A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hey Chung



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old March 7th 07, 04:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Raptor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Hey Chung

Bill C wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:11 am, Raptor wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:31 am, "Bill C" wrote:
... I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
based on solid information.
No freakin way.
Sure everyone assumed Saddam had WMD. But
anyone with half a brain cell could also see that the
'intelligence' had been and was being cooked, even
then, and it was clear to anyone with half a brain cell
that WMD was just the latest in a string of justifications
anyway. Many people were talking about this openly
and in public at the time. Hillary and Co. cast their
votes pro-war because it was the popular thing to
do. No free passes.

If you look at what they said during the debate over the AUMF, most
Democrats were careful to express support for nothing more than a
strong, unyielding stance against Saddam's Iraq.

But you're otherwise right. Anyone paying close enough attention could
see that the intel didn't back up the rhetoric, that the justifications
changed from day to day, and that there was a huge black hole under
"What happens next."

--
Lynn Wallace

Jesus loves Osama bin Laden- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Glad you know more about what's being provided in classified briefings
to Congress, and other people in Washington from here than they did.
I'd say that Hillary and folks made the safe choice based on what
they were seeing, Either they were supposed to have forseen the
biggest criminal abuse/misuse of intel since the Spanish American war
and bet that there was no threat, or vote the way they did. Are you
one of the clowns saying that the intel that Al-Q was dangerous was
wrong under Clinton when he did nothing, but suddenly was right under
Bush and he should've done something.
You are a clown, Just like Kunich, it's about ideology. We ignored
intel pointing to something happening leading to 9/11, the USS Cole,
the Khobar towers, the Beirut Marine barracks, and I could keep going
but none off that matters to you, even though there was serious
discussion of WMD.
It just as easily have gone the other way. They did nothing, and
Hussein handed one of those missing Soviet suitcase nukes (not myth)
to Al-Q and a US city disappeared.
Then you'd just have kept your mouth shut, or more likely,be
screaming that they SHOULD have taken action.
It really amazes me that I end up defending the politicians I like
least, other than Bush and Co., from the total nutjobs on the wacko
fringe of their own party.
I'd bet your a Kucinich supporter.
Bill C


I don't claim to know more than the classified briefings, but for
someone paying attention, the countervailing intelligence WAS noted by
the press: Iraq was 5+ years from a bomb, had no WMD delivery that could
pose a serious threat to anyone but Kurds, their new missiles were if
anything only technically in violation of the UN sanctions. Saddam was
being built up as an imminent threat to the US and ANYONE paying
attention knew it wasn't so. All you had to do was pay attention, but
these stories were buried on page A14, not blared on A1.

OTOH, we knew that he was very much opposed to our aims, and there was
ample reason to continue the policy of aggressive containment that had
worked for a decade. All it cost us was a bunch of jet fuel and the
occasional bomb. It didn't help the Iraqi people a bit, but they were
better off than most of them are now, and it kept us safe from Saddam.

Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.

The FBI didn't pin the Cole bombing on AQ until after Shrub took office.
For every other attack they made against us, Clinton reacted
proportionately. Under Shrub, it was 8 months of nothing. Then 9/11, and
all of a sudden it's his highest priority.

--
Lynn Wallace

Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
Ads
  #43  
Old March 7th 07, 04:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Davey Crockett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 339
Default Hey Chung


* "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com a écrit
"Davey Crockett" wrote in message
...

But Saddam was one hell of a Man and he kept the lid on that bunch of
Vipers pretty good. Much better than Bush ever could dream of, and for
sure without killing 655,000 of them and making another 1,000,000 home
less

And provided you didn't start any revolutions, you could do whatever
the heck you liked


Sure, you could drain the marshes and murder all the marsh arabs. You could
drop poison gas on the Kurds. And of course you could enter into an eight
year war with Iran and end up with a minimum of some 750,000 casualties.

Davey can read the Duelfer report himself and see what was happening after
that.


You poor BrainWashed *******

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm



--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]
The News CNN and SKY won't show you
http://azurservers.com:9080
  #44  
Old March 7th 07, 06:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default Hey Chung

On Mar 7, 10:05 am, Raptor wrote:


Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.


Like PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../comments.html
The Center for Arms Control:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pro...tnw/chap5.html
The Center for Defense Information:
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm


The FBI didn't pin the Cole bombing on AQ until after Shrub took office.
For every other attack they made against us, Clinton reacted
proportionately. Under Shrub, it was 8 months of nothing. Then 9/11, and
all of a sudden it's his highest priority.

--
Lynn Wallace

Jesus loves Osama bin Laden- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Lynn it's not whether Clinton reacted properly or not, my feeling is
that he didn't even come close, but whether they had credible intel
buzz beforehand that some of these things were likely going to happen.
Just about everything I've seen says that we had at least some people
warning that actions in these areas were likely, and dismissed them as
not being solid enough to take precautions for.
Bad choices.
I personally would rather take some action, and plan for the worst
case, which is what Congress authorized for Iraq. Rather than
discount, again, the intel and apologize later, again.
Let's face it, until Iraq most of America really didn't give a ****
when US service members were killed by terrorists. "Hey they
volunteered, and it's part of the job. No big deal. With people here
in the Valley cheering dead "fascist scumbags". Lot's of people here
agree with Ward Churchill that we got exactly what we deserved and
it's just too bad it wasn't military getting killed though.
Bush ****ed up every way possible, but it would be just as bad, and
you'd be screaming, if they wrote the intel off and we got hit again.
Our history is to NOT take this stuff seriously, right after 9/11
Bush exploited that history to create fear and get what he wanted.
We were wrong in the past, and Bush was wrong.
There were Russian advisors on the ground, in Baghdad, when we
entered the city who were still working with Hussein, operating
equipment that was banned under the UN sanctions, that they had
recently brought in, during the sanctions.
That put's a dent in the credibility of the denials. Blix repeatedly
reported that the Iraqis were NOT cooperating and he couldn't say
what level of cooperation was going on between the Russians and Iraq.
The "Oil for Food" mess proves that the UN had NO credibility, or
accountability as to what was happening. There was every reason to
doubt the ability, or the will of the UN to control Iraq, or even get
any sort of compliance. The French were lobbying to lift everything to
allow ELF, their intelligence service oil company back into Iraq and
the cash to start rolling again.
Bush took advantage of all of this, and twisted the reality to sell a
bill of goods. Congress voted on it based on all of this.
If the UN had been even vaguely credible at any point up until then.
If Hussein hadn't been playing a bluffing shell game. If Russia,
France, and Germany hadn't been pretty openly violating the sanctions
for cash, and lobbying to turn Hussein totally loose with little to no
real oversight. Etc...
Then Bush would've had a much harder sell.
It's scary to see Russia still playing exactly the same game in Iran,
and protecting them while Iran is playing games with the UN and
stalling as much as possible while they scramble to build/get a nuke.
China is protecting Sudan in the UN. China, Russia, and Iran are
happily working with Chavez who is making no secret of wanting to take
Venezuela nuclear. At least it's a little farther away than Cuba was
when Russia gave Castro ICBMs.
In short there was plenty of background that allowed Bush to cook
what he needed to believably. The best lies always contain a kernel of
truth.
Bill C
Bill C

  #45  
Old March 8th 07, 04:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Raptor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Hey Chung

Bill C wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:05 am, Raptor wrote:

Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.


Like PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../comments.html
The Center for Arms Control:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pro...tnw/chap5.html
The Center for Defense Information:
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm


I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening, especially if
said invasion creates more terrorists from other sources and inhibits
our ability to meet all these new threats. We know what we need to do to
prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are (presumably) doing it pretty
damn well.

Further, in the range of threats we face, the suitcase nuke is just one,
a lower probability one, and one that's variously easier to thwart than
many others. That's why I call it re-badged scare-mongering rhetoric.

The FBI didn't pin the Cole bombing on AQ until after Shrub took office.
For every other attack they made against us, Clinton reacted
proportionately. Under Shrub, it was 8 months of nothing. Then 9/11, and
all of a sudden it's his highest priority.

--
Lynn Wallace

Jesus loves Osama bin Laden- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Lynn it's not whether Clinton reacted properly or not, my feeling is
that he didn't even come close, but whether they had credible intel
buzz beforehand that some of these things were likely going to happen.
Just about everything I've seen says that we had at least some people
warning that actions in these areas were likely, and dismissed them as
not being solid enough to take precautions for.
Bad choices.


But the Cole DID take precautions. Same with Khobar Towers and the
embassies. They were reasonable, but they were inadequate.

More effective would've been to not have our forces in that theater at
the time, but that's a whole set of choices we don't seem ready to make
(and I don't seriously argue for them here). And Clinton's branch
successfully thwarted the Millenium bombing.

I personally feel that we gave AQ the attention it deserved. Even if
Shrub wasn't asleep at the switch, 9/11 might have happened just as
those other attacks did. Plinking a ship or blowing up remote
installations are one thing, calling for an aggressive security and
combat posture but low-scale and somewhat covert. That's what Clinton did.

But 9/11 was over the top and it was time to deploy massively against
the enemy. The French said, "We are all Americans," the whole world
essentially asked us to please shoot straight, and we "invaded"
Afghanistan. I was 100% in favor, and am still in favor of completing
that mission.

I personally would rather take some action, and plan for the worst
case, which is what Congress authorized for Iraq. Rather than
discount, again, the intel and apologize later, again.


We did "take some action," and were "taking some action." Against AQ, we
got caught with our pants down, and it can be argued as you're doing
that we should have been more aggressive all along. I don't know.
There's always a case for not over-reacting to threats. Against Iraq, we
were doing quite well, bombing the place roughly weekly, quarantining
the country, taking no **** from Saddam. Facts as developed indicate
that we were effective.

That's regardless of the intel. Always, we should take action based on
the level of threat combined with the confidence of the info. Re Iraq,
the old aggressive containment strategy was indicated and, as we've
seen, effective. Against AQ, we've learned that we should've been more
aggressive.

Let's face it, until Iraq most of America really didn't give a ****
when US service members were killed by terrorists. "Hey they
volunteered, and it's part of the job. No big deal. With people here
in the Valley cheering dead "fascist scumbags". Lot's of people here
agree with Ward Churchill that we got exactly what we deserved and
it's just too bad it wasn't military getting killed though.


A terrorist attack against a military target IS less objectionable than
one against civilians IMO. The military is prepared, accepts risks, and
is the tip of the spear. Acknowledging that, or that the terrorists may
have justification for wanting to hurt us, doesn't give them permission
to hurt us. It merely provides cause for re-assessing policy and its
implications. If they hit us, we hit back. If we know they want to hit
us, we prepare & try to preempt them.

Bush ****ed up every way possible, but it would be just as bad, and
you'd be screaming, if they wrote the intel off and we got hit again.


I'm honest. If we had not invaded Iraq, and somehow Saddam decided the
gamble was worth it, and gave terrorists something traceable to him,
then I'd have said, "Oops."

Our history is to NOT take this stuff seriously, right after 9/11
Bush exploited that history to create fear and get what he wanted.


I happen to be okay with running some risk. Deploy prudent precautions,
make it quite hard but not impossible to hit you, try to be just nice
enough that no one's determined enough to take advantage. Freedom
involves some risk, and ultimately everyone dies anyway.

We were wrong in the past, and Bush was wrong.
There were Russian advisors on the ground, in Baghdad, when we
entered the city who were still working with Hussein, operating
equipment that was banned under the UN sanctions, that they had
recently brought in, during the sanctions.
That put's a dent in the credibility of the denials. Blix repeatedly
reported that the Iraqis were NOT cooperating and he couldn't say
what level of cooperation was going on between the Russians and Iraq.
The "Oil for Food" mess proves that the UN had NO credibility, or
accountability as to what was happening. There was every reason to
doubt the ability, or the will of the UN to control Iraq, or even get
any sort of compliance. The French were lobbying to lift everything to
allow ELF, their intelligence service oil company back into Iraq and
the cash to start rolling again.
Bush took advantage of all of this, and twisted the reality to sell a
bill of goods. Congress voted on it based on all of this.
If the UN had been even vaguely credible at any point up until then.
If Hussein hadn't been playing a bluffing shell game. If Russia,
France, and Germany hadn't been pretty openly violating the sanctions
for cash, and lobbying to turn Hussein totally loose with little to no
real oversight. Etc...
Then Bush would've had a much harder sell.
It's scary to see Russia still playing exactly the same game in Iran,
and protecting them while Iran is playing games with the UN and
stalling as much as possible while they scramble to build/get a nuke.
China is protecting Sudan in the UN. China, Russia, and Iran are
happily working with Chavez who is making no secret of wanting to take
Venezuela nuclear. At least it's a little farther away than Cuba was
when Russia gave Castro ICBMs.
In short there was plenty of background that allowed Bush to cook
what he needed to believably. The best lies always contain a kernel of


I can see why people made the decisions and votes they did, I just was
never buying what Shrub was selling. As for Russia and China, we can and
should expect other nations to protect their interests. Crying over it
does no one any good, and our goal should be to simply navigate the
smoothest course through all the competing interests. It's not hard,
it's just beyond the crew we've got ourselves stuck with. This will change.

--
Lynn Wallace

Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
  #46  
Old March 8th 07, 05:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default Hey Chung

"Raptor" wrote in message
...
Bill C wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:05 am, Raptor wrote:

Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.


Like PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../comments.html
The Center for Arms Control:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pro...tnw/chap5.html
The Center for Defense Information:
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm


I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening,


Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.

We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
(presumably) doing it pretty damn well.


My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
about suitcase nukes again?


  #47  
Old March 8th 07, 07:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,092
Default Hey Chung

On Mar 7, 9:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Raptor" wrote in message
...
Bill C wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:05 am, Raptor wrote:


Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.


Like PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...itcase/comment...
The Center for Arms Control:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pro...tnw/chap5.html
The Center for Defense Information:
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm


I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening,


Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.

We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
(presumably) doing it pretty damn well.


My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
about suitcase nukes again?


We've been over this befo

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/
8f1cbaf9cef1118b

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm

"Suitcase" nuclear weapons:
- probably existed
- are very low yield; nobody's going to cause a
Hiroshima with one
- reports of them going missing are unreliable and
probably not true
- any portable nuclear weapons that went missing
in the 1990s are completely inoperable by now

The Center for Arms Control page that Bill linked refers
to the CNS study I linked above, whose conclusion is
that old Russian "suitcase" nukes are not a threat but
we could use more information about what the Russians made
(good luck getting that from Putin, though, no matter
what GWB says about seeing into Putin's heart).

Ben
RBR Dept. of Known Unknowns


  #48  
Old March 8th 07, 02:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default Hey Chung

On Mar 8, 1:23 am, "
wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:





"Raptor" wrote in message
...
Bill C wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:05 am, Raptor wrote:


Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.


Like PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...itcase/comment...
The Center for Arms Control:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pro...tnw/chap5.html
The Center for Defense Information:
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm


I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening,


Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.


We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
(presumably) doing it pretty damn well.


My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
about suitcase nukes again?


We've been over this befo

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/
8f1cbaf9cef1118b

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm

"Suitcase" nuclear weapons:
- probably existed
- are very low yield; nobody's going to cause a
Hiroshima with one
- reports of them going missing are unreliable and
probably not true
- any portable nuclear weapons that went missing
in the 1990s are completely inoperable by now

The Center for Arms Control page that Bill linked refers
to the CNS study I linked above, whose conclusion is
that old Russian "suitcase" nukes are not a threat but
we could use more information about what the Russians made
(good luck getting that from Putin, though, no matter
what GWB says about seeing into Putin's heart).

Ben
RBR Dept. of Known Unknowns- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I couldn't find a fairly new link that I had a while ago from one of
the intel sites on this stuff. It was a report from 2003. As you've
said it's always been pretty sketchy what the "suitcase" nukes
actually are, and if they did exist. Lots of conflicting reports. What
did, and still do exist are ADMs:
http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm

(I didn't know we had our own in house expert:
http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.htm
The Davy Crockett (shown here at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in
Maryland in March 1961) was the smallest and lightest nuclear weapon
ever deployed by the U.S. military. It was designed for use in Europe
against Soviet troop formations.
Now we know what Davey's been up to on his "walkabouts")

Anyway the report was one on just what had gone missing and was
triggered by confirmed reports and Russian actions on an air force
unit that was selling off it's missiles and parts, and a couple off
whole planes, which was what got them caught. They said they were
doing it because they hadn't been paid in something like 18 months.
The report solidly confirmed 8 ADMs missing and unaccounted for from
a Speznaz base among other things.
The IAEA is also VERY worried along these lines:

http://www.worldmun.org/2006/committ...ittee.php?c=18

Topic A: Nuclear Terrorism

Since 1993, there have been over 650 confirmed incidents of
trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive material. Last year alone,
nearly 100 such incidents occurred, 11 of which involved nuclear
material. Almost half of the confirmed incidents involved criminal
activities (e.g.: theft, illegal possession, smuggling, or attempted
illegal sale of the material). As the incidents of reported nuclear
materials trafficking steadily rise, it becomes more and more
important that the IAEA take action to ensure global security and
prevent possible attacks.

The main potential nuclear security risks include: the theft of a
nuclear weapon; the acquisition of nuclear materials for the
construction of nuclear explosive devices; the malicious use of
radioactive sources, including in so-called "dirty bombs," and the
radiological hazards caused by an attack on, or sabotage of, a
facility or a transport vehicle. The IAEA's main points of focus are
prevention, detection and response.


The other major concern is that a lot of this stuff could have, and
has been maintained by scientists who were either abandoned, like the
Russsian military and are doing it for cash, or rogue scientists like
Khan who did it for ideology:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3343621.stm

A large percentage of "experts" absolutely believe that it's a case
of When, Not if. Unfortunately I agree with them. The good thing is
that it's not likely to be worse than Hiroshima at worst, if you can
call that a good thing, and probably much less.
Bill C

  #49  
Old March 8th 07, 02:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Curtis L. Russell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Hey Chung

On 7 Mar 2007 22:23:06 -0800, "
wrote:

"Suitcase" nuclear weapons:
- probably existed
- are very low yield; nobody's going to cause a
Hiroshima with one
- reports of them going missing are unreliable and
probably not true
- any portable nuclear weapons that went missing
in the 1990s are completely inoperable by now


And the only succesfully deployed suitcase bomb destroyed an American
Airlines lost luggage center in Nebraska. Some of you may have noticed
that you never got your luggage that week.

Curtis L. Russell
rbr department of new facts, made to order
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Konawatch: this one's for Chung and Coggan Ryan Cousineau Racing 4 November 10th 06 06:21 AM
Millar Line Stage 8: Chung Charts, and I'm Famous! Ryan Cousineau Racing 5 July 11th 06 03:11 AM
Chung Charts for stage 7 TT [email protected] Racing 3 July 9th 06 02:32 PM
updated chung chart for bush approval? [email protected] Racing 19 April 19th 06 03:18 PM
Much to the dismay of Robert Chung, Wikipedia as good as Brittanica Kurgan Gringioni Racing 18 December 17th 05 04:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.