Man, "Shit or Go Blind" time

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by B_big dirigible, Apr 20, 2007.

  1. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's a good leftie to do?

    "The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment."

    The Spectator.co.uk
     
  2. onion

    onion New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.K
    Political chat on this site..wow

    Im very left wing , but so were some bad people in the past , whether that makes my opinions irrational or not I do not know.
     
  3. thecokecankid

    thecokecankid New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    thats farfetched, that Iran, Syria and North Korea are each doing their third of a joint project.

    but its old as in terms of being in the news, the speculation that whatva saddam had was shifted to Syria.
     
  4. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence

    The article actually shows that Dubya's invasion has made the ME more unstable and catalysed nuclear development in Syria and Iran. Iraq was bombed so those nations are eager to have a nuclear deterrent to stop the same thing happening to them so it would seem.
     
  5. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    Unsubstantiated claims and more missing "intelligence" reports? I'm going to be a little harder to sell than that.

    I don't mind keeping an open mind and seeing what develops, but it seems that if there were even a shred of truth to it, bushco would be all over it. They've certainly explained away bigger mistakes and remained unruffled, I can't see why they wouldn't be publishing something that would vindicate them all over the world, if there were any merit to it at all. I'm pretty skeptical.
     
  6. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    You've linked to "part 3" of a longer article, which begins here. His story is nearly a year old, having been reported at least as far back as June 2006.
     
  7. headbang8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,272
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Munich (BY, DE)
    I'm with Zora on this one, Big D. I couldn't see the administration overlooking ANY shred of evidence that Saddam had WMDs. It may make them look incompetent, but substantially less incompetent than invading a country for nothing.

    Still, let's be fair. The Spectator is a respected publication. This is at least as credible as all the 9/11 conspiracy theories afloat.

    Come back, W. All is forgiven.
     
  8. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    I doubt it. All that nukes do for you is make you a target. During the cold war, the strategic weapons were aimed at targets which themselves had strategic weapons. Everybody else was on the sidelines.

    Unfortunately, the UN gave a certain cachet to possession of nukes. For years there was the Nuclear Club, and there was everybody else. That meant that the way to "be somebody" was to acquire nukes. That was the only motivation for India to do it. It didn't do India much practical good, in the sense of getting it Security Council status (if that counts as "any good"), nor did it work for, say, Israel. But after India, of course Pakistan had to get 'em, not for cachet but for defense, real or imagined, against India. The wars between Pakistan and India were disturbing because, although they were fought with Korean War-level technology, the casualties were relatively high, implying that they were both serious about doing some real damage to each other. But the bigger problem for everyone else was that Pakistan had the Khan network which spread the skills out to all the world's little shithole power-wannabees.

    But still, nukes are of little practical benefit. One nuke isn't a deterrernt. Neither is two. Or ten. The big guys - the ones who will certainly weigh in if any "small" nuclear war starts - have tens of thousands. Those might be deterrents. A small number doesn't make anyone safe, it makes them targets, and targets aren't particularly safe.
     
  9. Lordpendragon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,880
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think that the cat is out of the bag so to speak.

    Where we will end up, I don't know. But those who feel threatened by the US can now get something that will really hurt - they know they wouldn't beat you in a full out contest, but they saw how much 9/11 confused and hurt you and they also know that if you throw the first punch, the world will not tolerate you.

    From where I sit, the question is - does the World need the US more or does the US need the world? It used to be the former, but now it is very close to the latter. This is why in other posts I have always advocate a change in US foreign policy and attitude.
     
  10. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's a very unsatisfactory article. There's no corroboration of any of the claims. If these huge bunkers were under the Euphrates, they'll still be there. Even if they were demolished, there should be huge chunks of reinforced concrete there. The advanced countries have radar which could spot such remnants easily. So, are they there, or not? No word.

    The info about the radiation is not too useful. If someone was stockpiling radioactive waste, with some vague plan to eventually make a radiological bomb (a convention bomb wrapped in radioisotopes, but not an atomic bomb), that could be all that the radioactive traces show. Radioactive wastes are much "hotter" than the fissionables used in bombs, for technical reasons which I won't get into at the moment. Either is possible.

    I'm not at all sure how photos from spy satellites can show that centrifuges are operating in Syria. The Manhattan Project used six different techniques for concentrating U235 - they'd thought of six, and decided to develop them all. Germany tried only one, gas diffusion of uranium hexafluoride, and the problems of handling fluorine gas were just too discouraging. Fluorine does annoying things, like eat through glass. The centrifuge method is one of the preferred modern techniques. The details are still classified, or were last time I looked. It's not actually a centrifuge, like the little things in high school chemistry labs, but a mass centrifuge, which is more like a cyclotron or particle accellerator. But in any case, these things would normally just be put in a big building, and one big building looks much like another from space. A real particle accelerator can be huge, and that would be visible. They're conventionally buried in concrete tunnels under, say, cow pastures, as the leakage radiation doesn't bother cows as much as it would bother suburbanites. But although buried, construction of such a thing would have been visible. But again, we get no solid information from the article.

    Nevertheless, the logical puzzle remains. If the story is substantially correct - and as yet there's little reason to believe that - we could expect both right- and left-wingers to start acting like jumping beans. But which way will each jump? That's no more obvious to me than it was to the article's writer.
     
  11. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Left wing" is far too general a concept. The left wingers of my formative years would have spit on the feeble castratoes calling themselves left wingers today. Those were the "support any friend, oppose any foe" guys, not the type to wave white flags wherever they go, à la Jack Murtha or Harry Reid. The left wing of the Kennedy years would have been 110% behind the plan to free the Middle East from medieval thralldom. The right wing of that era was relatively isolationist. Everybody seems to have essentially switched hats since then.

    Personally, I thought those left wingers were pretty good. Their modern namesakes, I'm afraid, are another story.

    Hence the terminological difficulties. When one says "left wing", does one mean people willing to fight for what's worthwhile, or does one mean a gaggle of surrender-monkeys?
     
  12. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that's old. The excitement among the Russian technicians in Iraq, the satellite photos of large numbers of Russian trucks crossing the border into Syria, all known for years. And the significance of these things remains speculative to this day. But if we have bunkers, radiation signatures, and such shit, it may not remain mere speculation.
     
  13. rawbone8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    2,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
  14. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    Holy shit!


    [FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]National Existence is political order experienced by men of the nation as a Rise to Being. Its opposite is a replacement of political order experienced by men, women, children and slaves as a Fall from Being. This Redirection in the experience of the Terms of Being (Self, Society, G-d and World) results in the collapse of Self into Society and all into World. The goal, wittingly or otherwise: a World State. [/FONT]

    [FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]SANE opposes this Redirection and its manifestations: chants of Racism, Democracy, Equal Rights, Human Rights, Women's Rights, Animal Rights, and the always growing list of what is the Single Concept: Certainty/Uncertainty = Science/Open Society = World. To understand this reciprocal and how it affects a convergence of factors bent on the destruction of National Existence is to be SANE. [/FONT]

    SANE is the first step back into the Present. And it is this step "back" to National Existence that will secure the present and protect the future.



    Well, I guess it's a great organisation of you're a white man and enjoy being a bigot. Other than that, it's the ravings of a madman.

    PLONK.
     
  15. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    I find it funny that most of the persons involved in this subject are now banned or no longer posting here.
     
  16. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    546
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    Gosh gee whillickers, do ya think?!?

    What a novel idea. People wanting to shot back when they get shot at. Who'da thunk it.
     
  17. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    I find it funny that most of the advisors who originally egged GWB into invading and occupying Iraq have been fired or moved on to other jobs.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted