A WMD Whoopsadaisy [Archive] - FRED Entertainment

Dr3vil

01-09-2004, 01:26 AM

The administration's back, guess what they didn't find again? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html)

Some Highlights:
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
"This game is still unfolding," he [Powell] told reporters.

He was responding to a study that found Iraq had ended its programs by the mid-1990s and did not pose an immediate threat to the United States before the 2003 war.

[/ QUOTE ]

oooh, and:
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
"We looked at the intelligence assessment process, and we've come to the conclusion that it is broken," author Joseph Cirincione said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."

"It is very likely that intelligence officials were pressured by senior administration officials to conform their threat assessments to pre-existing policies."

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, it's an author speaking, but it's a fairly obvious deduction.

As I've said before, I really would love it if these reports were true, but the more likely reality to my eyes is that the weapons were sold off and now present a far greater threat to the US than they did in Sadam's hands. The fact that they erased their tracks is just a bonus.

Best believe this, the hundreds of dead and soon to be dead U.S. soldiers, and the war's effect on our economy are going to come up again in an election year.

JIM

01-09-2004, 01:37 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
"We looked at the intelligence assessment process, and we've come to the conclusion that it is broken," author Joseph Cirincione said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."
"It is very likely that intelligence officials were pressured by senior administration officials to conform their threat assessments to pre-existing policies."

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, sure...He's not trying to hawk His books or anything.

There's a whole lotta searchin' that has to be done.
It's not over yet. Add to that, The U.N. gave saddam a lot of time to hide and move stuff.
*Cough* Syria *cough*

Dr3vil

01-09-2004, 01:43 AM

Yes, but what was the point in a very costly war (over a hundered billion and nearing 500 American lives), if all the weapons we went there to destroy ended up in the hands of an equally if not more dangerous entity?

Razorback

01-09-2004, 01:45 AM

The answer is simple... if the Iraqi's had nothing then why did they do everything to make people think they did? If they were bluffing then they [censored] up. Also, why did Bill Clinton want to invade Iraq as late as 2000?

If someone pulls out a fake gun and points it at a cop is the cop supposed to wait to see if the gun is real?

RB

JIM

01-09-2004, 02:12 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Yes, but what was the point in a very costly war (over a hundered billion and nearing 500 American lives), if all the weapons we went there to destroy ended up in the hands of an equally if not more dangerous entity?

[/ QUOTE ]
The war is not just about WMD's by the way. If you search one of the threads that "Jack Sparrow" aka "Dirty Jack" started, you see what it's about
As far as weapons, some probably ended up in the hands of another group of morons, some hidden and/or destroyed before we got there. Are "they" more dangerous than saddam's regime? Who knows, I'm certain Spec Ops, CIA, and other as yet to be identified three letter govt. agencies are working on it right now.
"they" might not exist either. Right now, who knows? It's going to take time.

Plus, RB's "fake gun" reference is another good reason.
We could'nt take chances with Saddam. He constantly thumbed His nose at the U.N. resolutions.
For instance, Bin Ladden talked some crazy shit pre 9-11, we did'nt take heed to his declaration of jihad and look at what happened.
Also, Some fallout as a result of the war in Iraq has been to our benefit so far. Libya shit themselves and has supposedly stopped their nuclear weapon program. Brits helped with that one too, they intercepted a shipment of vital components to that program.
Iran also changed their tune somewhat in regards to their nuke programs as well. But that's another story.
There's a lot at stake here. I think we're going all out while we are in the region With good reason.

Dr3vil

01-09-2004, 02:22 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
If someone pulls out a fake gun and points it at a cop is the cop supposed to wait to see if the gun is real?

[/ QUOTE ]
When his fellow officer's badgering him, telling him the gun's fake or otherwise poses no threat, yes.

It's not as if this was an unforeseeable outcome, half the nation thought the war was a really bad idea going into it, many arguing just these points: that intelligence indacating he had weapons was woefully inadequate and the cost of discovering the truth would be excessive, especially when a more clear and present danger was posed by the Al Queda network.

If you think you have probable cause, and you show up to find you cause does not exist, then it turns out you were wrong.

EDIT: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The war is not just about WMD's. If you search one of the threads that "Jack Sparrow" aka "Dirty Jack" started, you see what it's about.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, can you give me a nutshell synopsis? Because, for the life of me, I never heard another good reason why this was the best way to expend our resources.

JIM

01-09-2004, 02:38 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Well, can you give me a nutshell synopsis? Because, for the life of me, I never heard another good reason why this was the best way to expend our resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a search button, use it.

Edit: Actually, I'm pretty sure you posted in some of those threads. You don't remember them?

ILovePapaSmurf

01-09-2004, 02:44 AM

Someone needs to retract those claws!

JIM

01-09-2004, 02:49 AM

Meeeeow! Roaaaarr!!!
/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

ILovePapaSmurf

01-09-2004, 02:50 AM

Ohhh Baby! /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Dr3vil

01-09-2004, 10:22 AM

Oh sure I could wade through a bunch of crappy threads, but ipso facto justification in any form just isn't terribly enticing. Findings like the above only really have significance to the election year marketing frenzy that will ultimately decide the presidency, not our leisurely critical discussions on the matter.

EDIT: 3 Stars, "I'm King of the World, MA!"

chasm4u

01-09-2004, 11:53 AM

I dont think any of this really matters.

What does really matter though is gettin laid and gettin high! If everyone in politics just got laid and high all the time this world would be a better place! /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

ILovePapaSmurf

01-09-2004, 11:58 AM

As Bill Learned back in the Lewinsky days, sex isn't always the answer.

Efexeye

01-09-2004, 12:00 PM

Gee, that's an intelligent idea. This world would be great if a bunch of hippies ran it- all kinds of stuff would get done! I enjoy my recreational time as much as anyone else, but, that statement you made above is simply ignorant and immature, as well as unrealistic and stupid. There has to be a balance- all play is as bad as all work.

chasm4u

01-09-2004, 01:42 PM

HOLY HELL! If people dont stop taking things so serious there gonna have heartattaacs and die before their time!

If that is even possible!

Razorback

01-09-2004, 01:47 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Oh sure I could wade through a bunch of crappy threads, but ipso facto justification in any form just isn't terribly enticing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So facts mean nothing?

RB

Efexeye

01-09-2004, 03:50 PM

What are you, 16 years old?

Razorback

01-09-2004, 04:01 PM

I am 17. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

RB

Efexeye

01-09-2004, 05:27 PM

I was talking to chasm4u....we all know you are a college student, RB.

ILovePapaSmurf

01-09-2004, 05:33 PM

You know, this might come as a shock, but he was totally joking.

Efexeye

01-09-2004, 05:47 PM

Thanks. I got it.

Razorback

01-10-2004, 12:51 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
we all know you are a college student, RB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just a genius teen. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

RB

Dr3vil

01-10-2004, 10:45 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
So facts mean nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Facts have no inherent significance, no, but they do in so far as they pertain to decision making. Deciding whether the war in Iraq was a good or bad idea is at this point irrelevant. The general populace may be concerned with whether it was a "just" or "unjust" war and whether, because of that, Bush is a "good" or "evil" man, but mass determinations are in largest part the result of marketing, not discussion.

If you're discussing politics on an individual basis the pertinent question isn't "should we have done it?" there's no choice that can be associated with that determination, it's "what the hell do we do know?"

To that end, I'd be fine discussing the war as a further example of how essentially every Bush policy has had a detrimental net effect on our economy, but since we've been sufficiently crippled to the point that further war is far from a likely scenario, how the war reflects on Bush's decision making has become rather irrelevant. Maybe if we were steamrolling on into Syria or Iran I'd be willing to dig some threads up, but we have a steady flow of troops comming home in bodybags taking that issue, thankfully, off the table.

The war may have been right or wrong, right now it's just over.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I am just a genius teen. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ] That makes two of us, /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

ratm1966

01-10-2004, 12:32 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
To that end, I'd be fine discussing the war as a further example of how essentially every Bush policy has had a detrimental net effect on our economy, but since we've been sufficiently crippled to the point that further war is far from a likely scenario, how the war reflects on Bush's decision making has become rather irrelevant. Maybe if we were steamrolling on into Syria or Iran I'd be willing to dig some threads up, but we have a steady flow of troops comming home in bodybags taking that issue, thankfully, off the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I am at a loss here. Just how has every decision made by President Bush been detrimental to our economy? Unemployement is the lowest it has been in 14 months and even though the Dow dropped off on Friday, it is still sitting at well over 10,000. A lot of factors went into the dive the economy took in the first half of President Bush's first four years and none of them were his decisions. It is his decisions on the tax cuts and other economic issues that are causing the economy to rebound.

Now, as far as the war goes, I am a member of the Armed Services and I support the Commander-N-Chief's decision 100%. It was a tough decision for him to send our military into harms way, but it was a needed decision. Freedom isn't free. There is a high price to pay. We paid it for our freedom, and we have paid for the freedom of others. That is why our country is so great. The price we have paid for the freedom of the Iraqi people has been light compared to past history, so I would say President Bush made the right decision. Same goes for Afganistan. I just had two people I know, and am stationed with, hit a land mine there this past week. Luckily, they were in an armored Hummer, so they weren't injured. Does that change my opinion on President Bush's decision to go there? No, it doesn't. They are doing their job and that entails risk.

The Profession of Arms is a dangerous profession, but it is an honorable one. The inherent risk to those of us in that profession can be injury and even death, but it is a profession we chose to take up. People complain every day when another soldier, sailor, airmen, or marine is killed keeping a people free, but that is what they are there for. Yes, we don't want to see anyone die, but that is the risk we all take to give you the right to say what you want to say.

Just remember one thing, if it wasn't for our early leaders making decisions like what President Bush had to make, this country might not be free today. And, if it wasn't for decisions by other leaders to send forces to help us gain our independence, we might not be free today.

JIM

01-10-2004, 03:25 PM

Right on Ratm.
Well said.

Go read the "Get 'em while they're hot" thread Dr.evil.

Razorback

01-10-2004, 04:26 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Facts have no inherent significance, no, but they do in so far as they pertain to decision making. Deciding whether the war in Iraq was a good or bad idea is at this point irrelevant. The general populace may be concerned with whether it was a "just" or "unjust" war and whether, because of that, Bush is a "good" or "evil" man, but mass determinations are in largest part the result of marketing, not discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh, I get where you are going with this. Well said.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
To that end, I'd be fine discussing the war as a further example of how essentially every Bush policy has had a detrimental net effect on our economy, but since we've been sufficiently crippled to the point that further war is far from a likely scenario, how the war reflects on Bush's decision making has become rather irrelevant. Maybe if we were steamrolling on into Syria or Iran I'd be willing to dig some threads up, but we have a steady flow of troops comming home in bodybags taking that issue, thankfully, off the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree at all. There is nothing to indicate that we are crippled, incapable of waging more wars, or that our bad economy was the fault of Bush. However, if we follow your point about facts having very little meaning then you can say whatever you want. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

RB

Dr3vil

01-11-2004, 12:25 PM

The U.S. army is overextended as it is and keeping Al Queda from taking defacto control in Iraq has become a full time job, I'm just saying the signs that Bush wants to invade some more countries have dwindled, seemingly in reaction to this.

And with so many competing factors, merely looking at a static state of the economy isn't enough to evaluate Bush's impact on it, that involves evaluating his policies and whether they are sound in theory to begin with. Simple pragmatism in economics can endorse virtually anything as there are ups and downs in every policy.

The policy in question: hella tax cuts. Capitalism works through capital and the people with more capital, often the people who inherit capital, usually do better. As well, this advatage only increases as those who have it do better. This system does not naturally lend itself to stability. While the guiding hand of competition successfully forces people to produce effeciently, success over competition allows individuals or corportate entities to produce only as efficiently as is profitable to them (why we have billionaires and $100 copies of Windows).

However, the government can add competition back to this equation through redistribution. The U.S. governemnt does this to corporations by (however rarely) breaking them into smaller ones, and it does this to the job market through public schools and other public services that give capital to the lower class, forcing both them and those they compete with to contribute more to society.

Without this redistribution, without economic controls, we end up with things like 6% unemployment. While a dearth of economic restraints is helping companies triumph over their competition (which how the Dow's blue chips broke 10,000), this same triumph is allowing them to charge higher prices, hire fewer workers, and produce less overall.

Thus we can see that the market pickup incited by tax cuts would never help the job market. Moreover, the long term consequences of a government which will not incite competition are less than rosey. Without reigns, markets get out of control, and tend to implode (the Great Depression is most extreme example). Taxes and smart spending will provide the redistribution needed to get people back in the job market, to reinvigorate our economy with competition. From a logistic standpoint, tax cuts won't work in the long term.

Facts are necessary for any form of discussion to take place, but not all facts are equal.

Razorback

01-11-2004, 02:53 PM

I hate to say it, but there is a lot of useless language in your response. Also, you seem to speak as if you have some empiric knowledge of these matters when you are only dealing in hypotheses.

More importantly, the economy was tanking in 2000. Long before tax cuts, nearly a year before any of the current Administrations policies were in effect. The economy is making a turn for the better now... 3 years after the Administration came into power.

While I agree that tax cuts by themselves will not have a total impact on unemployment, I would like to see if your comments carry much weight six months from now.

RB

JIM

01-11-2004, 03:14 PM

Evil, are you a professional double-talker or something?
Maybe a spin doctor?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The U.S. army is overextended as it is and keeping Al Queda from taking defacto control in Iraq has become a full time job,

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you getting this info. from?
If the U.S. Army was as overextended as you say they are, they're would have been a draft already.
At last count, they're doing pretty good with what we have.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I'm just saying the signs that Bush wants to invade some more countries have dwindled, seemingly in reaction to this

[/ QUOTE ]

What? "seemingly"? In fact, it's because other countires in the region have seen what happened to Iraq, and they are beginning to smarten up.
Take Libya and their now defunct nuke weapon program for example. Those countires only respond to military action, not resolutions, not a chat at the table with tea and scones.

Zens_7s

01-12-2004, 03:02 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Evil, are you a professional double-talker or something?
Maybe a spin doctor?

[/ QUOTE ] He is a philosophy major. Does that explain it? It does for me. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

ratm1966

01-12-2004, 11:15 PM

I think the reason why the rhetoric about invading other countries is dying off is because those countries are now appearing to cooperate. They seem to be getting the message that Bush put out; get rid of your WMD and stop supporting terrorists or we will remove you from power.

Dr3vil

01-13-2004, 10:36 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I hate to say it, but there is a lot of useless language in your response.

[/ QUOTE ]I know, I'm used to reading complicated language after Aristotle et alli, problem is now I have a habit of using overly complicated language to explain relatively simple matters.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Also, you seem to speak as if you have some empiric knowledge of these matters when you are only dealing in hypotheses.

[/ QUOTE ]What empirical knowledge would you require? Economics' existence as a science is more than slightly overstated. Pure empirical evidence isn't always sufficient because the same evidence can be legitimately used to support competing theories.

Case in point, we're in a worse position economically than before Bush came into office (using deficit size as the determinate factor in this statement). Clinton let the economy get too hot (I'd argue more spending would have helped cool it), setting up a year 2000 bust. The economy would be bad no matter what Bush did.

The question is whether his action minimized damage or made a bad situation worse. I'm willing to get behind any theory which best explains how universally available empirical evidence, that is the nation we’re all living in, came into place.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
While I agree that tax cuts by themselves will not have a total impact on unemployment, I would like to see if your comments carry much weight six months from now.

[/ QUOTE ]The one thing that makes Economics somewhat of a science is that its theories can have a principle of falsifiability. Accordingly, I'll be glad to go back to the drawing board if unemployment dropped below 5% (unrelated to people who lowered unemployment simply because they stopped looking for jobs).

Until that point, I'd be equally willing to redirect my vote if someone could make a logic argument that explained:
A) How we got here, including the effect of Bush's policy as well as Clinton's, and
B) How tax cuts and rest of Bush's economic policies could remedy this situation.

Rational explanations for widely available evidence are equally available to anyone with intelligence and, fortunately, no two explanations based on logic are utterly irreconcilable, it just takes discussion. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Razorback

01-14-2004, 12:30 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I know, I'm used to reading complicated language after Aristotle et alli, problem is now I have a habit of using overly complicated language to explain relatively simple matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The economy would be bad no matter what Bush did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is something that I have been saying for years. I also don't believe that there is much Bush can do to better the economy. If the economy becomes healthier it will have little to do with tax cuts, Bush, or Bill Clinton.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The question is whether his action minimized damage or made a bad situation worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on which side of the political fence you lean.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I'll be glad to go back to the drawing board if unemployment dropped below 5% (unrelated to people who lowered unemployment simply because they stopped looking for jobs).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there is no data kept that reveals the percentage of people who have stopped looking for work... at least nothing official, yet. So there is a very good chance that around election time, next year, that the number will drop below 5%.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
How we got here, including the effect of Bush's policy as well as Clinton's

[/ QUOTE ]

Greenspan and zero-value dot coms that artificially inflated the market.

RB

Dr3vil

01-14-2004, 11:12 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The question is whether his action minimized damage or made a bad situation worse.

[/ QUOTE ] It depends on which side of the political fence you lean.

[/ QUOTE ]Defacto, yes, but ideally I think it should be investigated in way that at least attempts to resemble deductive reasoning.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I also don't believe that there is much Bush can do to better the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]I can respect that, fact is there's nothing much Bush could do and there isn't much he or the next president can do in another 4 years, our nation has entered a distict "bad shit" period. The problem is that the long view, the time frame in which smart policy can impact our economy for the better, is the sum of many four year periods. This makes the process that much harder because the long term impact of policy needs to be evaluated in the short term, else the next four years will push real economic recovery back by just that long.

From that I realize the right wing view is a much easier sell. If the validity of tax increases as a long term remedy is even questionable, it stands no chance of outweighing the certain and immediate detriment of a tax increase. Economics doesn't offer free lunch, though, tax cuts now are merely a loan against future prosperity. The current tax situation is inciting debt crises state to state, our roads and schools aren't going to improve, and without the economic control of scalled taxation on large businesses, more of them are going surpass competition to a plateau which allows them higher prices and fewer, cheaper workers. Sadly, the only answer Bush has to this last problem is importing Mexicans desperate enough to work minimum wage.

The real answers to these problems aren't pleasant, they involve a bigger cut of your paycheck and don't even promise a 100% chance of success (there's always gross misappropriation), but if Babylon's any example, the civilizations that only listen to what they want to hear don't last.

Razorback

01-15-2004, 02:05 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The problem is that the long view, the time frame in which smart policy can impact our economy for the better, is the sum of many four year periods. This makes the process that much harder because the long term impact of policy needs to be evaluated in the short term, else the next four years will push real economic recovery back by just that long.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using way too much logic there... did you have an economics professor who wasn't a total hack? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Sadly, the only answer Bush has to this last problem is importing Mexicans desperate enough to work minimum wage.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had time to argue with you about this one... but I guess I don't care enough that you need to do a bit more research about this subject to correct you. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The real answers to these problems aren't pleasant, they involve a bigger cut of your paycheck and don't even promise a 100% chance of success (there's always gross misappropriation), but if Babylon's any example, the civilizations that only listen to what they want to hear don't last.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sky is falling.

RB