 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Re: Senior Barborito even more insane than previously thought by laudablepuss 02/06/2003, 11:57am PST | ||||
 |
 |
|||
Senor Barborito wrote: No, we've had people defect or otherwise tip us off and given us inside information on where some of the small shit was kept. We can't count on that always happening. I'm not convinced that Iraq has all that much disarming to do Where do you think all those tons of chemical and biological weapons went then? That stuff can't be disintigrated leaving no trace, they haven't been able to give any indication whatsoever that the stuff was destroyed. - our administration keeps shouting about how aluminum tubes are used for making nukes. Yet every goddamn expert out there is shouting 'YOU FUCKING IDIOT THOSE ARE THE PRECISE RIGHT SIZE FOR CONVENTIONAL IRAQI ROCKETS AND DO NOT HAVE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY NEEDED FOR WMD-PRODUCTION PURPOSES.' Yet despite this fact our government keeps repeating this lie over and over like it will make people forget the truth. It was in the State of the Union address, it was in Colin Powell's speech to the UN - over a month after said experts were published as saying so in nearly every mainstream media source out there. Yet we still hear the same lie from our administration - what gives? So, you didn't see or read about Powell's presentation at all, I guess. Or it's a lie simply because the government says it. Anyway, according to Powell, some experts and the Iraqis say that those tubes are for rockets. But ALL experts agree that they can be used for centrifuging. What Powell pointed out was a) those tubes are built to a far higher degree of precision than tubes for rockets in our own, highly advanced, military, b) they got progressively more and more precise with the most recent shipment intercepted coated with somethingorother to make the insides incredibly smooth and even, and c) even supposing that these laboratory-grade tubes were for rockets, they are still expressly prohibited because Iraq isn't supposed to be making those either. For the most I'll defer to Zseni's followup here. Additionally, you don't see the US allowing its borders and secret facilities to be overrun with inspectors. We KNOW the US has an amazing WMD program - yet I see no reason to trust President Bush any more or less than Saddam. Frankly, I tend to trust Blix a lot more than the US administration. Then trust Blix! His report showed that Iraq was in violation of the UN resolution left and right and that no evidence was found to indicate, as I said, that thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed. He also indicated that Iraq was not cooporating and that he was frustrated with the poor progress. And he did NOT recommend further inspections Check this out and this. Also, you might ask yourself why the Iraqis claim the Blix report is unprofessional. I was staying focused, but I'll address that in a second. I'm suggesting either we need to go to war with, in rough order: North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and then Israel (also headed by a known war killer and perpetrator of an outright massacre), or nobody, if we want to avoid hypocrisy. And we have to tackle them all in that order or we're hypocrits? I notice Iraq is in fact on your list. Your argument is looking weaker and weaker. Apparently your main complaint is that you don't like the Bush Administration's decision to target Iraq first, not that Iraq is being targeted. Fool. I knew what Godwin referred to before either one of us had gotten laid. I'm trying to explain to you how it looks like from the French perspective. Bush is certainly not on Hitler's level in my opinion - however on a bad day I might say the extent to which he's better than Saddam is the extent to which I can say that and not be tortured. The thing is, though, individual freedom of speech doesn't really matter in the face of a good PR (read: propaganda) machine and political parties/corporations realized this a long time ago. "OH OH BUT NO RIGGED ELECTIONS" you say as I point out that a certain Republican Representative named Hagel owns a controlling interest in the company that supplies closed-source paperless voting machines to our government , nevermind the scandal of the most recent presidential election. Wacky conspiracy theories. This is what I call a bad level of paranoia. And the way you were explaining the French perspective to me, I suddenly thought maybe you were explaining YOUR perspective to me. I'm not sure I was mistaken. My contention is that even if they could it really wouldn't matter. Russia was deadset against the US for how many decades without nuclear weapons breaking out because of MAD? Pakistan, a Muslim country already has nukes without it being a problem - Iraq is somehow different because . . . why? They have oil and their leader 'TRIED TO KILL MUH DADDY', as far as I can tell. If you can't see the difference between the situation with the Soviet Union and the situation with Iraq . . . why am I writing this? Pakistan has nukes and it's a big fucking problem! What the hell? Self-preservation using that level of paranoia doesn't logically end until you've annihilated all not-self. Okay, I guess you and Zseni and I are just not going to see this eye to eye. There really is no point in going further with this. (Although I made another attempt to persuade Zseni, I'll go ahead and stop now.) |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
