The government has been very secritive about the numbers of Iraqi dead. Independent researchers assume it is somewhere near 55,000. Iraq never supported terrorists. No proof was ever found. It was just another lie by the administration. Our own CIA and many other security organizations said that all the reports that they tried to gain Uranium were forged. The only ones to actually believe were the British Intelligence Units. A senior security official on Bushes staff apologized for allowing that lie to be in the presidents State of the Union speech.
My code was not running on the machine, I just store my program on the server machine instead of my own. Its just more comfortable since I have to test it on a lot of different systems.
Believe it or not, I think Windows 2000 / Windows XP is as stable as linux / Freebsd.
What you believe is very different from the truth. I would agree, XP is pretty stable, but not 2000. It will restart for no reason. Last friday I saw win 2000 server restart on our server for no reason. Screwed up the app I was writing. The desktop edition is just as bad. I couldnt stand it, I nearly punched my screen in cause it kept restarting whenever it wanted to.
Well the MS business plan seems to be doing pretty well. I say we should adopt it. We need to find some insane company to say they own the source code to Windows. Think of the headlines:
After Windows source code compromised, Microsoft sued for copyright violation.
Windows now illegal to use. Switch to Linux the free, more secure, faster... Huh!!! WTF!!! Why are we using Windows to begin with?
Dont worry. Soon You will be able to install your new 2.99 signal bulbs for a small charge of 299.99 for labor, and a short overnight stay for your car.
Large corporations have more to gain from giving money to Republicans. Republicans tend to favor big business more. Gates cares more about money than gay mariages. Hence money for Republicans.
I just submitted it with IE. Dont have a heart attack though, Im typing this in Mozilla right now. Right after Im done Ill restart my computer and go back to Mepis.
The internet is broken. I got the same search results as you on IE. But on Mozilla I get completely different results. Same link. I get this for number 4:Aqua11.com - Search portal. But XFree86 got me same results in both browsers.
The source for taht quote was MSNBC. Ive always said that MSNBC was biast toward republicans. You didnt even bother to check where I got the 500,000. I told you where to find it. The source was from a Russian expert. But they do count opposing casualties. They always do that. Counted for every war. Until now they usually revealed it. You dont believe I can build an atomic bomb on principle, or something you read by the media. Yeah MSNBC is completely anti Bush.
Could you please not respond to single quotes but entire passages. You have ommited anything about terrorists. I believe this was a very recent poll. They would have obviously mentioned something such as unproven allegations in their report if this was during that time. And again you seem to be straying away from the terrorist issue.
They never had WMD. They had dangerous chemicals(which the CIA gave them). These dangerous chemicals were never WMD. Rumsfeld was quoted as saying they had hundreds of tons of this stuff. Enough to fill 16 Battleships was it? We found none. Stuff like this just doesnt disappear. You cant just diffuse it with water. It doesnt work that way.
March 8, 2003 U.N. and independent experts determine that Niger uranium evidence is forged and that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. (Washington Post, 3/08/03)
March 16, 2003 President Bush claims that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (Washington Post, 3/18/03)
As you can see it wasnt just the CIA. The only ones that did believe these were real were the British. And apparently Dubya.
July 11, 2003 CIA Director George Tenet says that he is responsible for President Bush's false allegation in his State of the Union address that Baghdad was trying to buy uranium in Africa. (MSNBC.com, 7/11/03)
Yeah, they definetly had it.
May 29, 2003 President Bush asserts that "we found the weapons of mass destruction." (Washington Post, 5/31/03)
Exactly right. Our government knows exactly the number of Iraqi dead. They just dont want to release it.
We got precise figures for the American dead, but not for the Iraqis. Recall Colin Powell after the first Gulf War, when he reported the "small" number of U.S. dead, and when asked about the Iraqi dead, replied: "That is really not a matter I am terribly interested in."
Googled it and found 500,000. Theres your independent source. Do you realize what percent of their population this is. Ironically this is the number of votes Bush had less than Gore. But lets not get into that. Ive recently lost some respect for Gore.
Ohh and dont worry, its natural to question results that oppose your view point.
1)We can rest assured the madman doesn't have WMD's. We couldn't before. He wasn't being totally forthcoming abouth is WMD programs. The UN agreed on this point. He, for whatever reason, would play games, deny inspectors access to certain sites, and fail to present the evidence necessary to prove he'd destroyed his WMD's. No one disagrees this was the case. So to know for sure, we had to go in by force so he could no longer deny us access. If he'd have been forthcoming, he would still be in power. Who knows why he chose this route instead. But when it comes to WMD's in an Islamic nation ran by a madman, we must be better safe then sorry. However unlikely you think it would be for him to use the weapons on the US (his declared enemy) or give it to others to use on us... that "chance" (however slim you think it might be) isn't one we needed to take
Well since it has been proven he never had WMD, Id say it would have been pretty hard for him to prove he had destroyed them. I would not like to see our country invade a country based on poor intelligence reports. Many of which were withdrawn. And in the Uranium example countered by CIA. From the source I cited, we knew that the proof for Iraq seeking Uranium had been forged before we went to war. The worst weapons we found were missles that he was completely honest about. That could only go at most 200 miles. And were said to be no danger to both us and our allies.
2) countries that have supported terrorists (i.e. Libya, Iran) are being more forthcoming no as to their WMD programs, and we are less likely to have to use force in the future to make sure terrorist-sponsoring states aren't developing WMD's. We will have an easier time avoiding war as we go after terrorist sponsor's in the future. Believe it or not, I think avoiding war when possible is a great thing.
Due to sanctions on these countries, it is illegal for any of them to be developing any WMD. There should be no programs at all. And some of these countries are still supporting terrorists. Iranian gov't pays the families of terrorists who blow themselves up in Israil's land.
3) no more mass murders, rape rooms, and other consequences of rule by a brutal dictator. A liberated Iraq
I would still like to know how many Iraqi people died while we liberated Iraq. Why is our gov't censoring us from this number.
I could never build a nuclear bomb in my basement. I never said that. I could however get the resources and the tools to do so at the University of Illinois at Chicago. There is quite a large assortment of materials. The Uranium I worked with was in small samples. Cased in either cement, or some weird plastic. We had to wear special suits and listen to this lecture on the effects of radiation on the body. This gov't guy came in and told us it was completely safe, if we stayed below a simple limit. It was pretty interesting, he said the human body makes radiation, and told us exactly how much radiation we get during a plane flight. And what media thinks is irrelevant. They are payed to keep you entertained. They get money only if you dont switch the station. You should find out what scientists have to say about it. After all, most of them could care less if anyone is listening to them. I had a dumb ass job my first year. I worked on research proposals. I would look at know that no one was ever going to read them. And then I would look at the multi-million grants that were sponsoring this research.
Our own intelligence department proved conclusively that these reports were false. They said they were faked. In the end all we had for proof that Iraq was seeking Uranium were some faked reports. These reports were very important. They were our only reason to believe Iraq had WMD. How come most of the public was not informed that these reports were fake? Putting it on page 13 of an unknown newspaper is not informing. Giving it a 10 second segment in a 2 hour news report is not reporting, when it was given a total of over half an hour to repo
I do not see what a bunch of politicians think as relevant. What is relevent however is what the experts think. My sources show that all allegations for going into Iraq have proven false. So if all the reasons for going into Iraq were proven to be wrong what reason do you have for still supporting that invasion. You did not comment on the numbers at all. There is one interesting number missing. The number of Iraqi citizens killed in our attempt to free them from this dictator. Whom btw we installed. And supported for many years. Im sure you have seen the picture of him shaking hands with Rumsfeld.
And the source you have for finding OBL is fine. I will agree that we are still pursuing him. You may have noticed I had never disagreed with pursuing him. In fact I was fine with the invasion of Afganistan. Most of the world was not that opposed to it. I was just saying that finding him is not our top priority. I never said we were not still looking for him.
I couldnt explain how to build a hydrogen bomb yet, but I can specifically explain how to build a nuclear bomb. And where to get all the materials right here in Chicago. You have pissed me off enough that I am willing to say it right on the internet. Just say the word that you dont believe me and I can do it.
In your reply please explain how going into Iraq has made us more safe. We have no proof that they had WMD. So any other country around them would see that just because you dont have WMD we might still go in there and try to find them. And also there were no connections between Iraq and Al Quida. I do not see what nations harboring terrorists have to do with that. Was Afganistan not enough of a signal for that. Why do we need to compound something so simple. Ruling out these two reasons, why did America go into Iraq?
When you say my sources for the quote are bad, keep in mind that:16 --Words proven false from the President's State of the Union Address.
October 2003 US Weapons Inspector Kay files interim report and testifies before Congress. At best, Kay's report showed that Hussein had a continued interest in developing weapons, perhaps once international sanctions were finally lifted -- a far cry from the imminent threat claimed by President Bush. (New York Times, 10/4/03)
I like this source. Ill have to look more for the CIA files. But as you can see if you read my entire source all allegations of Hussein seeking Uranium have been proven false.
If I had mod pts I would mod him back to overrated since his point was brought up in previous posts and answered fully. But you are right his post is not offtopic.
And I forgot to mention, nuclear weapons are not as hard to make as you think. I use to be a Physics Engineering student. And worked with small samples of Uranium. I dont want to say any more to give anybody any ideas.
Definition of troll:Troll. Dont accuse someone of doing something you dont understand.
I know this is a terrible source, but if any of it had been untrue then it would have been all over the press. In it he states quite clearly that there were no terrorist connections in Iraq. And also no WMD. Look at the numbers. Accusations of tons of rockets by Romsfeld.
October 5, 2002 CIA letter to Congress does not support the White House's view that Iraq presents an immediate threat to America. (Knight-Ridder 10/05/02)
October 2002 Steven Hadley, Deputy National Security Advisor receives two memos from the CIA and a phone call from agency Director George Tenet raising objections to an allegation that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore from Africa to use in building nuclear weapons. Both memos are also sent to chief speechwriter Michael Gerson and one is sent to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. (CNN.com, 7/23/03)
Also from source specifically debating my point.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
I'd rather take my chances with computer controlled cars than the speeding, emotionally volatile alpha-male jerks.
Those jerks usually have less accidents than average people. Men in general have less accidents (shown by insurance claims). But when men get into accidents the claims tend to be higher than female claims in the same age/single/maried category. This year I believe the total claims for both sexes are roughly the same.
Personally I happen to double the speed limit on a regular basis. Any time i go on the highway I usually top out my car at 110 mph, while the SL is 55. I have been driving for 5 years and have not had a single accident. My friends and family members that sit there and stare at the speedometer have been in tons of accidents. I have only gotten two speeding tickets since I started driving. And both were in the first months after I got my licence.
I am an engineer and have talked with civil engineers who figure out what the speedlimit signs should be. What they do is calculate a correct speed and then subtract 5 miles for the idiots. But on a lot of the older rodes it is customary for the speed limits to be at 35-40 mph. This is because during WWII they wanted to waste less gasoline and due to transmission properties, a car generally uses gas the most efficiently at around 38mph. Which obviously has nothing to do with the road.
So you can just go ahead and keep driving at that speed limit. Just so that one day some trucker following you will one day get pissed off, and swing toward the rear left and have you safely crash into a tree on the side of the road.
Slashdot Mirror
The government has been very secritive about the numbers of Iraqi dead. Independent researchers assume it is somewhere near 55,000. Iraq never supported terrorists. No proof was ever found. It was just another lie by the administration. Our own CIA and many other security organizations said that all the reports that they tried to gain Uranium were forged. The only ones to actually believe were the British Intelligence Units. A senior security official on Bushes staff apologized for allowing that lie to be in the presidents State of the Union speech.
Americans have been laughing at the French since looooooong before 9/11
The Glorious French
My code was not running on the machine, I just store my program on the server machine instead of my own. Its just more comfortable since I have to test it on a lot of different systems.
Believe it or not, I think Windows 2000 / Windows XP is as stable as linux / Freebsd.
What you believe is very different from the truth. I would agree, XP is pretty stable, but not 2000. It will restart for no reason. Last friday I saw win 2000 server restart on our server for no reason. Screwed up the app I was writing. The desktop edition is just as bad. I couldnt stand it, I nearly punched my screen in cause it kept restarting whenever it wanted to.
Can you say, "giant paintball game"?
Can you say, "3 eyes and 1 testicle"?
Well the MS business plan seems to be doing pretty well. I say we should adopt it. We need to find some insane company to say they own the source code to Windows. Think of the headlines:
After Windows source code compromised, Microsoft sued for copyright violation.
Windows now illegal to use. Switch to Linux the free, more secure, faster... Huh!!! WTF!!! Why are we using Windows to begin with?
Dont worry. Soon You will be able to install your new 2.99 signal bulbs for a small charge of 299.99 for labor, and a short overnight stay for your car.
Large corporations have more to gain from giving money to Republicans. Republicans tend to favor big business more. Gates cares more about money than gay mariages. Hence money for Republicans.
I just submitted it with IE. Dont have a heart attack though, Im typing this in Mozilla right now. Right after Im done Ill restart my computer and go back to Mepis.
But it lists MSN second for "Worst Search Engine".
The internet is broken. I got the same search results as you on IE. But on Mozilla I get completely different results. Same link. I get this for number 4:Aqua11.com - Search portal. But XFree86 got me same results in both browsers.
Technically 68 is "You do me and Ill owe you one". Women hear this one all the time.
The source for taht quote was MSNBC. Ive always said that MSNBC was biast toward republicans. You didnt even bother to check where I got the 500,000. I told you where to find it. The source was from a Russian expert. But they do count opposing casualties. They always do that. Counted for every war. Until now they usually revealed it. You dont believe I can build an atomic bomb on principle, or something you read by the media. Yeah MSNBC is completely anti Bush.
Could you please not respond to single quotes but entire passages. You have ommited anything about terrorists. I believe this was a very recent poll. They would have obviously mentioned something such as unproven allegations in their report if this was during that time. And again you seem to be straying away from the terrorist issue.
They never had WMD. They had dangerous chemicals(which the CIA gave them). These dangerous chemicals were never WMD. Rumsfeld was quoted as saying they had hundreds of tons of this stuff. Enough to fill 16 Battleships was it? We found none. Stuff like this just doesnt disappear. You cant just diffuse it with water. It doesnt work that way.
March 8, 2003 U.N. and independent experts determine that Niger uranium evidence is forged and that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. (Washington Post, 3/08/03) March 16, 2003 President Bush claims that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (Washington Post, 3/18/03)
As you can see it wasnt just the CIA. The only ones that did believe these were real were the British. And apparently Dubya.
July 11, 2003 CIA Director George Tenet says that he is responsible for President Bush's false allegation in his State of the Union address that Baghdad was trying to buy uranium in Africa. (MSNBC.com, 7/11/03)
Yeah, they definetly had it.
May 29, 2003 President Bush asserts that "we found the weapons of mass destruction." (Washington Post, 5/31/03)
Exactly right. Our government knows exactly the number of Iraqi dead. They just dont want to release it.
We got precise figures for the American dead, but not for the Iraqis. Recall Colin Powell after the first Gulf War, when he reported the "small" number of U.S. dead, and when asked about the Iraqi dead, replied: "That is really not a matter I am terribly interested in."
Googled it and found 500,000. Theres your independent source. Do you realize what percent of their population this is. Ironically this is the number of votes Bush had less than Gore. But lets not get into that. Ive recently lost some respect for Gore.
Ohh and dont worry, its natural to question results that oppose your view point.
Awesome movie. Also when he goes through the machine it goes haywire. Twice as loud as for other customers, cause his coat is full.
Interesting name missing from his friends list. But even more interesting names on it, Mitnick anyone?
See sig.
1)We can rest assured the madman doesn't have WMD's. We couldn't before. He wasn't being totally forthcoming abouth is WMD programs. The UN agreed on this point. He, for whatever reason, would play games, deny inspectors access to certain sites, and fail to present the evidence necessary to prove he'd destroyed his WMD's. No one disagrees this was the case. So to know for sure, we had to go in by force so he could no longer deny us access. If he'd have been forthcoming, he would still be in power. Who knows why he chose this route instead. But when it comes to WMD's in an Islamic nation ran by a madman, we must be better safe then sorry. However unlikely you think it would be for him to use the weapons on the US (his declared enemy) or give it to others to use on us... that "chance" (however slim you think it might be) isn't one we needed to take
Well since it has been proven he never had WMD, Id say it would have been pretty hard for him to prove he had destroyed them. I would not like to see our country invade a country based on poor intelligence reports. Many of which were withdrawn. And in the Uranium example countered by CIA. From the source I cited, we knew that the proof for Iraq seeking Uranium had been forged before we went to war. The worst weapons we found were missles that he was completely honest about. That could only go at most 200 miles. And were said to be no danger to both us and our allies.
2) countries that have supported terrorists (i.e. Libya, Iran) are being more forthcoming no as to their WMD programs, and we are less likely to have to use force in the future to make sure terrorist-sponsoring states aren't developing WMD's. We will have an easier time avoiding war as we go after terrorist sponsor's in the future. Believe it or not, I think avoiding war when possible is a great thing.
Due to sanctions on these countries, it is illegal for any of them to be developing any WMD. There should be no programs at all. And some of these countries are still supporting terrorists. Iranian gov't pays the families of terrorists who blow themselves up in Israil's land.
3) no more mass murders, rape rooms, and other consequences of rule by a brutal dictator. A liberated Iraq
I would still like to know how many Iraqi people died while we liberated Iraq. Why is our gov't censoring us from this number.
I could never build a nuclear bomb in my basement. I never said that. I could however get the resources and the tools to do so at the University of Illinois at Chicago. There is quite a large assortment of materials. The Uranium I worked with was in small samples. Cased in either cement, or some weird plastic. We had to wear special suits and listen to this lecture on the effects of radiation on the body. This gov't guy came in and told us it was completely safe, if we stayed below a simple limit. It was pretty interesting, he said the human body makes radiation, and told us exactly how much radiation we get during a plane flight. And what media thinks is irrelevant. They are payed to keep you entertained. They get money only if you dont switch the station. You should find out what scientists have to say about it. After all, most of them could care less if anyone is listening to them. I had a dumb ass job my first year. I worked on research proposals. I would look at know that no one was ever going to read them. And then I would look at the multi-million grants that were sponsoring this research.
Our own intelligence department proved conclusively that these reports were false. They said they were faked. In the end all we had for proof that Iraq was seeking Uranium were some faked reports. These reports were very important. They were our only reason to believe Iraq had WMD. How come most of the public was not informed that these reports were fake? Putting it on page 13 of an unknown newspaper is not informing. Giving it a 10 second segment in a 2 hour news report is not reporting, when it was given a total of over half an hour to repo
Did you try pressing it over and over again?
Maybe open some more windows or tabs of the same page?
I do not see what a bunch of politicians think as relevant. What is relevent however is what the experts think. My sources show that all allegations for going into Iraq have proven false. So if all the reasons for going into Iraq were proven to be wrong what reason do you have for still supporting that invasion. You did not comment on the numbers at all. There is one interesting number missing. The number of Iraqi citizens killed in our attempt to free them from this dictator. Whom btw we installed. And supported for many years. Im sure you have seen the picture of him shaking hands with Rumsfeld.
And the source you have for finding OBL is fine. I will agree that we are still pursuing him. You may have noticed I had never disagreed with pursuing him. In fact I was fine with the invasion of Afganistan. Most of the world was not that opposed to it. I was just saying that finding him is not our top priority. I never said we were not still looking for him.
I couldnt explain how to build a hydrogen bomb yet, but I can specifically explain how to build a nuclear bomb. And where to get all the materials right here in Chicago. You have pissed me off enough that I am willing to say it right on the internet. Just say the word that you dont believe me and I can do it.
In your reply please explain how going into Iraq has made us more safe. We have no proof that they had WMD. So any other country around them would see that just because you dont have WMD we might still go in there and try to find them. And also there were no connections between Iraq and Al Quida. I do not see what nations harboring terrorists have to do with that. Was Afganistan not enough of a signal for that. Why do we need to compound something so simple. Ruling out these two reasons, why did America go into Iraq?
When you say my sources for the quote are bad, keep in mind that:16 --Words proven false from the President's State of the Union Address.
October 2003 US Weapons Inspector Kay files interim report and testifies before Congress. At best, Kay's report showed that Hussein had a continued interest in developing weapons, perhaps once international sanctions were finally lifted -- a far cry from the imminent threat claimed by President Bush. (New York Times, 10/4/03)
I like this source. Ill have to look more for the CIA files. But as you can see if you read my entire source all allegations of Hussein seeking Uranium have been proven false.
If I had mod pts I would mod him back to overrated since his point was brought up in previous posts and answered fully. But you are right his post is not offtopic.
And I forgot to mention, nuclear weapons are not as hard to make as you think. I use to be a Physics Engineering student. And worked with small samples of Uranium. I dont want to say any more to give anybody any ideas.
You must be unfamiliar with SCO.
Definition of troll:Troll. Dont accuse someone of doing something you dont understand.
I know this is a terrible source, but if any of it had been untrue then it would have been all over the press. In it he states quite clearly that there were no terrorist connections in Iraq. And also no WMD. Look at the numbers. Accusations of tons of rockets by Romsfeld.
October 5, 2002 CIA letter to Congress does not support the White House's view that Iraq presents an immediate threat to America. (Knight-Ridder 10/05/02)
October 2002 Steven Hadley, Deputy National Security Advisor receives two memos from the CIA and a phone call from agency Director George Tenet raising objections to an allegation that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore from Africa to use in building nuclear weapons. Both memos are also sent to chief speechwriter Michael Gerson and one is sent to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. (CNN.com, 7/23/03)
Also from source specifically debating my point.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
Source of above Enjoy.
I'd rather take my chances with computer controlled cars than the speeding, emotionally volatile alpha-male jerks.
Those jerks usually have less accidents than average people. Men in general have less accidents (shown by insurance claims). But when men get into accidents the claims tend to be higher than female claims in the same age/single/maried category. This year I believe the total claims for both sexes are roughly the same.
Personally I happen to double the speed limit on a regular basis. Any time i go on the highway I usually top out my car at 110 mph, while the SL is 55. I have been driving for 5 years and have not had a single accident. My friends and family members that sit there and stare at the speedometer have been in tons of accidents. I have only gotten two speeding tickets since I started driving. And both were in the first months after I got my licence.
I am an engineer and have talked with civil engineers who figure out what the speedlimit signs should be. What they do is calculate a correct speed and then subtract 5 miles for the idiots. But on a lot of the older rodes it is customary for the speed limits to be at 35-40 mph. This is because during WWII they wanted to waste less gasoline and due to transmission properties, a car generally uses gas the most efficiently at around 38mph. Which obviously has nothing to do with the road.
So you can just go ahead and keep driving at that speed limit. Just so that one day some trucker following you will one day get pissed off, and swing toward the rear left and have you safely crash into a tree on the side of the road.