posted
it's coming sooner or later DQ... too many people don't have insurance and the ones who do are being squeezed to pay for the ones who don't... the cost is just being hande to those of us who can pay...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I lived in the UK for two years. It was great to not have to worry that I wouldn't be treated (or treated as well) if I couldn't afford it.
quote:Originally posted by Relentless Despot.: Of course you did... All commies do. Live in Canada for a while then tell me how great national healthcare is.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
posted
People are treated here as well if they can't pay. It does amaze me that guys like you on one side seem to despise the government.. At times it sure seems you think government can do nothing right.. Then in an instant you come back and say government should be running health care.. Seems conflicted. I don't trust government to do anything correctly.. I sure as hell don't want them controlling health care.
-------------------- Spend word for word with me and I shall make your wit bankrupt
IP: Logged |
posted
Meanwhile the Iraq war has cost us $296,000,000,000 so far. A lot of it borrowed from the real commies.
That's enough to offer everyone in America free elective surgery. Just think, if Bush weren't such an idiot we could all have huge breasts and enormous d**ks by now!
quote:Originally posted by Relentless Despot.: Better get used to fifty or sixty percent income tax then. The economy will collapse. And no one will get health care.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
posted
and if it were not for Bush taking us to Iraq, Saddam would be lobbing skuds at Israel and in return Israel would have nuked them by now.. I bet that would cost us nothing...
-------------------- Spend word for word with me and I shall make your wit bankrupt
IP: Logged |
posted
FACT: Despite the claim that Iraq's supposed WMD posed an imminent threat to the U.S., Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 2/24/01 that Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”
FACT: Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.”
FACT: Powell said on 2/23/01 that "Saddam does not threaten the United States.” “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” He further said “[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
(It's "scuds" by the way.) Do you have some "slam-dunk" intelligence I haven't heard about?
Either way, he was under constant surveillance (until Bush pulled the inspectors, that is) and was hardly a threat to America; nor Israel for that matter.
If he did indeed have them, he had been unable to use them for eight years due to the successful containment.
Therefore they could hardly be perceived as an "imminent threat" to the USA.
You are still being duped.
Suggestion: Wake up?
“I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” -Colin Powell
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: FACT: Despite the claim that Iraq's supposed WMD posed an imminent threat to the U.S., Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 2/24/01 that Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”
FACT: Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.”
FACT: Powell said on 2/23/01 that "Saddam does not threaten the United States.” “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” He further said “[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
How can you use these quotes as fact after calling this administration a bunch of liars...maybe they were lying about Saddam being contained.
IP: Logged |
posted
from the senate intell committe C. Iraq Was in the Final Stages of Development of the Al Samoud Missile (2000), May Be Preparing to Deploy the Al Samoud (2001), and Was Deploying the Al Samoud and Ababil-100 Short Range Ballistic Missiles, Both Which Exceed the 150-km UN Range Limit (2002)
(U) The IC's assessments about Iraq's al Samoud and Ababil-100 missiles changed progressively in 2000, 2001, and 2002 as intelligence reporting showed that Iraq was continuing to advance in its development of these missile systems.
(U) Since at least 1998, the IC had assessed that the al Samoud had a range greater than the 150-km allowed by the UN. This assessment was based on information extrapolated from Iraq's UN declarations in which Iraq provided details of the missile and engine parameters. The system had been flight tested nine times, with five failures, at the time of the 2000 NIE, leading the IC to assess that the system was in the final stages of development.
( )Intelligence provided to the Committee showed that by 2001, Iraq was progressing with development of the al Samoud, but still had not deployed the missiles. By 2002, however, Iraq had extracted the engines for 30 to 50 al Samoud missiles between mid-2000 and late 2001. Intelligence also showed that Iraq had conducted at least 25 al Samoud flight tests since 2000, the majority of which had been successful. A report from provided to the Committee assessed that in August 2002 two al Samoud missiles flew to ranges above the UN permitted range. Additional an indication that the missile had been deployed. The deployment was confirmed by Iraq's declaration to the UN in December 2002 that it had fielded the al Samoud II.
( ) The NIE also judged that Iraq was developing an extended-range variant of the al Samoud missile with an assessed range of up to 300 km, and said that on DELETED 2002, the missile was flight tested beyond the 150-km range limit "perhaps as far as 300 km." SENTENCE DELETED The IC assessed that DELETED was probably the result of an Iraqi effort to enlarge the al Samoud airframe to accommodate more propellant, which could extend its range to 300 km.
( ) When Iraq provided its Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Disclosure to the UN in December 2002, Iraq admitted to developing an al Samoud II variant, but said the range of this variant was also 150 km. Iraq admitted that the missile had flown beyond 150 km during 13 of 23 flight tests, but only by at most 33 km. The data provided by Iraq in the declaration caused the IC to change its assessment of the possible range of the al Samoud II, which it corrected in a February 2003 NIE, Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015. The NIE said that Iraq's declaration indicated that the al Samoud II has a larger diameter, which was the cause of DELETED noted by the IC during the January 2002 flight test. The NIE said, "The al Samoud data provides an alternate explanation for the DELETED the DELETED flight test last year." Iraq reported that the missile flew 171 km, and the new NIE judged, based on modeling of the new al Samoud II data, that 171 km was near the expected range.
( ) DELETED provided to the Committee from 2002 also indicated that the Ababil-100 had been flight tested 18 to 20 times since 2000, and that in DELETED 2002 a probable Ababil-100 DELETED had arrived at a tactical surface to surface missile facility. In late May 2002, Ababil-100 launch boxes were DELETED at a tactical missile and support facility and Ababil-100 missile launchers were DELETED at a barracks and training facility, DELETED. The deployment was not assessed to be complete, however.
posted
He fired the ****ing things when we attacked.. so yeah that's a slam dunk case.. He would be firing them at Israel right now had we not attacked.. How much would that cost us?
-------------------- Spend word for word with me and I shall make your wit bankrupt
IP: Logged |
posted
Alan Baker, the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, said Saddam's Scud barrages apparently violated international law, because during a war, parties are forbidden from firing missiles at civilian targets and population centers.
however?
this from the same article shows that hamas and hezbolah are both terror groups not in compliance with international law. right now
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Iraq was 22 kliks over-range as prescribed by the UN...
remeber Israel bombed Iraq in 1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant. The Israeli Government explained its reasons for the attack in a statement saying: "The atomic bombs which that reactor was capable of producing whether from enriched uranium or from plutonium, would be of the Hiroshima size. Thus a mortal danger to the people of Israel progressively arose." http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.s tm
Iran is next... i hope
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Israel and Hezbollah are now both in violation of this law, wouldn't you say?
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Alan Baker, the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, said Saddam's Scud barrages apparently violated international law, because during a war, parties are forbidden from firing missiles at civilian targets and population centers.
however?
this from the same article shows that hamas and hezbolah are both terror groups not in compliance with international law. right now
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
posted
i don't know GB.. it appears to me that Israel is striking rocket launch sites that hezbolah has placed in apartment buildings and othere civilian appearing sites...
it's not Israels fault that Lebanon has allowed them to do this... it is Lebanons fault
there is no way to fight these guys legally when they do this...
hezbolah is participating in a SMEAR campaign against US and Israel right now...Iran is orchestrating...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glassman - so these statements are part of the same report?
(U) Conclusion 11. Several of the allegations of pressure on Intelligence Community (IC) analysts involved repeated questioning. The Committee believes that IC analysts should expect difficult and repeated questions regarding threat information. Just as the post 9/11 environment lowered the Intelligence Community's reporting threshold, it has also affected the intensity with which policymakers will review and question threat information.
(U) In some cases, those interviewed stated that the questions had forced them to go back and review the intelligence reporting, and that during this exercise they came across information they had overlooked in initial readings. The Committee found that this process - the policymakers probing questions - actually improved the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) products. The review revealed that the CIA analysts who prepared Iraqi Support for Terrorism made careful, measured assessments which did not overstate or mischaracterize the intelligence reporting upon which it was based. (U) A number of the individuals interviewed by the Committee in conducting its review stated that Administration officials questioned analysts repeatedly on the potential for cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida. Though these allegations appeared repeatedly in the press and in other public reporting on the lead up to the war, no analyst questioned by the Committee stated that the questions were unreasonable, or that they were encouraged by the questioning to alter their conclusions regarding Iraq's links to al-Qaida.
U) The same Research Fellow commented on strategic warning stating, "Key to the warning challenge is that the substantive uncertainty surrounding threats to U.S. interests requires analysts, and policymakers, to make judgments that are inherently vulnerable to error."
U) Conclusion 2. The Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate
(U) Conclusion 3. The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WNW) program. This "group think" dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized
(U) The IC had long assessed that Iraq maintained its ambitions to obtain WMD, and would seek to resume full WMD efforts once UN sanctions and inspections ended. Accordingly, after UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998, IC analysts began to look for evidence that Iraq was expanding WMD programs. Analysts interpreted ambiguous data as indicative of the active and expanded WMD effort they expected to see. The presumption that Iraq would take advantage of the departure of inspectors to restart its WMD efforts essentially became a hypothesis in search of evidence.
Now in fairness to Glass, I have not read this whole thing yet and I am sure many statments are made supporting his argument. But I believe their are a few supporting those who believe it was an intelligence failure, not Bush overlooking information. At least that's what the statments above seem to imply. I cannot provide a link, don't know how, but Glass has a link a few posts up. Can't say it's interesting reading, but it does provide insight.
posted
On Iraq's links to terrorism: (U) Intelligence from the 1960s and 1970s first established the link between Iraq and terrorism, resulting in Iraq's inclusion in the State Department's 1979 list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The State Department removed Iraq from the list in 1982.4 Iraq returned to the list in 1990 based upon intelligence information linking the regime to acts of terrorism conducted by the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and its support for Palestinian terrorists. The first intelligence reports suggesting links between Iraq and al Qaida emerged in the mid-1990s. The IC continues to receive reporting on these links from detainees and document exploitation.
U) The NIE stated that "we assess that Iraq has some BW agent and maintains the capability to produce B. anthracis, botulinim toxin, aflatoxin, Clostridium perfringerns (gas gangrene) and ricin toxin." The NIE also noted that Iraq "may be able to produce a number of other incapacitating and lethal agents that it has researched over the years" and assessed that "Chances are even that smallpox is part of Baghdad's offensive BW program."
1. Smallpox ( ) The 2002 NIE stated in the key judgments that "Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program." The body of the 2002 NIE expanded on this assessment:
"Various intelligence reports and DELETED indicate that Iraq probably has retained unauthorized stocks of Variola major virus, the causative agent of smallpox. Baghdad reportedly kept smallpox virus samples from its 1971-1972 outbreak, DELETED. We assess that the chances are even that smallpox is part of Baghdad's offensive BW program, although credible evidence is limited."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
