Good thing we're spending hundreds of billions on this shit

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Kurgan Gringioni, Jan 13, 2005.

  1. Not to mention the thousands of lives. The boys serving over there must
    be stoked. And no wonder the Shia are pissed.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-wmd.html

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - The White House confirmed today that the search
    in Iraq for the banned weapons it had cited as justifying the war that
    ousted Saddam Hussein has been quietly ended after nearly two years,
    with no evidence of their existence.

    That means that the conclusions of an interim report last fall by the
    leader of the weapons hunt, Charles A. Duelfer, will stand. That report
    undercut prewar administration contentions that Iraq possessed
    biological and chemical weapons, was building a nuclear capability and
    might share weapons with Al Qaeda. A White House spokesman, Scott
    McClellan, insisted today that the war was justified. He rejected the
    suggestion that the administration's credibility had been gravely
    wounded in ways that could weaken its future response to perceived
    threats.

    The administration appeared to be dropping today even the suggestion
    that banned weapons might be deeply buried or well hidden in Iraq. Mr.
    McClellan said that President Bush had already concluded, after the
    October release of an interim report from Mr. Duelfer, "that the
    weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence,
    were not there."

    Some administration officials have suggested that some arms might have
    been moved out of Iraq, perhaps to Syria. But Mr. McClellan appeared to
    rule that out.

    <snip><end>
     
    Tags:


  2. k.papai

    k.papai Guest

    Can you not resist seeing your illustrious name in RBR lights Henry? Do
    you have to be so annoying and smart-assed Off Topic so often? You
    actually have soemthign in common with Lafferti and that ain't good!
    RSVP,
    Ken.... blahhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  3. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Not to mention the thousands of lives. The boys serving over there must
    > be stoked. And no wonder the Shia are pissed.
    >
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-wmd.html
    >
    > WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - The White House confirmed today that the search
    > in Iraq for the banned weapons it had cited as justifying the war that
    > ousted Saddam Hussein has been quietly ended after nearly two years,
    > with no evidence of their existence.
    >
    > That means that the conclusions of an interim report last fall by the
    > leader of the weapons hunt, Charles A. Duelfer, will stand. That report
    > undercut prewar administration contentions that Iraq possessed
    > biological and chemical weapons, was building a nuclear capability and
    > might share weapons with Al Qaeda. A White House spokesman, Scott
    > McClellan, insisted today that the war was justified. He rejected the
    > suggestion that the administration's credibility had been gravely
    > wounded in ways that could weaken its future response to perceived
    > threats.
    >
    > The administration appeared to be dropping today even the suggestion
    > that banned weapons might be deeply buried or well hidden in Iraq. Mr.
    > McClellan said that President Bush had already concluded, after the
    > October release of an interim report from Mr. Duelfer, "that the
    > weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence,
    > were not there."
    >
    > Some administration officials have suggested that some arms might have
    > been moved out of Iraq, perhaps to Syria. But Mr. McClellan appeared to
    > rule that out.
    >
    > <snip><end>


    This is the first step for the Bush admin. Next step: blame Clinton.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Butter is love.

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  4. Cranky

    Cranky Guest

    Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
    > Not to mention the thousands of lives. The boys serving over there must
    > be stoked. And no wonder the Shia are pissed.
    >
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-wmd.html


    <http://lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx>

    My heart goes out to soldiers, their families and my building anger is
    directed towards those who must lie to the people they serve.

    "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."

    Address to the Nation
    3/17/2003

    ---

    "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices
    or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

    Interview with TVP Poland
    5/30/2003

    ---

    DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass
    destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire
    those weapons still --

    PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

    (Interview with Diane Sawyer, 12/16/03)
     
  5. > Can you not resist seeing your illustrious name in RBR lights Henry? Do
    > you have to be so annoying and smart-assed Off Topic so often? You
    > actually have soemthign in common with Lafferti and that ain't good!
    > RSVP,
    > Ken.... blahhh!!!!!!!!!!!!


    But despite his best efforts, it's not entirely off-topic. I had a lengthy
    conversation with one of the main carbon-fiber frame designers at Trek,
    questioning why we're having such a difficult time getting bikes this year.
    My assumption was that it was because they'd come out with too many entirely
    new models all at once, but, while that's part of it, the other issue is
    that there's a shortage of high-grade carbon fiber (particularly 110 and
    even more so 55gsm material) due to the military sucking it up.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  6. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
    >
    >

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-wmd.html

    "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
    mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our
    friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Dick
    Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.
    "After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions,
    inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam
    Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his
    capabilities to make more." - President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

    "Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of
    mass destruction, but he's got them." - Bush, Nov. 3, 2002.
     
  7. Robert, why do you hate America so much that you would quote the
    President and Vice President like that?

    That's disrespectful, especially in this time of war. Please, support
    the troops and only bring up what Bush and Cheney say today. Don't
    disrespect them, and the American people as a whole, by pointing
    out....

    Er, excuse me, I lost my train of thought.

    Yours in liberty,

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  8. Robert Chung wrote:

    > "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons

    of
    > mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use

    against our
    > friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Dick
    > Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.
    > "After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions,
    > inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that

    Saddam
    > Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing

    his
    > capabilities to make more." - President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.
    >
    > "Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons

    of
    > mass destruction, but he's got them." - Bush, Nov. 3, 2002.


    Where do the weapons of mass destruction related activity programs for
    kids aged 5 years and up, batteries not included (may contain traces of
    nuts), come into all of this? That's all the hard evidence that you
    need.

    Jeff
     
  9. Donald Munro

    Donald Munro Guest

    John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

    > Er, excuse me, I lost my train of thought.


    To much SHINER BOCK ?
     
  10. On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:03:18 -0800, Howard Kveck
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >This is the first step for the Bush admin. Next step: blame Clinton.
    >
    >--
    > tanx,
    > Howard
    >
    > Butter is love.
    >
    > remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?


    Well, a whole bunch of people owe Bush an apology - the ones that said
    he would create some WMDs if his guys couldn't find them. OK, maybe it
    isn't the greatest cred, but it has to count for something...

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...
     
  11. Tom

    Tom Guest

    Apologize to Bush for taking the country to war over weapons that don't
    exist? Yeah, I don't think so. I feel like I should apologize to the
    rest of the entire world for our President being an arrogant buffoon.
    Tom
     
  12. sbornfeld

    sbornfeld Guest

    John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    > Robert, why do you hate America so much that you would quote the
    > President and Vice President like that?
    >
    > That's disrespectful, especially in this time of war. Please, support
    > the troops and only bring up what Bush and Cheney say today. Don't
    > disrespect them, and the American people as a whole, by pointing
    > out....
    >
    > Er, excuse me, I lost my train of thought.


    This is off-topic. Please post this in alt.rec.drugs.

    Thank you (and, as they say, have a nice day)

    Steve

    >
    > Yours in liberty,
    >
    > JT
    >
    > ****************************
    > Remove "remove" to reply
    > Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    > ****************************
     
  13. On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:50:59 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
    <[email protected]> wrote:


    >Well, a whole bunch of people owe Bush an apology - the ones that said
    >he would create some WMDs if his guys couldn't find them. OK, maybe it
    >isn't the greatest cred, but it has to count for something...


    Yeah, I'm surprised they didn't do that though I don't think I claimed
    he was going to do it.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  14. Monty

    Monty Guest

    Nice article ere:
    http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1044&srch=







    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Not to mention the thousands of lives. The boys serving over there must
    > be stoked. And no wonder the Shia are pissed.
    >
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-wmd.html
    >
    > WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - The White House confirmed today that the search
    > in Iraq for the banned weapons it had cited as justifying the war that
    > ousted Saddam Hussein has been quietly ended after nearly two years,
    > with no evidence of their existence.
    >
    > That means that the conclusions of an interim report last fall by the
    > leader of the weapons hunt, Charles A. Duelfer, will stand. That report
    > undercut prewar administration contentions that Iraq possessed
    > biological and chemical weapons, was building a nuclear capability and
    > might share weapons with Al Qaeda. A White House spokesman, Scott
    > McClellan, insisted today that the war was justified. He rejected the
    > suggestion that the administration's credibility had been gravely
    > wounded in ways that could weaken its future response to perceived
    > threats.
    >
    > The administration appeared to be dropping today even the suggestion
    > that banned weapons might be deeply buried or well hidden in Iraq. Mr.
    > McClellan said that President Bush had already concluded, after the
    > October release of an interim report from Mr. Duelfer, "that the
    > weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence,
    > were not there."
    >
    > Some administration officials have suggested that some arms might have
    > been moved out of Iraq, perhaps to Syria. But Mr. McClellan appeared to
    > rule that out.
    >
    > <snip><end>
    >
     
  15. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
    > >
    > >

    > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-wmd.html
    >
    > "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
    > mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our
    > friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Dick
    > Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.
    > "After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions,
    > inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam
    > Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his
    > capabilities to make more." - President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.
    >
    > "Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of
    > mass destruction, but he's got them." - Bush, Nov. 3, 2002.


    I like this logic:

    "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of
    mass destruction to tell the world where they are.    
    Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
    Press Briefing
    7/9/2003

    For a much more extensive listing of more of what Robert has above, go
    to:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/13/02658/9300

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Butter is love.

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  16. [email protected] wrote:
    > You are right Henry,
    >
    > I have no idea how the white house ever got the idea that the Iraqis
    > were hiding weapons:
    >
    > http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/mig25c.jpg
    > http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/mig25a.jpg
    > http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/mig25d.jpg
    > http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/mig25b.jpg





    Dumbass -

    Wow, that's terrifying. Buried plane, now that's an imminent threat. A
    grave danger to global security.


    http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/...mentID=2208&from_page=../program/document.cfm

    <snip>

    Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors
    Dinner, May 12, 2004

    <snip>

    I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of
    containment. I heard the president say, not too long ago, I believe it
    was with the interview with Tim Russert that ... I'm not sure ... but
    at some point I heard him say that "containment did not work." That's
    not true.

    I was responsible, along with everybody from General Schwarzkopf to his
    two successors, that were my predecessors, myself, and my successor,
    General Franks, up until the war, we were responsible for containment.

    <snip>

    have the capabilities, that were pumped up, that were supposedly
    possessed by this military. And I think that will be the first mistake
    that will be recorded in history, the belief that containment as a
    policy doesn't work. It certainly worked against the Soviet Union, has
    worked with North Korea and others. It's not a pleasant thing to have
    to administer, it requires troops full-time, there are moments when
    there ... there are periods of violence, but containment is a lot
    cheaper than the alternative, as we're finding out now. So I think
    that will be mistake number one: discounting the effectiveness of the
    containment.

    <snip>

    The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to
    create a false rationale for going in to get public support. The books
    were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified
    before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war,
    and Senator Lugar asked me: "General Zinni, do you feel the threat from
    Saddam Hussein is imminent?" I said: "No, not at all. It was not an
    imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent,
    serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those."

    <snip>

    The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and
    trusting the exiles, the infamous "Gucci Guerillas" from London. We
    bought into their intelligence reports. To the credit of the CIA, they
    didn't buy into it, so I guess the Defense Department created its own
    boutique intelligence agency to vet them. And we ended up with a group
    that fed us bad information. That led us to believe that we would be
    welcomed with flowers in the streets; that led us to believe that this
    would be a cakewalk.



    When I testified before Congress in 1998, after a grilling from Senator
    McCain and all those wonderful senators supported the Iraqi Liberation
    Act, and I told them that these guys are not credible and they are
    going to lead us into something they we will regret. At that time,
    they were pushing a plan that Central Command would supply air support
    and special forces, and we would put it into Iraq, and they would pied
    piper their way up to Baghdad and the whole place would fall apart.
    These exiles did not have credibility inside the country or in the
    region. Not only did they not have credibility, it was clear that the
    information they were providing us many times was not correct and
    accurate.

    <snip><end>
     
  17. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Not to mention the thousands of lives. The boys serving over there must
    > be stoked. And no wonder the Shia are pissed.
    >
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-wmd.html
    >
    > WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - The White House confirmed today that the search
    > in Iraq for the banned weapons it had cited as justifying the war that
    > ousted Saddam Hussein has been quietly ended after nearly two years,
    > with no evidence of their existence.
    >
    > That means that the conclusions of an interim report last fall by the
    > leader of the weapons hunt, Charles A. Duelfer, will stand. That report
    > undercut prewar administration contentions that Iraq possessed
    > biological and chemical weapons, was building a nuclear capability and
    > might share weapons with Al Qaeda. A White House spokesman, Scott
    > McClellan, insisted today that the war was justified. He rejected the
    > suggestion that the administration's credibility had been gravely
    > wounded in ways that could weaken its future response to perceived
    > threats.
    >
    > The administration appeared to be dropping today even the suggestion
    > that banned weapons might be deeply buried or well hidden in Iraq. Mr.
    > McClellan said that President Bush had already concluded, after the
    > October release of an interim report from Mr. Duelfer, "that the
    > weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence,
    > were not there."
    >
    > Some administration officials have suggested that some arms might have
    > been moved out of Iraq, perhaps to Syria. But Mr. McClellan appeared to
    > rule that out.
    >
    > <snip><end>


    A couple further points on this. First, one from the Financial Times.

    http://tinyurl.com/7ygd4

    ------------
    "According to Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and
    head of the independent Middle East Policy Council, Mr Bush recently asked
    Mr Powell for his view on the progress of the war. ³We're losing,² Mr
    Powell was quoted as saying. Mr Freeman said Mr Bush then asked the
    secretary of state to leave."
    ------------

    Next, it is claimed that we're in a "global war on terror". If that is
    the case, then why is it acceptable for the US to engage in terrorist
    activities: i.e. "the Salvador option"?

    From Billmon (<http://billmon.org/archives/001645.html>):

    ------------
    The Salvador Option

    The Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a
    still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration¹s battle against the
    leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced
    with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or
    supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death
    squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers.
    Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider
    the policy to have been a success . . .

    One military source involved in the Pentagon debate . . . suggests that new
    offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the
    insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is
    giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is
    cost-free. We have to change that equation."

    Newsweek
    ŒThe Salvador Option¹
    January 9, 2005


    ___________________
    On the Afternoon of 10 December 1981, units of the Atlacal Rapid Deployment
    Infantry Battalion (BIRI) arrived in the village of El Mozote, Department
    of Morazan, after a clash with the guerrillas in the vicinity . . .

    Early next morning, 11 December, the soldiers reassembled the entire
    population in the square. They separated the men from the women and
    children and locked everyone up in different groups in the church, the
    convent and various houses.

    During the morning, they proceeded to interrogate, torture and execute the
    men in various locations. Around noon, they began taking the women in
    groups, separating them from their children and machine-gunning them.
    Finally, they killed the children. A group of children who had been locked
    in the convent were machine-gunned through the windows. After exterminating
    the entire population, the soldiers set fire to the buildings.

    UN Truth Commission on El Salvador
    The El Mozote Massacre
    April 1, 1993

    ___________________
    One [Salvadoran] death squad member, when asked about the types of tortures
    used, replied: "Uh, well, the same things you did in Vietnam. We learned
    from you. We learned from you the means, like blowtorches in the armpits,
    shots in the balls. But for the "toughest ones" ‹ that is, those who resist
    these other tortures ‹ "we have to pop their eyes out with a spoon. You
    have to film it to believe it, but boy, they sure sing."

    Raymond Bonner
    Weakness and Deceit
    June, 1984

    ___________________
    On Monday, 24 March 1980, the Archbishop of San Salvador, Monsignor Oscar
    Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez, was celebrating mass in the Chapel of the
    Hospital de la Divina Providencia when he was killed by a professional
    assassin who fired a single .22 or .223 calibre bullet from a red,
    four-door Volkswagen vehicle. The bullet hit its mark, causing the
    Archbishop's death from severe bleeding.

    Former Major Roberto D'Aubuisson gave the order to assassinate the
    Archbishop and gave precise instructions to members of his security
    service, acting as a "death squad", to organize and supervise the
    assassination.

    UN Truth Commission on El Salvador
    Death Squad Assassinations: Archbishop Romero
    April 1, 1993

    ___________________
    Romero was assassinated in the middle of conducting a mass. At his funeral,
    in front of the cathedral where his body now lies, army snipers opened fire
    on a weeping crowd of 100,000, killing 40.

    Frontline
    El Salvador: Payback
    October 12, 2004

    ___________________
    One especially horrid incident from one conflict involved the rape and
    murder of three US Roman Catholic nuns and a lay worker by National Guard
    troops in El Salvador in 1980. Last week, the New York Times reported that
    four Salvadoran troops, serving 30-year prison terms for the crime, have
    implicated top commanders of the Salvadoran Army as ordering the executions
    .. . .

    A New York-based human rights group is demanding the US government
    investigate the incident again, to determine why a former head of the
    Salvadoran National Guard, Colonel Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, was
    allowed to come to the United States and settle in Florida.

    Voice of America
    New Developments in the Salvadoran Nuns Murder
    April 15, 1998

    ___________________
    On the night of November 16, 1989, the unthinkable happened. Twenty six
    members of the Salvadoran military ‹ nineteen of whom were trained at the
    U.S. Army School of the Americas ‹ raided the Jesuit residence at the UCA,
    pulled Fr. Cortina's six Jesuit brothers and two women co-workers from
    their beds, and brutally murdered them in front of the rectory.

    Seattle University
    Jesuit Brother of Slain Martyrs
    Builds Local Support for Children
    Disappeared during the El Salvador Civil War
    February 14, 2001

    ___________________
    The Reagan administration repeatedly insisted that the Salvadoran
    government and armed forces were not responsible for the violence . . . As
    President Reagan himself declared in a speech . . . in July 1983, "Much of
    the violence there - whether from the extreme right or left - is beyond the
    control of the government." A month later, Abrams (Elliot Abrams, the head
    of the State Department's human rights bureau) insisted . . . it was
    "unfair" to blame the military for the violence because "we really don't
    know who the death squads are."

    Raymond Bonner
    Weakness and Deceit
    June, 1984

    ___________________
    During 1982 and 1983, approximately 8,000 civilians a year were being
    killed by government forces. Although the figure is less than in 1980 and
    1981, targeted executions as well as indiscriminate killings nonetheless
    remained the policy of the military and internal security forces, part of
    what Professor William Stanley of the University of New Mexico has
    described as a "strategy of mass murder" designed to terrorize the civilian
    population as well as opponents of the government.

    U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
    El Salvador
    February 22, 2000

    ___________________
    Rufina Amaya, 60, is the sole survivor of the [El Mozote] massacre, in
    which four of her five children and her husband perished. Her fingers
    fidget as she recalls darting from a line of women who were about to be
    shot, and creeping into a bush. She stayed immobile for hours, recognizing
    her children's voices crying ''Mamita, they're killing us!'' as they were
    bayoneted.

    Although she has never received aid of any kind from the government, Rufina
    says what she really wants is for the perpetrators to ask her forgiveness.
    After 19 years, she holds little hope it will happen. ''Justice isn't about
    vengeance, it's a spiritual recognition,'' she says. ''But God is seeing
    all these things that they deny.''

    Business Week International Edition
    A Murdered Village Comes Back to Life
    March 5, 2001

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Butter is love.

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  18. If they're willing to haul airplanes (it was no secret that they had
    planes) into the middle of the desert and bury them, don't you think it
    is reasonable to suspect that they'd be willing to do the same things
    with chemical weapons?

    But I suppose you need visual proof of that too. Have you ever
    considered that perhaps the guys who are tasked with eliminating that
    kind of stuff don't feel particularly obligated to cater to your
    dumbass whims every day?
     
Loading...
Loading...