the taste (cracks, sips, and wins). Coek is happy. Kerry wins. America prospers. Goddam fucking stupid moron out of white house.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I do want him to send the military to kill terrorists and terrorist networks
You mean like the ones in Afghanistan that he's been ignoring to carry on this vendetta against Saddam Hussein?
Saddam Hussein was already "taken out" by the other President Bush, who said that invading Iraq then (even when they had more resources and better support from the neighboring countries) would have been a mistake?
I feel sorry for him. President Bush Sr., that is. He must be mortified.
Bush truly believes what he is doing is good for the world.
No one really plans to screw up America on purpose.
Saddam truely believed that what he was doing was good for Iraq. He didn't really plan to screw up Iraq on purpose. He had to maintain the impression that he still had some military power, or Iran might have gotten the idea to attack again.
Look I'd like to vote for someone better than Bush, but I don't think Kerry is the man, if you think Bush lies, guess what, so does Kerry.
Oh, absolutely. I doubt that there's a potential presidential candidate that absolutely refrains from lying.
However, Bush is in hot water not for lying (Clinton, for instance, lied about his sex life and the public didn't care) but for lying to convince the public that we needed to declare war on Iraq. Clinton's lie maybe set a bad example, but that's about it -- Bush's had a lot of lives, international relations, and money at stake.
People are attracted to voting for Bush because we always know where he stands, and yes I do want him to send the military to kill terrorists and terrorist networks (and yes I do know somewhat of the sacrifice military people make, my dad was in the military, and was half paralyzed and half brain dead from the time I was 7 due to his injuries in the service).
Do you? What's Bush's timeline for Iraq over the next four years? What, in detail, does he intend to do with alternative fuel research? I don't know, because Bush hasn't announced anything. I don't really know much about Bush's specifics. I know that:
* His VP is very hawkish.
* Bush is willing to invade and occupy countries for reasons that I do not consider sufficient to invade and occupy countries.
* Bush backs changing the Constitution to ban gay/lesbian marriage. I don't like this.
* Bush has pushed NASA into reallocating a huge amount of their funds towards a manned Mars mission, not something that I view as worthwhile as other projects that were replaced.
* Bush has said that he supports the Assault Weapon Ban (one of the few reasons I could see voting for Bush instead of Kerry would be that Republicans tend to be better about protecting gun rights).
* Bush has made my nation very unpopular internationally over the span of his presidency.
* Ashcroft is Bush's appointed AG -- and Ashcroft pushes his conservative religious values on the nation, is an advocate of monitoring and eliminating oversight of the Department of Justice.
Does anyone remember September 11th? Does anyone remember Osama declaring war on the U.S.? Does anyone remember the feelings they had that day, or the day after 9/11,... the feelings that justice must be done for these several thousand people that died, and we must prevent it from happening again. Look, Kerry voted for this war too, he supported it. Bush just stuck to his guns, I know where he stands and that's why I'm voting for him.
That many people die each week from smoking or each month from car crashes. Both problems cause much more economic on a *recurring*, *yearly* basis. Yet most of Bush's presidency has been spent prioritizing the "War on Terror" over everything else, and allocating my money to fight this "War on Terror". Said "War on Terror" could be taken directly from 1984. I don't like it.
Even if there weren't WMD's, remember Saddam was a tyrant dictator that killed thousands of his own people with WMD's and then threw them in mass graves.
He killed those people *after* we encouraged them to rise up against him. It's a little difficult to call him out on that point. Besides -- I expect that with the proper media coverage, the skeletons in just about anyone's closet can be made pretty awful -- I don't want a leader to declare war and try justifying it afterwards on very flimy grounds. By this logic, if we find Bush's grounds for war to be legitimate, we also need to allow him to declare war on a large number of other regimes around the world, and try to use military force to cause change. I think that this is a bad idea -- I don't accept the "well, Saddam was a nasty guy" justification. Besides, if Saddam is *that* bad, don't you think it'd be better for the Iraqis to rise up and remove him, rather than us? Look at our Revolutionary War. We had enough people get fed up with the leaders
May we never see th
Bush is a puppet. Period. It is Cheney that does the actual policy decisions. Remember that it is always better to rule from behind the throne, than on it.
I blame the followers of blind faith for a large portion of the failure of rationality in this country. The whole "faith" concept itself seems to be an excellent personality attribute to exploit.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
#1 - Iraq is a strategic location flanking Iran on the west. We are also in Afghanistan flaking Iran on the east. WMD's were just a floater to get us into Iraq and prepare for the next targets. The Pentagon and CIA know much more than we do and know that all of our media is watched by the enemies. So due to national security, they cannot disclose all information.
So if Kerry wins the election, gets into the White House, appoints non-Republican Supreme Court justices, and makes a bunch of decisions that you don't agree with and appear corrupt and ill-thought-out to you given your available information, will you still stick to your "the government knows better what's good for me than I do" line?
#2 - Peak Oil (and natural gas). Just Google for Peak Oil. China is now the #2 importer of oil behind the US. Our entire economy and way of living depends on oil. There is no way at all we can just switch to solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power in a decade. Further, we use natural gas for fertilizers for food. We use oil to power the machines which harvest and transport food. Without oil, the US economy and population will die. So you liberals can cry me a farking river about Iraq. We are better off now and in the future by securing oil in the Middle East. That is, unless you want to starve and die.
That is a slippery slope fallacy, and one of the most extreme I've ever seen. Vote for Bush -- or *starve and die*!
#3 - US Dollar. If oil is allowed to trade in a currency other than the US Dollar such as the Euro or Gold, the US Dollar will collapse, our economy will grind to a halt, and we will be in a Greater Depression. We must ensure that oil transactions will continue to take place in the US Dollar currency.
See above. Seriously, where do you *get* this stuff? This is absurd! The strength of a currency depends on the stability of the government backing it and the inflation rate. How is the US keeping fingers in the Middle East particularly important to either?
#1 - I really like this guy. He's a no-nonsense guy who won't take BS from anyone. Just watch the VP debate on Tuesday. Cheney is a great business leader and enhances the Bush ticket.
He's also corrupt, a hawk, pushes for secrecy and lack of oversight, has lied about his corporate ties and has had his fingers in Middle East wars for too long.
#1 - Clinton's "Assault" Weapon Control Act expired! You liberals can take my guns from my cold, dead hands. If you really want it, I'll give it to you, one bullet at a time.
Ah, yes. The act that Bush said he supported? That one?
It's either us or them, kill or be killed.
The hell it is. When Saddam Hussein represents a greater risk to you of anything other than paying a quarter cent more a gallon at the gas pump, *then* you can talk.
We were attacked on 9/11 and now it's time to kill everyone involved.
And, apparently, Iraq, just for the hell of it?
May we never see th
Seems like much ado about nothing, right? But this is the cornerstone of the Administration's belief that Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. These tubes were the only hard evidence they had going for them.
Bush also claimed that Sadam was trying to buy uranium from Africa, even though the administration knew there was no evidence of that. And the scandal goes even deeper than that. When the man they assigned to investigate the uranium rumors (retired ambassador Joseph Wilson) revealed the truth (that the evidence was forged), the administration retaliated against him by revealing to the world that his wife was a CIA agent (thus placing her life in danger and risking American security).
And before you discount this as liberal spin, the reported who outed Wilson's wife is Robert Novak, a well known conservative reporter, and he has confirmed that his sources were a pair of senior whitehouse staff member. This assertion is backed up by additional investigation from the Washington Post. A special investigator has been appointed, and even the President has been questioned. The rumors abound now that the two staff member have already been identified (the names have even been leaked), but the Bush administration has put pressure on the FBI to hold off on the arrests until after the election.
Of course there is no proof that Bush himself ordered the retaliation against Wilson, or that he even knew about it, and in fact I believe it very possible that he did not. The evidence so far indicates a couple of staffers reporting directly to Vice President Cheney. It is entirely possible that Cheney took this action upon himself without consulting with the President. Either way, a couple of alarming things remain: The administration used the uranium evidence to support their case for the Iraq war even though they had been told the evidence was bunk. Furthermore, senior staffmembers in the whitehouse broke the cover of an undercover CIA agent (an agent involved in the hunt for weapons of mass distruction no less)... a treasonous act by any measure.
The Bolachek Journals
Not that I want to get embroiled in a flame war but...
If Israel wants to pull back to it's original borders, as mandated by the UN and defined at the time of its creation, close those borders, and build the biggest frickin wall in history, NO ONE WILL COMPLAIN. If they want to shoot any Palestians who try to cross that wall, that would probably be tolerable too. If they really want to, they can build a giant dome over the whole of Israel and not let anyone in or out. Fine, fine fine.
The problems are:
(a) Israel is building a big fuckoff wall *way outside* those borders, conveniently annexing large swathes of territory that do not belong to Israel with NO JUSTIFICATION
(b) Israel is pursuing a systematic policy of colonising a foreign territory with 'native' Israelis
(c) Israelis forces are performing violent operations against civilian, terrorist and militia forces alike with no real concern as to which is which, outside its own territory, with no international sanction and indeed against international law and consensus
(d) the Israeli government actually talks about maintaining the genetic purity of Israel (ah the irony) in the sense of making sure that at least 50% of Israelis are Jewish so that there can never be a 'democratic coup' inside Israel at election time
(e) Israel, unlike other nations, is completely ignored in all the hubbub from the west about nuclear proliferation despite possessing 100-200 nuclear warheads.
Most of these things are contrary to international law (which Bush and Blair now spit on but which still matters to most countries); some are contrary to domestic Israeli law; all are contrary to basic standards for ethical behaviour.
Incidentally, I genuinely like the Israeli people and I fully support their right to live free from the fear of suicide bombers or invasion by their neighbours. But the way Israel is going about its business at the moment is just atrociously bad.
Read Pynchon.
And yet, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Osama is a Saudi prince by birth. Saudi charities were funding terrorism. Saudi Arabia makes their women wear hoods, teach and endorse radical fundamentalist Islamic religion, and have no problem with slavery. Afghanistan was just a terrorist camp ground. By the time we got there, the terrorists were gone and the Taliban was left holding the bag.
So where did we go after Afghanistan? That's right, Iraq. Who's next? Iran maybe? We aren't going to win the war on terrorism, because we keep invading the wrong countries.
It appears to me that the story appears under politics.slashdot.org; that's why it gives the section name before it on the front page.
Have you turned your political bit off? If not, stop being a luser, and fix your settings.
Get off my launchpad!
Thank you for respecting my culture enough to accept that a bare breast may seem sexual. I hope you will also accept that there is a mountain of scientific evidence that a breast is an organ that is part of human sexual response and arousal. Now that we've dispensed with that petty argument, let's get on to your questions about harm, etc.
I do not claim any harm to the one or two kids who noticed a five-pixel breast on their TV screens for a period of under 1 second. My main objection, as I've stated in another reply, was that our current regulatory and cultural environment conditioned me not to expect a strip show in the middle of the superbowl. If our church knew that tits were on the menu, we would not have had a Superbowl party. I hope you can appreciate, despite our differing premises, this point.
While I do not expect a rational skeptic such as you seem to be to adhere to that particular moral choice that we wish to make, I hope you will grant us the freedom to pursue our choices, and some respect for our desire to have a shared understanding of what is going to appear on the TV.
I call it "truth in advertising" or "good product labeling." I recognize a concerned more liberal friend would caution me that labeling content leads to censorship, and being a good reader of 1984 I am not ignorant of those perils, although I think they are overblown if applied in this case. More information about the content, more metadata is good. It's really a matter of courtesy and good expectation-setting within any medium.
Let me explain this in a slashdot metaphor. Just as I do not want to see the goatse guy without adequate warning, despite the fact that I do not find it particularly titilating, sexual or "deeply offensive", I'd just rather not see it while in the middle of reading slashdot without a little warning first.
So it is with tits at the superbowl at church parties.
I am asking for courtesy, not for the world to adopt my sexual ethics.
--LP, who has also lived in Austin btw
Ahem, I think the reason that Bush and the neo-goons don't steam into Pakistan is BECAUSE they are known to hold WMD. Invading Iraq started to look a lot more attractive when it became obvious they had no credible weaponry to deflect an invasion (by the largest holder of WMD, of course). Naturally, the disappearance of any good reason to invade Iraq was awkward but nothing serious strong arm neo-goon spin couldn't handle. FUD reigns, saddam doesn't.
Do you think the guy in the Oval Office is some kind of God handing down holy truth and his word is to be trusted above anyone else's
A significant number of people in the US think GWB was placed into his current position by "God" himself. So that's at least one large chunk of the group who blindly follows whatever he says.
I blame the followers of blind faith for a large portion of the failure of rationality in this country. The whole "faith" concept itself seems to be an excellent personality attribute to exploit.
You hit the nail right on the head!
I remember images of GWB standing at a press conference with the bible in his hand offering it as a guidebook for everyday life and politics. And there's the executive order to launch the faith-based charity initiatives, slashing through your first constitutional amendment - the same constitution he swore to protect as the President of the United States. Following 9/11 and the war on terror, there's the "good vs. evil" and the "crusade" references.
How about the previous (?) presedential debate where he said he viewed Jesus as his inspiration? When he was asked to elaborate he said that people wouldn't understand unless they'd experienced - I guess - his touch? I can't remember his exact words, but in any case he said he had had a religious experience that changed his life.
This is a guy who must believe he was chosen by his own god to be the President of the US. He openly discussed his religious motives during the presedential campaign, and it must surely have played a huge part in him getting elected - that makes him practically a religious leader.
All this is very disturbing to me! When you view the bigger picture, it turns out that the war on terror, etc. is basically a holy war wagered on both sides. It's truly saddening that the human race hasn't evolved beyond religion. We're still very much primitive in this regard.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Cheney holds 433,000 options on Haliburton stock. That is, if Haliburton goes up one point, Cheney makes $433,000. Please explain how this does not constitute a conflict of interest.
So what does it take to convince you that your fighting is the very thing that breeds terrorism in the Middle-East?
In your typical USA way of thinking, you seem to think that you can win peace by fighting a war, apparently. Ain't gonna happen, baby! You win peace by winning the hearts of the people. And you don't do that by, say, keeping a one-sided view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, by draining oil from Arab countries without caring about the people who live there in poverty and uneducated, or by ousting a dictator without good reason to go to war (after first supporting the dictator for more than a decade, after already failing to remove him in 1991 when there was a just cause, and after betraying rebelling parties a couple of years later).
To quote from a nice paragraph at factcheck.org:
The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.
The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.
The actual PDF of the agreement can be found here.
That's what you're talking about, right?
--LP
There are a number of things I'd like to say about this article in the NYT, the American Public(TM) and GWB's policies.
/. where the same old emotional debate between faithful right and cynical left rages. In short, I think it will have a serious impact on GW's reelection chances, but that's possibly a good thing.
Firstly, what amazes me, truly, on a website meant for above average technically interested people is that almost no comments have been made on the actual technical contents of the NYT article itself as regards the Aluminium tubes and their suitability for use as Uranium centrifuges. The NYT went out of its way to explain to the layman (along with a very good graphic) how the tubes fit the use of small tactical rockets and were totally unsuitable, without extra manufacturing, for the use as centrifuges. I mean, come one, 60 000 tubes for centrifuges! Even the USA, the world's largest nuclear power, doesn't have or need that many centrifuges! It would be nice if people noticed this fact and then took note of how almost the whole American establishment basically went along with the analysis of ONE man (The guy called Joe), ignoring the majority's dissenting voices!
Secondly, this NYT article may well have been timed to be a political time bomb, since it appeared now, after the TV debate, but the NYT, to give it some credit (which the right does not do), explains very well in the same article that it itself was as guilty as almost everyone else in ignoring the evidence available during the highly emotional bullshit campaign that Bush and Co. conducted in the run up to the war. The NYT, for all its failings and left leaning political bias, has explained in a number of editorials that it made a mistake. How often does the favourite of the right, Fox news, do that?
Thirdly, I've seen a number of comments here about what the real motivations were for going to war, be they oil, control of the middle east, liberating Iraq, bring democracy to the middle east, furthering an agenda in wake of the 9/11 attacks. etc. My answer would be the Falklands War in 1982, when the right wing military Junta in Argentina used the issue of the Falklands, by invading them, to bring the nation behind them in the rush of patriotism in wartime, when they were politically starting to lose support. I think that the main reason for this war was a domestic political agenda in the USA, used by the very intelligent people behind Bush, such as Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld etc, in order to bring the American people in line with their way of thinking by starting a war. I feel most sorry for Collin Powell, who despite his actual opinion, suffered the consequences for being true to his President. I hope he gets a decent job in the future where he is repsected and not treated as the house nigger.
Fourthly, despite all the nuances of the aluminium tubes, such as the fact that this was not unknown in 2002 and the faked yellow cake uranium from Niger, none of which stopped anyone from believing the most astounding things about Iraq at the time, such as Iraqs supposed ICBMs capable of threatening the USA, I think that this article will be treaed by the American Public as being new and novel. I seriously doubt the ability of the public to distinguish the facts, and I am buoyed in this opinion by the comments here on
1. They are highly placed politicians. When our parents were getting killed in Vietnam, these guys got themselves tanned in Air National Guard.
2. This is the not the first time a US prez. has lied to goto War. Check our chequered history and you will find many such men.
3.As long as we act like stupid GI Joe guys, put our heads into sand and refuse to think the World is a bigger place than USA, and as long as we refuse to listen to true world news instead of the Fox news crap about Peterson trial/Jacko Whacko trial, we will continue to have presidents and heads of state who will send our young men/women to their deaths without reason.
Amen.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
If i had modpoints, I would mod Slashdot -1 offtopic.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Blairs no liar - no more so than any other Bristish politician, anyway. I wonder when people are going to wake up to this fact.
Probably when that opportunist Kennedy is in No.10 busy implementing his tax-and-waste policies. As for Blunkett, I agree.
I thought no Home secretary could be worse than Michael Howard. Then Jack Straw came along. I thought no home secretary could be worse than Straw. Then "ID-Card, national database" Blunkett came along. Can anyone be worse than him? Menzies Campbell sounds like a good contender.
My experience of Lib Dems in local government has been that they're illiberal and undemoratic.
They're wasteful and authoritarian. A bunch of tax and spend social engineers. I fell out of love with the "Liberal" "Democrats" a long time ago.
That's why I'll be back to voting for Blair next time.
Kerry is a practicing Catholic...
... practicing what, cognitive dissonance?
who is pro-choice. That is a very strong indicator that he is a man of his own mind and doesn't support a particular position just because his church says so. I find that very reassuring.
I always find this line of thought bizarre. It's actually much harder to hold yourself to an external standard, and requires much more thought and discipline. It's easy to just say you do ("why, I'm a practicing Catholic ...") and then just adjust your actual actions and beliefs to whatever is comfortable or expedient.
At this point I think Kerry deserves to win the election. He probably is the better candidate - but I honestly believe he can't win. Here is why Kerry hasn't slammed the door on Bush: This election isn't about 2 years ago or 30 years ago. It's about the next four years.
Kerry is making the same mistakes that Bob Dole and George HW Bush. Kerry is reliving the past. I wish Kerry would stop reliving the past and give us a reason to look at the future. His vision for the future will not sell to most of Americe: Higher taxes and a half-hearted attempt at winning "a grand diversion". Bush has always been very adept at dealing with domestic policy, an I fear that while Kerry will be pointing out past mistakes, Bush will be pushing future solutions... just like he did in 2000 with the drug benefits, no child left behind, etc... like the laws or not, the ideas sold well enough to get him a hair less than half the popular vote...
At the end of the day, I'm not delighted by four years of either of the candidates. They both stink.
-- $G
Its all about oil and controlling the supply. Control the worlds oil supply and you control developing nations such as China - the demand for oil in China is increasing rapidly. The USA went into Iraq for nothing more period. It is good? It is bad? Persinally I don't know - probably not for good the people of Iraq. Good for Ameraican's ? Well some of them are getting rich out this affair and will do for sometime to come yet.
So stop being blinded by the "spin" from the left and the right and lets do what nerds do best solve problems i.e. lets get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels!!!
"Can we keep the political stuff out of slashdot" Not really. Supress it here and it will emerge elsewhere. Besides, when does political begin and other choices in life, including about technology and technological society, end?
The difference between
It's a correlation, but an equally valid interpretation is that American sexual/religious conservatism and certain psychological theories popular in the first half of the 20th century combined to temporarily universalize the notion that breast-feeding should be minimized or eliminated from the rearing process.
This conservatism can be identified directly with, or at least blamed for, the fetishization of the breast in modern mainstream America. Hence, mere correlation or even reverse causation.
Around February and March of 2001, roughly 8-10 weeks after a Jan 20 inaugural, weren't there plenty of tensions concerning the Taiwan straights, Korea and weapons programs, and other similar things that might have called for a hightened readiness? Whether your agree or disagree with improved readiness in response the China/Korea arena of tension, please note these tensions were under various sorts of strategic responses from Clinton and before, are part of a long term US strategic interest, Bush had quite openly told the electorate which elected him to office that he was going to take the US into a more assertive posture (so it was no surprise to anyone paying attention to the news really) and the meetings Bush had with Chinese and Korean leaders about this time would indicate posturing going on by all parties, in the usual course of these things, which often takes the form of putting militaries on heightened alert. Nothing about heightened readiness because of China/Korea tensions (a major point of Bush's campaign, you may recall) should be surprising, or indicate a secret war-lust. Perhaps low level army troops simply wouldn't absorb the implications of these events, free beer not being dispensed to troops in reward for reading the newspaper, and that is why no one bothered to inform you. Higher level army personnel probably did not need to be told why heightened readiness was desirable - they simply read the newspapers during campaigns and around the time of the increased readiness.
The difference between
I saw in some pro-Bush advertisement a picture of U.S. soldiers standing in front of crates full of what looked like shoulder fired missiles. The large caption said something like "And some say Iraq had no weapons"
My jaw hit the floor. They were a soverign nation, with an army. Of fucking COURSE they are going to have weapons! Hell, we probably sold them those rockets. The Bush supporters have gone from twisting the truth to twisting lies!
I remember when we invaded Iraq, because my wife and I had already had a weeklong trip planned for Paris. We had to decide whether we wanted to go or not, because the U.S. invaded Iraq on a Thursday, and we left for Paris on Sunday. We had to question whether it would be safe. It was of course, and we received zero ill treatment there. I got 10x worse treatment here at home, in O'hare airport. One NASCAR following, Bush-loving idiot at work asked me when I got back if I asked for any "Freedom Fries" while I was there, and I just stared blankly at him. He also asked if I got enough to eat, because the French eat just tiny little portions. (another blank stare)
But I digress... I remember, and some people seem to forget, that Saddam DID let weapons inspectors into Iraq. Yes, for years he dodged them, but when the threat was made by the U.S., he let them in. They didn't find anything, and before the inspectors could finalize their work and come out and officially say "Iraq has no WMD", Bush decided to invade. I remember specifically, he said the inspectors should leave because we were going in. And now the Bush supporters somehow forgot all of that and like to say that Saddam wasn't cooperating with UN weapons inspectors.
I just don't get it. Even after something like 9/11 (which again, has NOTHING to do with Iraq - even GW said so after 9/11) doesn't wake up the American people to the fact that we are not invulnerable. We can't go pushing around other countries without reprocussions. Bush had nothing to do with what caused 9/11, but he is setting us up for the next one. He is making sure that we are hated throughout the world, and that makes me nervous.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I am Polish, I have supported the war against Saddam at the beginning (there were some analogies with the lack of action against Hitler by France and England in WWII).
But now I can agree with every word of the article linked by parent post.
Complaining about a dictator is easy.
Yep, that's right.
Removing him when you KNOW its going to cost lives requires a tad more moral character, will, and resolve, especially when you know its going to piss some people off who are making money off that dictatorship.
Yep, that's right.
But it isn't applicable in this case because that wasn't how the war was sold to the US citizens.
We didn't go in to remove a dictator.
We went in because a dictator with terrorist connections was hiding "WMD's" and preparing to use them against the US.
Telling so many lies (and continuing to tell them) to sell your war does NOT show "moral character, will, and resolve".
Rather it shows the opposite. Too bad for your side.
"I do not claim any harm to the one or two kids who noticed a five-pixel breast on their TV screens for a period of under 1 second."
"My main objection, as I've stated in another reply, was that our current regulatory and cultural environment conditioned me not to expect a strip show in the middle of the superbowl."
I'm not sure I understand, was there actually a strip show during the superbowl or just a tiny glimpse of a breast for a fraction of a second ?
If it was indeed a strip show then it should certainly have been advertised as such but if it was just a very quick flash of a single breast which was over in a second then I can't see any problem with that and I see no need to specifically advertise that beforehand.
Despite what you say it does seem rather like you are trying to impose your moral views on other people by requesting that such minor things are made such a big fuss of.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
FACT: If we leave the EU, all British trains will run on time. And the tickets will be free. And everyone will have a legrest.
FACT: If we leave the EU, all mail will be on time. And stamps will cost half as much. And they'll have the queen's head on them again.
FACT: If we leave the EU, Britons will pay 120% less taxes than today. Poor people will no longer need to pay taxes, and we will remove the tax burden from the middle class will ceasing to punish the rich for their productivity. And everyone will get three times as much social support money, we will increase pensions by 400% AND we will pay off the national debt.
FACT: If we leave the EU, we will triple the British literacy rate to almost 300%. There will be no more school violence, all the teachers will be paid well and the NUT will be banned. We will also ensure that students are no longer taught all those embarrassing things about puberty, either.
FACT: If we leave the EU, Britons won't need banks because they won't need to pay bills anymore. With all the money saved from the Great Satan in Brussels, every Briton will be able to have a private castle in Leeds and a fleet of luxury cars that would make Arnold Schwarzenegger envious.
Ah yes, the "Bush Doctrine" that allows preemptive action when we deem it necessary. The other Real Problem with the Bush Doctrine is that it doesn't just apply to us. First off, "The US is Right and anyone else who doesn't agree with us is Wrong," just won't fly with the rest of the world. I don't believe that the US would grant that any other single country in the world can define "Right," so I don't believe any other country will confer that right on us.
Taking the first step of unilateralism will force us to do more of it, in the future.
So either ANY country can apply the Bush Doctrine, or perhaps any country with enough weapons.
Allowing the Bush Doctrine to stand is a Danger to all, because it's going to be even harder to prevent from proliferating than nuclear weapons.
One can think first of China or Russia deploying troops based on the Bush Doctrine, but there's something far more insidious. Think about Rawanda, Congo, and the like, all feeling that pre-emptive strikes are in their best interest, and the US has given the idea the green light to do so. For us to disapprove then puts us more squarely into the role of World Police. I doubt we'd have much luck motivating other nations to take action against an "innappropriate Bush Doctrine action," especially once they figure out to call it by that name. So either we have to get in there and police, or we have to let it just happen, essentially giving it our tacit approval.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Post something when the White House says something true. There's a limited amount of space on Slashdot. Let's not waste it on things that are blindingly obvious already.
Besides "White House Lied", here are some other events we no longer need to be informed of:
"Geeks Claim Computers are Cool"
"Florida hit by Hurricane"
"Windows is vulnerable to a virus"
"Chicks: Puppies are cute"
"Scientists: Rain is wet"
"Geeks: Sex is fun, rare"
"Violence in Israel today"
"Leno makes a Lewinsky joke"
"Study confirms: British can't cook"
"Industry panics over P2P again"
"Linux Market Share Grows"
"New Tech Standard Proposed"
"American Tech Workers Not Better Off Under Bush"
"Ja Rule's success baffles Beatles fans"
"Reality TV show embarrases humans, animals"
"Technology will be improved in 5 years"
"Concensus eludes Slashdot Posters again"
"Wesley Crusher is cooler than you thought"
"Sun Microsystems is less cool than you thought"
"SCO, RIAA, DRM, DMCA, Diebold sucked again today"
"Privacy Threatened"
"Electricity, Internet, High IQ's: useful"
2. Except the 'wall', do you have any other bright ideas of how to protect civilians from suicide bombers?
Easy: The civilans should stop voting for warmongering nazilike bastards.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
former US Marine Officer, a Chiropractor by training and CEO of a technology company by trade. Let me tell you what I've seen in Iraq.
I remember (I believe it was 1988 or '89 or so) I was in the Middle East and saw much of the misery ascribed to Saddam myself.
As an XO of a Weapons company in the 3rd Marines, my company was dispatched initially to Bahrain. From there we dispersed to other points.
I remember both in the initial runs and the subsequent runs we made after the Gulf War had started seeing Women, Children and young boys in prisons in the REGSAT photos.
I then dispatched our TOW, 81's (mortars/observers) and STA (Scout/Snipers) to a region in the north not too far away form that village on orders from my superiors (albeit for different reasons)
We were too late.
I will never forget seeing the sightless eyes of dead children on the streets, looking like broken dolls. Their Skin blistered from the gas.
You as an American citizen can vote for whomever you feel to be the most appropriate representative of your values.
Just remember, the choices you make affect numerous generations to follow.
Those of us who are now parents and have children that are or almost the age of service know this all to well.
It's a choice we don't make lightly.
Think for yourself. Don't listen to the pundits or your buddies. Investigate for yourself. Don't give in to irrational hate or loyalty to any party.
Semper Fi,
Nick
Nick Donovan - CEO
Ioni Corporation
Frisco, TX USA
Ever notice how certain groups love to take the NYT as the gospel? Ever think that they sometimes don't have it quite right?
What about this one, where the NYT got hosed like everyone else?
Let us not forget that the NYT sometimes plays dirty games.
And this.
And this.
And this.
Also do not forget the "journalists" that actually fabricate stories.
The fallout.
Supporting my argument
Any church that wouldn't TURN OFF a half-time show containing Janet Jackson, Kid Rock, and Outkast is not worth its weight in self-sacrifice, IMHO.
Do you have any more shrilled loony left propaganda to spread on /.? Times like these with so many geeks falling for conspiracies and out right lies, makes it so hard to be identified as a geek in public.
Interesting that the evidence you point to is a short oppinion post that simply references an op ed piece. That oppionion editorial is long on accusations and short on proof. I did a quick Google Search and turned up numereous REAL article (with there sources properly referenced) that back up Wilson's story. Furthermore, I even found an article here that describes the attempts by the conservative political machine (using letters to the editor and op ed pieces) to discredit him.
Also, all the attempts to cast doubt on Wilson do not change the fact that the uranium proof documents WERE forged, and the administration DID know that. Those fact are not in dispute. The attempts to discredit Wilson is just an effort to distract from that.
The Bolachek Journals
I was breast-fed 17 days. My younger brother was breast-fed 2 years. Altough we live in Brasil (more butt-lovers than tit-) I give a really higher value to breasts than my brother. Quod erat demonstratum.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
because you're micro-analyzing the tree... or nobody wants to actually come out and say it. This is a war against islamic middle-eastern nations. It's not about WMDs or even [entirely] about oil. Iraq ended up a target because they were already under judgment that the UN would not execute because they were making money off the situation. The goal is obvious and Bush stated it over and over. The US wants to erode militant islamic culture by way of democratic examples in the region. Make no mistake about it, this is a Jihad against Islam. It's just not politically correct to come out and say so. Communism is no longer viewed a threat. Islam is. [BTW, please don't confuse my stating of what I see as being the obvious, with my personal views on the situation.]
If you read the N.Y. Times regularly you would know that they had already done an interview with an Iraqi nuclear scientist who said they were ready to reconstitute their nuclear program when the sanctions were lifted. The tubes are dual use and the administration wasn't ready to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Now a Iraqi nuclear scientist has a new book about the the bomb in his backyard. Here's more from the Australian.
_ page/0,5744,10863824%255E31477,00.html
An Iraqi scientist-turned-author says the most significant pieces of his country's dormant nuclear program were buried under a lotus tree in his backyard, untouched for more than a decade before the US-led invasion in 2003.
But their existence, Mahdi Obeidi writes in a new book, is evidence that the international community should remain vigilant as other countries try to replicate Iraq's successes before the 1991 Gulf war to develop components necessary for a nuclear weapon.
In The Bomb in my Garden, Obeidi details fallen Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's furious, and then abandoned, quest for a nuclear bomb.
"Although Saddam never had nuclear weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came to developing them should serve as a red flag to the international community," Obeidi writes with his co-author Kurt Pitzer.
The Associated Press obtained an advance copy of the book, to be released Sunday.
[...]
While only the former president knows fully why he didn't restart his nuclear program, Obeidi believes Saddam may have realised the scope of the massive undertaking.
United Nations inspectors had dismantled the program, removed the enriched uranium stockpiles and exposed Iraq's international network of suppliers. And Saddam was making a mint off the UN's oil-for-food program, while increasing his control over a population reliant on him for basics such as flour, Obeidi says. To get caught importing components needed to produce a nuclear weapon, the scientist says, would have ended the program.
Yet Saddam kept his Iraq Atomic Energy Commission running, apparently without weapons programs, as late as 2003.
[...]
Obeidi, 60, was the creator of Iraq's centrifuge, a key component in one method of enriching bomb-grade uranium. He considers it the most dangerous piece of nuclear technology because related advances make it possible to conceal uranium enrichment programs inside one warehouse.
[...]
By the late 1980s, Iraq was making breakthroughs. However, the international help dried up as Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. The UN arrived after Saddam's 1991 defeat, intent on taking apart his weapons programs.
To hide signs of uranium enrichment then, Obeidi describes a massive demolition and reconstruction program he led to remove everything from the top soil to the coffee makers at his former centrifuge lab.
After the 2003 invasion, Obeidi attempted to take the nuclear secrets buried in his garden to US authorities. He describes disorganisation as the CIA and military intelligence wound up fighting over him.
Only after extensive negotiations involving former UN weapons inspector David Albright, who was in Washington, did Obeidi turn over all of his information.
[...]
Looking back, Obeidi struggles to find words to describe how he could arm Saddam, whose government at one point kept him from his family for six months so he could work and left them fearing the walls had ears.
He says it was a matter of national pride and scientific pursuit, but more than anything, it was fear: "The idea of dozens of nuclear bombs in Saddam's hands is horrifying in retrospect."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story
Clinton was being tore apart, even internationally, because he had sex with an intern. He lied about it and "deeply regrets that" (we all know the speech I guess)
Although, Bush killed dozens of people by a lie, not even getting a slap on the wrist. People believe in him as their leader who can justify anything.
So what's the difference between a blowjob and a war? The blowjob didn't kill people, the war killed dozens of people and will probably kill more dozens of people...
Do I call this naivity ?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
"My main objection, as I've stated in another reply, was that our current regulatory and cultural environment conditioned me not to expect a strip show in the middle of the superbowl. If our church knew that tits were on the menu, we would not have had a Superbowl party. I hope you can appreciate, despite our differing premises, this point."
I can't understand your point.
You complain about a "strip show" yet, your church will condone the mass viewing of 22 men who hit each other so hard that they have to wear body armor, literally, beating each other bloody over a leather ball. Yet, your church condones said beating, interspersed with advertisements for drugs that give four hour erections? And you have the audacity to complain about a tit-flash?
Eat me.
Seriously.
And the sanctimonious horse you rode in on.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Clinton didn't just lie -- he lied under oath during testimony at a trial. That's serious, especially for the leader of the Free World.
Bush didn't lie.
Saddam Hussein was a bad guy -- someone the world will be better without. Fact is Saddam's regime never complied with the terms of the Cease-Fire Saddam agreed to after the first Gulf War:
1. Violation of the 'No Fly Zone', continued attacks on U.S. and U.K. pilots.
2. Violation of U.N. Trade Sanctions at every opportunity.
3. Violation of mandatory UN Weapons Inspections
4. Finally, but most significantly, cash sponsorship of terrorism in the region.
Here's detail on how Saddam Hussien thwarted the UN efforts at containment at every opportunity: http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL31641.pdf We now know that he bought the help of the French, German, Russian, Chinese gov'ts, and even people inside the UN, with fat contracts under the Oil-For-Food program.
While these particular tubes might've been dual use, that doen't even fit into the equation. You can place these aluminum tubes where the sun don't shine.
Saddam and his cronies had 500 tons of yellow cake Uranium, which is only used to create enriched Uranium for a Nuclear Reactor or Nuclear weapons. Iraq has had no functioning Nuclear Reactor since the first Gulf War, and was not working on building one. 500 tons of yellow cake is enough to produce enriched uranium for 1 nuclear bomb.
The only reasonable conclusion available is that Saddam DID have their sights on a nuclear weapons program.
Now, thanks to the Coalition, he no longer does.
BTW - Clinton killed thousands by not protecting the American People in the face of Al-Qaeda threats. Lobbing cruise missiles at shadows, State Dept mix-ups and his cut-and-run in Somalia, and various non-responses to the many terrorists attacks abroad during the Clinton administration left terrorists around the world with the impression that the U.S. could be pushed out of the way with terror. If he could've kept it in his pants long enough to think, maybe he could've dealt with terrorists effectively. That whole Al-Qaeda-Afghanistan thing went on while he was in office.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Remove politics from slashdot
This is nothing but a hot bed of liberal left ideas, and nowhere are conservative ideas permitted to have any creedence, as they are always marked troll, flamebait, or some other term straight out of the leftist playbook.
The rebellion of these people against the establishment from years of being socially outcast, manifested into a powerful cynicism permeating every aspect of life and skewing observed information to suit their predefined jaded position. After searching for meaning and finally finding a niche in computers, "education", and anti-establishment/anti-mainstream ideas, the newly intellectual elite now come to spread the creed of those who would suppress the "intellectually inferior" ideas, viewed as wrong or archaic, but claim to promote tolerance of ideas and free speech. This along with the intrinsically socialist left ideas of free and open source software, as well as the destruction of property rights, which people here advocate ad infinitum, amounts to a group of people who embrace the ideas of those who would not separate them from those who outcast them, despite their intellectual elitist mentality. Ever the champion of the downtrodden, the democratic party (now hijacked by marxist/socialism) now finds itself ready to assimilate those outcast, oppressed newly intellectual elite; ready to take their cynicism and anti-establishment mentality to the promised land of equality, equality with those who are clearly not equal.... unless you expect to make it into the ruling body.
I am so pissed that this source for breaking tech news is comprised of the remnants of the former Soviet politburo and their indoctrinated youth.
You've committed a logical fallacy that I call "argumentum ad stultum": argument from stupidity.
Any argument of the form:
X would be stupid.
Therefore no one would do X.
is fallacious because it depends on a hidden premise that is known to be false:
No one would ever do anything stupid.
But we know, for a fact, that people do incredibly stupid things every day. I mean, what president would be stupid enough to have sex with an intern in the Oval Office?
So given that the reasons for believing there was any significant threat from Iraq are all trivially false, and given that the other reasons to invade Iraq are all pretty lame, it is very easy to conclude that Bush et al are either extremely stupid or clinically insane, or some combination of both.
Evil doesn't come into it. Stupidity and megalomania are the only things required, and anyone who knows anything about human history knows that there is no shortage of either, especially in the halls of power.
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I said Iraq had no connection to 9/11. None.
Well, by your logic the US gives money to terrorism. US buys oil from countries in the middle east such as Iran and Iraq. Iran sponcers terrorists, so we sponser terrorits. Good logic there...
Fox news spreds FUD when it comes to this issue. I prefer a new organization that isn't openly partisan.
I'm not misrepresenting anything. You're regeritating the same same stuff the bush campaign is spining out. They can't win based on the facts, so they need to win via fear.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Thanks for the US government for taking out Saddam from power even if they lied.
Yes, ALL Americans are stupid and know so little about the world. Thankfully, we have video game addicted Europeans to help us along with foreign policy.
This guy is way out there
The majority of the planet...
...because they think they are better... .
Everybody on this planet has her/his own interests.
Do you really think that countries like Russia or France vote against Israel because they honestly care for the welfare of Palestinians? Or, perhaps, what really matters is their business relationship with Arab countries?
This accusation is false a priori just like any other generalization in the world. Nobody in Israel thinks so except some religious extremists and garbage like that you may find in any country. I'm Jew, I live in Israel but I don't think that I or anyone from my nation is better than anyone else. So thinks anyone I ever got a chance to talk with. I afraid you're a bit biased and fed up with propaganda. How come nobody blaims Russia for erasing entire cities in Chechnya? Spain has territories belonging to Morocco, Russia has territories belonging to Japan and everybody shut up. But Israel - nooooo, they're the true devil!
I think democracy is the only way to go, of course when one thinks one is better - the majority is always wrong.
I guess you're right. Just note that Israel is the only democracy in ME.
Because Isreal is always innocent, and anyone who says otherwise is a Nazi.
I never said so, you know that. My point is that Israel "play" by the rules of this cruel world. We're just as "innocent" as many other countries. We most definitely don't want war but we don't have a solution.
Please note that all I'm saying is that calling our government (hence us who voted or not voted but democratically accepted it) "nazilike warmongering bastards" requires a very solid knowledge of what's going on in ME. Knowledge that no newspaper can provide. In order to be able to judge one should learn the situation from both sides. Have you heard all that both sides have to say? I afraid not.
Conflicts like any other extreme conditions can't go ever and ever. It just takes time to develop a civilized society.
You should see what happened here during the last 50 years. The whole country was desert and marshes and now we have hitech and skyscrapers. It's only a matter of time till we'll make peace in ME.