FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Last secret shipment of enriched uranium leaves Iraq (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Last secret shipment of enriched uranium leaves Iraq
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
OK Juxtapose, yellowcake is a form of uranium concentrate, which is a needed step toward producing uranium enriched enough to support continued fission reaction.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
quote:
But this is splitting hairs--yellowcake is only obtained as a first step toward producing nuclear weapons or fuel for nuclear reactors.
Here's the thing, though. The invasion was sold to the public as necessary to preempt an urgent threat. I don't really consider possession of yellowcake the kind of evidence that compels immediate military action. It certainly would not have resulted in a "mushroom cloud," as we were told.

So when you incorrectly call yellowcake "enriched," your audience could understandably see you as trying to lend false legitimacy to the urgency that preceded the invasion. It's important to the discussion that we act in good faith, and perceive each other to do the same. You using correct terminology, even if it seems nit-picky, aids this discussion.

EDITED for punctuation.

[ April 14, 2009, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Orincoro, perhaps you forget that the ground troops who first entered Iraq had to wear biological hazard equipment, which made the situation especially difficult in the hot environment. All the embedded reporters commented on this--they had to endure the hardship as well.

What's your point? I'm well aware that it was an ill-conceived idea.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Again,

Knowing what has been pointed out in this thread, please explain why that yellowcake, which was not useful and was under the control of the UN, justified an invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
So it appears that some of what was stored at the Tuwaitha site in Iraq was not just yellowcake concentrate, but actual enriched nuclear material. Natural uranium is not "highly radioactive." And natural uranium does not produce "nuclear waste," since it does not have a high enough percentage of fissionable uranium isotopes to sustain a fission reaction. Iraq did at one point have nuclear reactors at some stage of completion, when the Israeli bombers wiped them out. So there was more than yellowcake at Tuwaitha. [/QB]

Can I see your degree in nuclear physics please? Because your logical extrapolations of the information contained in a news article, written by a non-scientist, are not at all credible. Simply Ron, you don't have enough information or experience in this matter to know exactly what that information means. Neither does the reporter- so stop pretending.

To attempt a preemption of your restating the case with no new information- you don't know what "nuclear waste" means. You don't know what the reporter means by "highly radioactive," you don't know what he means by "nuclear waste," you don't know what it takes to create fissionable uranium, and you have no clue, absolutely none, as to how far along Iraq was in that process 20 years or more ago. You don't know these things because the reporter doesn't know- he is reporting, he is not a scientist, and he is not an authority on a scientific topic. He reports facts, and the facts that can be ethically reported are in the article- and in fact, he qualifies this statement (which you are invoking as hard proof) by clarifying that it is HEARSAY- NOT AN ESTABLISHED FACT. Your conclusions are outside of the facts, based on information quoted from an article that makes this clear, and so they are highly, terminally unreliable. You simply don't know. Perhaps if you spent some time getting down to your research, bypassing the tertiary and secondary sources to try and find out exactly what was there, and when, you might know something, but even then- the information your talking about may be secret, which means you can imply nothing about it, its consequences, or its meaning.

I really have no problem with you not knowing. I don't know either. But I don't claim these things as if they are true, or even likely true. I don't claim that I know what Iraq had, because I don't know- but for you to act as if the information contained in a few news articles proves or even supports a theory contrary to the repeated conclusions of all the major news agencies, and every investigative reporter that has taken on this subject, makes you look nutty.

To go further and extract far-reaching meaning from the word choices of a lay reporter is irresponsible, and moreover lazy, and not a little foolish. I should say you ought to know better, but I'm not at all confident that anyone has ever taught you anything useful about ethical research or reporting.

[ April 14, 2009, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
This has gone on for three pages?

Much like the stores themselves, which date back to at least 1991, I have to ask... Has anything new come into the picture that demands such intense action?...

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Yes, Snopes was wrong, and is unreliable. Snopes is controlled by a liberal, pro-Democrat husband-and-wife team with no expertise in investigative reporting, who are notorious for putting liberal propaganda above facts, and affirming anything critical of conservative positions.

So, because you slurped up the BS in a chain email about snopes, you now put yourself against both Snopes and Factcheck.

This gets better by the minute! So, is Factcheck wrong about snopes, Ron? Are neither of them as credible as chain emails with bad citations, in your mind?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jebus202
Member
Member # 2524

 - posted      Profile for jebus202   Email jebus202         Edit/Delete Post 
In answer to your question, Sterling: http://xkcd.com/386/
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
(Someone should really back this thread up for future reference. Rarely does one see quite so much ... quality)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
(Someone should really back this thread up for future reference. Rarely does one see quite so much ... quality)

Done.

quote:
Originally posted by jebus202:
In answer to your question, Sterling: http://xkcd.com/386/

Yes, I understand the temptation... But how many coats of pink paint does a fence need before it can be categorically described as possessing the quality "pink in color"?

How many links does someone have to post that either do not support or openly contradict their points before one can just accept that whether or not they "get the last word", they've pretty much defined themselves and the quality of their arguments?

This is beginning to feel like turning a firehose on someone who's already beating their head against the wall...

(Other strained metaphors/similies available as required...)

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Way ahead of you, dude. I've saved everything.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
I think people just approach Ron the wrong way. Look at him the right way and he's hilarious.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I believe I understand how Trixie feels when I dangle string just out of her reach.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Now I have a mental image of a cat batting at some string and going "gooooodddddddddd snopes is such CRAP"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Ron, I'm sorry to scar your ego, but you should at least be aware that a serious publisher does not request compensation for publishing a book- this is at least an indication that your book is not good enough to be published, there is not enough demand for such a book, etc. There is a reason why a reputable publishing house will not take it- and although your book was "approved" by this company, the fact that you contributed to its costs indicates that their faith in your product is not strong.


quote:

I have probably already made back nearly all the money I invested, after only three months on the market. I will know in a week or two.

Called it. And now that your social circle has bought the book, the publisher will quietly put it out of print to save themselves the bother, and move on to the next guy with a great idea. You ain't the first, and you certainly won't be the last. Try factoring in the amount of time you have spent advertising the book, because a real publisher would do that too. Were there any signings? Any ads? Any release party? Any books in stores? Anything? Tell us, I'm actually quite interested to hear how much time you've invested.

Your book has not been reviewed, it is sold from a website that appears to be just shy of 10 years out of fashion- when will you know that you've arrived?

I'm surprised nobody's called you on this yet. You're way over the line. Whatever you think about his political opinions, Ron is consistently polite and courteous. I don't think it's possible to disagree with him more than I do, but we all owe him the same civility he gives us.

Being passionately wrong doesn't make him a bad person. Ron, if you're ever in NY, we'll get beers at a gay bar.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
he'd break out in hives just going near a gay bar.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Its perplexing to see someone so fiercely devoted to a particular view that they are willing to defend it to the death even in the faces when mountains of contradictory evidence.

I don't think I've ever seen Ron back down on any claim he's made, No matter how compelling the evidence against him, he will not be compelled to change his mind. I tend to think that if Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and Rice all came out on national TV and confessed saying "There never were any WMDs, we knew it, we lied because we wanted to invade Iraq, kill babies and steal oil" -- Ron would still find a way to dismiss it.

If God himself spoke from heaven and said "Bush is evil liar, there were never any WMD and Bush knew it all along", Ron would still find a way to keep believing.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Snopes wasn't totally accurate about the Golden Compass I think.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Its perplexing to see someone so fiercely devoted to a particular view that they are willing to defend it to the death even in the faces when mountains of contradictory evidence.

I don't think I've ever seen Ron back down on any claim he's made, No matter how compelling the evidence against him, he will not be compelled to change his mind. I tend to think that if Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and Rice all came out on national TV and confessed saying "There never were any WMDs, we knew it, we lied because we wanted to invade Iraq, kill babies and steal oil" -- Ron would still find a way to dismiss it.

If God himself spoke from heaven and said "Bush is evil liar, there were never any WMD and Bush knew it all along", Ron would still find a way to keep believing.

But he's not exactly alone in that. What is it, a quarter of the country still thinks Bush was a good president? The Republican party tends to attract the delusional -- I've never seen anything like this kind of slavish worship given to the Democrats.

Hell, OSC still spends his days rhapsodizing about Bush and warning about how Obama's going to destroy the world... where Democrats are already criticizing Obama for enacting wiretapping legislation that's worse than Bush. I'm rather happy that Democrats are willing to turn on each other for their principles, but it gives them a hell of a weakness in elections.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
I've never seen anything like this kind of slavish worship given to the Democrats.

[ROFL]

And I consider myself a Democrat and am cautiously approving of most of what Obama has done so far. But seriously, if you've missed the slavish Democrat love, you're just looking in the wrong places.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
I dunno, folks, maybe the thread can speak for itself from this point on. Not sure I see the point of endless dogpiling on Ron.

Not that I have any standing to call for an end to it, or that I've walked the walk before.

But enough is all we need, or something.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
And I consider myself a Democrat and am cautiously approving of most of what Obama has done so far. But seriously, if you've missed the slavish Democrat love, you're just looking in the wrong places.

I consider myself an independent who supported Obama in the election and now angrily oppose half of what he's doing. There is some Obama worship, but the reason why that's startling at all is because Democrats don't usually get worshiped.

I can't even mention Pelosi or Reid without sneering. Democratic voters hate their spineless Democratic politicans -- conversely, I've heard nothing but thinly veiled desires to suck on Bush's breasts from Republicans throughout the past eight years.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
"I've heard nothing but thinly veiled desires to suck on Bush's breasts from Republicans throughout the past eight years."

Do you really believe this stuff? Do you really honestly think that you've only been exposed to bush worship from conservatives, and nothing that might qualify as grudging support, partial approval, or anything else on the spectrum between suckling and outright disapproval?

Because I don't believe it. You have heard other things from Republicans, unless you've been living under a rock that happens to tune in Sean Hannity.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
I've heard nothing but thinly veiled desires to suck on Bush's breasts from Republicans throughout the past eight years.

Maybe this is true, for you, individually. Maybe for whatever reason this isn't just a creatively blindered observation about republicans and somehow you live in a little pocket of 100% bush support from Republicans. But, I mean, my god, you could just look up statements on this very forum itself from republicans who can't stand bush. Or you could do a little research about how republicans interpret the legacy of Bush.

Here's a hint: Measured by percentage, more russians approve of Stalin's legacy than americans approve of Bush's legacy. Support levels in the low 20's is what we're talking about, here. You have two possibilities: either liberals are over three quarters of all americans (nope) or there's a heaping helping of republicans who gave up the ghost on Bush and have been critical of him and think his administration was not approvable (yup).

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
There is some Obama worship, but the reason why that's startling at all is because Democrats don't usually get worshiped.

It's when you say things like this that I remember how young you are.

Before Bill Clinton made such a spectacular idiot of himself, he certainly got a fair bit of worship. And seriously, have you heard of JFK (and for that matter, RFK)? There are definitely other examples, but those are the ones that absolutely leap to mind.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Clinton was before my time as a politically savvy adult and I only remember him through the lens of a politically disaffected kiddo. I wouldn't even really understand what the deal with Monica was about till years later.

It's actually really hard to try to get a picture of the time, but I pretty much got it all fleshed out back to the 1960's with what is, I hope to be, mostly unbiased information.

And there was certainly a healthy quantity of clinton worship going on.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
I voted against Bush in 2000. Later I came to abhor Gore. After 2001, I began to respect Bush better, and could see he was more intelligent than most people had given him credit for being, and in most cases seemed to take the right positions. He was wrong about many things too, such as the way he underestimated the number of troops needed to pacify Iraq after the conquest. But I saw evidence that he was a man of principled convictions--more so at least than his father had showed himself to be. He certainly deserves better treatment than he has gotten from the rabid hyenas who have so fervently called him a deliberate liar in the past few years (mainly Democrats who wanted to get their guy elected).

The mentions of Clinton-worship, or Democrat-worship, have validity. But with Pres. Obama, it goes much further because he is the first African-American to be elected. To some he is a symbol that America has finally gotten past racism; to some he is effectively a Messiah figure who gives them hope of racism finally being overcome as an obstacle in their own lives.

For whatever reason, race is the difference.

I do not care that he is African-American. What I object to is the fact that he was voted for by too many people who seemed to think they were voting for a pop star, rather than making a responsible choice based on careful attention to whether he was really the best qualified candidate to be president. Perhaps they were encouraged to dismiss the massive amount of negative information about him because of things like Snopes wrongly claiming it was all false, and perhaps they were naive enough to take at face value statements by Obama denying the criticisms--which were in fact mostly valid and documented.

The fact is that virtually every political leader in America and in the world, knows that Obama is inexperienced and a political lightweight, with no real respect even in his own party (despite the required lipservice they may give). America would have been no worse off if Pat Paulsen had been elected.

2008 is the year that democracy failed in America, because of the irresponsibility of the electorate.

[ April 15, 2009, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Given the probity that you've consistently demonstrated (even in this very thread) towards George W Bush and other political figures, I think everyone will take your concerns that much more seriously.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I disagree,Ron. I think it failed 4 years before that. However, that doesn't mean it won't get a chance again. [Big Grin]

I mean, basically you are saying (correct me if I am wrong, please, I am not trying to put phrases in your mouth, just trying to rephrase to make sure I understand) that you have the right to determine if people have done due diligence in their own research, so they can vote for who they believe is best for our country.

If they don't vote for what YOU consider the "right" reasons, then what? Should they not be allowed to vote? This is hardly the first time that this type of issue has been discussed.....as a matter of fact, it's one of the consistent criticisms of a democracy.

But when it's a democrat saying it, there are cries of elitism and favoritism. When a republican saying it people claim it is a conflict between religious views and government.

Living in a democracy means that sometimes you have to live with the results of the election, even if you think the choice made was the wrong one. It doesn't mean that democracy failed, it just means that most of the people who voted think you are worng.

Welcome to my last 8 years, Ron. Funny how we are still here despite it all. I call that democracy's biggest strength......that we can survive mistakes even with chicken little crying the roof is falling. After all, we've been hearing that for the past 100 years. [Big Grin]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Samprimary, there has been some interesting speculation that Clinton may have undergone somewhat of a personality change after his bypass surgery in 2004, which may have allowed some portion of his brain cells to die--an effect that has been observed in others who have undergone the same operation and have gone several minutes without adequate blood flow to the brain.

What caught my attention on this was the a 2008 article by Dr. John McDougall. Here is an excerpt:
quote:
One of the savviest politicians of our generation, known for his wit, charm, and calm under extreme pressure, Bill Clinton appears out of character in the speeches and interviews televised since his bypass surgery September 6, 2004—and his mental deterioration may be accelerating. Remember, this is the president who withstood public impeachment before the entire world for his relationship with Monica Lewinski without once losing control. Now, he is easily angered by hecklers, and makes factual mistakes and racial slurs while aggressively defending his wife’s campaign for presidency. Everyone sees his mental and emotional decline, yet to date, no medical professionals have spoken out about the cause or offered help.

Not a single one—not one bypass surgeon, cardiologist or psychiatrist—has stepped forward in his defense; even though all of them are trained to recognize "post bypass surgery cognitive dysfunction." One of the best-kept secrets in medicine is the brain damage caused during bypass surgery. During my 40 years of medical practice I have never heard a doctor warn a patient before bypass surgery that an expected complication is memory loss. After surgery when the family complains of dad’s fits of anger, I have never heard a doctor admit that personality change is a common consequence of surgery. Yet these well-recognized side effects have been reported in medical journals since 1969.
....

In 2001, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 5 years after bypass surgery 42% of patients showed decline in mental function of approximately 20 percent or more. A study published this year (2008) in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery using MRI testing just after bypass surgery found brain damage in 51% of patients. Three years after their time on the bypass pump, significant permanent reduction in mental capacity was identified in 31% of patients. I am not talking major stroke here; but these patients can't remember names or numbers as they once did, experience sleep disturbances (including nightmares), suffer mood swings, and lose intellectual acuity.

Link to read the whole article: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008other/080412clinton.htm

Unfortunately, this does not let him off for his lapses in moral judgment in reqard to his treatment of interns, which came years before his surgery.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with Ron that President GW Bush is a man of convictions. The problem was that his convictions about many important things were wrong. He was so blinded by his convictions that he could not see what was real, he stubbornly avoided or dismissed information that was contrary to his convictions. Disaster resulted. I don't think he was lying any more than I think that Ron is lying when he does the same thing.

I don't think that "convictions" are necessarily a good attribute in a leader.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I understand uranium has to be sent through centrifuges (hundreds?) of times before you get good weapon's grade material.

How many pages of hatrack does it take to get meaningful material?

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Kmbboots, it was lack of strength of his moral convictions that led the first President Bush to fail to send the American armored divisions on to Baghdad after kicking Saddam's army out of Kuwait, when he had a perfectly legitimate reason to do so. What his son did basically was rectify his father's mistake.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, and the sorts of centrifuges needed are fairly complex to make. Refining uranium requires large industrial capacity and very noticeable activity on a large scale.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Ron, by killing a lot of people? The first President Bush didn't cause sufficient destruction so the second one had to fix it by killing more people?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Kmbboots, it was lack of strength of his moral convictions that led the first President Bush to fail to send the American armored divisions on to Baghdad after kicking Saddam's army out of Kuwait, when he had a perfectly legitimate reason to do so. What his son did basically was rectify his father's mistake.

Yet in his own book, Bush said that Iraq was a quagmire that would cost many, many American lives and probably would remain in conflict despite those sacrifices. It's a shame that by his OWN admission, Bush Jr. didn't even read that book, isn't it?


That was some pretty interesting info on Clinton, regardless if he is suffering from that condition or not. I agree that it doesn't excuse him from previous choices, though.

He was a good president, but kinda a scumbag as a person. He may or may not have deserved to go though impeachment, but once it began he DID deserve to lose his license to practice law.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Kmbboots, perhaps you have forgotten that Saddam's army invaded Kuwait, a U.S. ally, and was very brutal and bloody in its treament of the Kuwaities. Furthermore, this was widely regarded as a first step toward Saddam expanding further to gain control of the region--it looked like Saudi Arabia might be next.

I recall in particular one report by a journalist who went along with the troops as the tanks advanced on Saddam's dug-in troops, in the push to free Kuwait. When U.S. army tanks equipped with bulldozer blades were demolishing the Iraqi dug-in positions at breath-taking speed, and the Iraqi troops were surrendering in droves, one American soldier as he took Iraqis into custody was heard to say, "It is OK, you are safe now." As much as anything else, that highlights for me the significant difference between American soldiers and soldiers of other nations, especially in past history.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Kmbboots, it was lack of strength of his moral convictions that led the first President Bush to fail to send the American armored divisions on to Baghdad after kicking Saddam's army out of Kuwait, when he had a perfectly legitimate reason to do so. What his son did basically was rectify his father's mistake.

What his son did, "basically," is far more complex than that. You're not so stupid Ron, so stop thinking everyone else is.


quote:
008 is the year that democracy failed in America, because of the irresponsibility of the electorate.
Actually, 2000 was the year democracy failed in America- only because it is quite possible that the wrong person was put in office at the end of a flawed election. In 2008, democracy was a success, but you lost. The two things can happen simultaneously- democracy does not depend upon you winning, in order to succeed.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Kmbboots, perhaps you have forgotten that Saddam's army invaded Kuwait, a U.S. ally, and was very brutal and bloody in its treament of the Kuwaities. Furthermore, this was widely regarded as a first step toward Saddam expanding further to gain control of the region--it looked like Saudi Arabia might be next.

I recall in particular one report by a journalist who went along with the troops as the tanks advanced on Saddam's dug-in troops, in the push to free Kuwait. When U.S. army tanks equipped with bulldozer blades were demolishing the Iraqi dug-in positions at breath-taking speed, and the Iraqi troops were surrendering in droves, one American soldier as he took Iraqis into custody was heard to say, "It is OK, you are safe now." As much as anything else, that highlights for me the significant difference between American soldiers and soldiers of other nations, especially in past history.

Perhaps you have forgotten that our original mandate from the UN was to push Saddam out of Kuwait not invade it.

Or perhaps you have forgotten that North Korea invaded South Korea and so we pushed them out as well. MacArthur decided to push the attack and suddenly we found ourselves being shot at by Chinese soldiers (convinced we were going to use North Korea as an invasion point for China. Those soldiers promptly attempted to steamroll us. Through bitter losses we pushed them again behind the border. MacArthur and Truman's differing opinions on what to do next are history.

The doctrine of containment did not magically appear one day Ron, it's based in years of experience that if you're going to fight a defensive war that's good, if you try to turn it into an offensive one that's not necessarily so good.

Maybe back in the days of Bush Sr. we would have had more favorable conditions for our nation building efforts, we'll never know will we? But at least with Bush Sr. we knew exactly what we were getting into, and he went no further than he said he would, even with brand new toys that nobody had really seen in action before.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:

I recall in particular one report by a journalist who went along with the troops as the tanks advanced on Saddam's dug-in troops, in the push to free Kuwait. When U.S. army tanks equipped with bulldozer blades were demolishing the Iraqi dug-in positions at breath-taking speed, and the Iraqi troops were surrendering in droves, one American soldier as he took Iraqis into custody was heard to say, "It is OK, you are safe now." As much as anything else, that highlights for me the significant difference between American soldiers and soldiers of other nations, especially in past history.

As much as I dislike everything else you say, I loathe you for this- I find you disgusting, and vile for this kind of garbage.

Lets set completely aside the fact that this story is a third hand account of something that might have happened in way somewhat like this one, on one battlefield in one part of Iraq on one day, and is not, for as much as people like you want to make it so, shown to representative of ANYTHING. Lets set that completely aside.

Our country used a nuclear weapon on Japan in 1945. We dropped a bomb on tens of thousands of civilians, and killed them, and maimed many more. We destroyed two cities. I think it was unavoidable, and saved Japan from something that may have been worse. But we did that. We did what we had to do, in a war, to save ourselves. In Iraq, we bombed and killed civilians in their homes, in a fight against a government many of them despised. We murdered them- and you can say it was for the good, and perhaps it is. It still bloody happened.

So don't for a second get all high and mighty and talk about the wonder and majesty of the American spirit in wars where we have made the choice to murder innocent people for a cause they didn't believe in, and were never a part of a day in their lives. It's disgusting.

Be realistic about what a war is- if we take on ourselves to do something, we can't write off the deaths Sadaam would have hypothetically caused if we hadn't done what we did. He never got a chance to do those things, so what he would have done didn't happen. What we did happened, and we should be aware of, and responsible for that fact. The causalty count of a war is not a bank ledger that needs to balance out the number of would-have-been killed versus the number that was killed. Killing is killing, and if we find ourselves killing people, then we are judged by history for those decisions- we are not in a position to judge ourselves.

I thought you were a Christian. How does that fit in with war-mongering?

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Kmbboots, perhaps you have forgotten that Saddam's army invaded Kuwait, a U.S. ally, and was very brutal and bloody in its treament of the Kuwaities. Furthermore, this was widely regarded as a first step toward Saddam expanding further to gain control of the region--it looked like Saudi Arabia might be next.


And perhaps you have forgotten or are stubbornly refusing to know that Saddam Hussein was our creature before he invaded Kuwait and likely could have remained so with competent diplomacy.

And why do you think that our soldiers are, by nature, better than say, Canadian or British or French soldiers? Being American is not, in itself, a sign or cause of virtue. See: Abu Ghraib.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
This thread is getting very personal. Ron isn't making a whole lot of sense, but you guys need to back off from the personal attacks. You're not going to change who he is, or anything else really, by insulting him.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
No kidding.

quote:
As much as I dislike everything else you say, I loathe you for this- I find you disgusting, and vile for this kind of garbage.
100% uncalled for, and that's coming from me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah. I'm mostly lurking at the moment, but I'll pop back in to say that I'm pretty disappointed by the level of discourse here lately. Comments like that are utterly beyond the pale, but are, unfortunately, becoming more and more common here.

[Edited because the original post was an incomplete thought]

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
As much as I dislike everything else you say, I loathe you for this- I find you disgusting, and vile for this kind of garbage.

I had no idea that ron had such reins on your emotions!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
In fairness, I don't know that there should be such a huge distinction made between

"I find you disgusting and[/because] I find what you say vile"

and

"People who ascribe to belief 'x' are dishonorable and deranged. Oh, you ascribe to belief 'x'? Tee-hee."

That the latter is considered somehow more polite is kind of a sham.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
god this thread is going to get locked now, isn't it. isn't it. we can't have nice things.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
This thread was never all that nice.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dantesparadigm
Member
Member # 8756

 - posted      Profile for dantesparadigm           Edit/Delete Post 
Hitler.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by dantesparadigm:
Hitler.

Whistled!
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
:snirfle:

What is a snirfle? I'm not sure.


HITLER!

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2