Split topic- From the AA board

[Garfield1966]

Hmmmm. Would you really want to have a Nuk plant in state where earthquakes are a regular occurrence? The bay area recently had a quake that caused quite a bit of damage and then there was the quake in Northridge that mess up a few things. Some how I don’t see that as being the best place in the world to place a power source that if damaged, could contaminate the surrounding area for a length of time measured in centuries, not weeks of months. But hey, it’s not in your back yard so what do you care.

As far as Iraq is concerned I agree with you to an extent. I agree that we are the ones who Fu&ked up their world and in a utopian world we should stay until they are stable and able to run their own country. IMO, unless you put 500k troops in there you are not going to see peace and even then, I am not so sure you would be successful. The next problem I see that has to b address is this. First, do you believe that the view, culture of the Iraqi people an be changed? If you do, then eventually (how long do you want to stay there? 10 years, 20, 30, 50, 100? I do not see that change of life happening in a short period of time. If you don’t (I don’t) see them changing then we may as well pull out now and watch the fire works. It will suck either way so why not save the money and lives.

The sad part is that we (the US) have lost all credibility in the world. W lied so many times and is so reviled in the rest of the world that he could say the sun rises in the east and no one would believe him with out independent verification.

IMO, Iraq is screwed. We have given Iran the keys to the empire and they are just waiting till we bail out (which at some point we will have to do). My guess is that W won’t which means when his sorry ass gets kicked out of office and assuming the Dems take the white house back, we will have to pull out and the Dems will look like the bad guys. Were it not for the Supreme Court nominations, I would say let the Reps have the White house and let them deal with their own mess.

One more thing while I’m thinking of it. He Brits saved our ass by uncovering the latest plot. Seems to me that it is only a matter of time before one of these plots succeeds. Wonder what W.co will blame that on? I can only hope it is a military target and not a civilian one but we all know that is a pipe dream.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Hmmmm. Would you really want to have a Nuk plant in state where earthquakes are a regular occurrence? The bay area recently had a quake that caused quite a bit of damage and then there was the quake in Northridge that mess up a few things. Some how I don’t see that as being the best place in the world to place a power source that if damaged, could contaminate the surrounding area for a length of time measured in centuries, not weeks of months. But hey, it’s not in your back yard so what do you care.

Well, it is my back yard (SFO) and FYI California is a ‘very’ big state and we would not have to build a reactor on the San Andreas or Hayward fault. The association with earthquakes and California is one of the liberal mantra that we living in California have to deal with by people that do not live here.
(so much for you’re a$$umption)

As far as Iraq is concerned I agree with you to an extent. I agree that we are the ones who Fu&ked up their world and in a utopian world we should stay until they are stable and able to run their own country. IMO, unless you put 500k troops in there you are not going to see peace and even then, I am not so sure you would be successful. The next problem I see that has to b address is this. First, do you believe that the view, culture of the Iraqi people an be changed? If you do, then eventually (how long do you want to stay there? 10 years, 20, 30, 50, 100? I do not see that change of life happening in a short period of time. If you don’t (I don’t) see them changing then we may as well pull out now and watch the fire works. It will suck either way so why not save the money and lives.

Do you believe that the Islamic terrorists would stop if we left Iraq?

The sad part is that we (the US) have lost all credibility in the world. W lied so many times and is so reviled in the rest of the world that he could say the sun rises in the east and no one would believe him with out independent verification.

Will we gain greater credibility if we leave or if we stay? One would think that if we leave when the going gets tough (as we have in the past) that we solidify ourselves as an unreliable ally and a paper tiger. Will the perception of us being a paper tiger bring more security to our country or verify the worlds perception that we do not have the wherewithal to live up to our commitments?

IMO, Iraq is screwed. We have given Iran the keys to the empire and they are just waiting till we bail out (which at some point we will have to do). My guess is that W won’t which means when his sorry ass gets kicked out of office and assuming the Dems take the white house back, we will have to pull out and the Dems will look like the bad guys. Were it not for the Supreme Court nominations, I would say let the Reps have the White house and let them deal with their own mess.

I am not as much as a defeatist as you. If we leave without living up to our commitment, then I agree that we gave the keys to Iran. But look at your own statements. You know by leaving that Iran will invade, yet you advocate that we leave. Do you believe that expanding the Iran power hold is in our benefit?

Please explain to me how this is logical.

One more thing while I’m thinking of it. He Brits saved our ass by uncovering the latest plot. Seems to me that it is only a matter of time before one of these plots succeeds. Wonder what W.co will blame that on? I can only hope it is a military target and not a civilian one but we all know that is a pipe dream.

He will blame it on the Islamic Extremists ( and rightly so ). You have to understand that our enemy does not live by our rules. They are barbaric and have no compulsion to sacrificing (martyrdom) themselves and their family to meet their demented goal.

B) UT

 

[Garfield1966]

I lived in CA for 13 years and still have family there. Sure as hell don’t want one in my back yard. I especially don’t want one “Humboldt that was shut down in 1976†built on/near a fault line. Then again, if a Mag 8 hits anywhere near the plant, I don’t think it will matter if the plant is on a fault or not. Have you looked at a fault line map of CA? The state is littered with them. And those are just the ones they know about.

They will not stop if we stay, won’t stop if we leave. We have no credibility either way. Israel has credibility up the a$$. Everyone knows if you screw with them you will get smacked back to the stone age and do people stop messing with them? Nope, they keep coming. Like the freaking energizer bunny. We went in looking for WMD, none found. We went in looking for OBL, nope… no luck their either. We went in saying it would be a limited engagement not planning on staying. Nope, we are building bases and we are there for the long haul. Now we have British nationals looking to blow up our planes. Like you said, they do not play by our rules. Our credibility is not an issue, our existence is. I refer you back to Israel. All the credibility, none of the safety.

Yes I advocate that we leave unless you plan on staying there indefinitely. Do you? I am not of the opinion that the people of Iraq will ever get along to the point that they can control their own nation much less keep invaders out. Irans control of Iraq IMO is not a if but a when. Something we should have looked at before we went in. Would’a could’a should’a. The US people will never authorize permanent presence in Iraq. No pres will ever admit it is needed. At some point we will pull out and then …… BOOM!

Ahhh, but he and Pres Cheney have claimed that we are safer and that we are winning the war on terror.

Defeatist? I call it realist but what ever. There will be more attacks on the US and some of them will succeed. Iraq will never be a democratic nation much less a free nation. W and Pres Cheney went into Iraq for reasons unknown and completely screwed up the Mid East. Sadam was a dick head but he maintained the balance of power there. He kept his people under control and he kept Iran at bay. Now the Iraqi’s are about to implode and Iran is getting a woody just watching.

 

[Ch. 12]

Sorry to disappoint but I don't give much credence to televangilist nor to your flip flopping Nut jobs such as the "I voted for the war, before I voted against it" John Kerry types.

Glad that you looked at your cheat sheet for which canned response to use here. Unfortunately, nobody "voted for the war"...they voted to allow the President to make the decision to go to war...a decision usually handled by the legislature...not the executive. They entrusted him b/c of the intelligence that the executive provided. But they didn't "vote to go to war". Lie #1

Look, the Intelligence said Iraq Was a threat, Iraq at one time indeed possessed WMD's all were not accounted for and Saddam Hussein had consistently played cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors, Not to mention he used WMD's against his own people..(what a nice guy huh?)

The intelligence did NOT say they were a threat and that has been proven. The executive chose to twist the intelligence to make their case and present it to congress. Everybody...including the Pentagon...in the intelligence community has since said and proven that they did not present the intelligence in the manner that Bush/Cheney then presented to Congress. And much of the "supporting" intelligence has since been proven to have been coerced. You know...like when your boss says "we need to make it 'look' like there is a threat...go take care of it". Higher ups from all branches of the intelligence community have stated this ever since it was proven that our President and his aides drew way too tangential of conclusions from a small amount of data.

We are at war on TERROR, and sorry if it offends your Utopian view of the world but it will only be defeated with FIREPOWER, Not with diplomatic relations.

How can I argue? Firepower sure has helped so far I'm not saying that we can just have both sides sign a piece of paper and all is well...don't put words in my mouth (i.e. read what I say...don't stick to your pre-formulated opinions/stereotypes which you constantly resort to). What I have said and what is common logic if you choose to think rather than read talking points (which I must commend you for being VERY good at regurgitating them) is that any land that is occupied by people of another culture for hundreds of years is going to be frustrated and desperate. Hell...the USA was only 'occupied' by Britain for a hundred years before the Patriots got fed up and resorted to violence to address the situation. No...the USA did not start the occupation (or as you say...trying to run the Middle East out to sea) but the "West" did. England, France, Spain, Portugal, Germanic tribes, Russia/USSR, etc have all spent plenty of time over the past millenia and a half occupying a land with a culture vastly different from their own. Desperation leads to fanatacism. The only way to get rid of the desperation and fanatacism is to erradicate the entire culture and that wasn't a wise choice for Hitler. You see...we can fight the terrorists with no end possible. Even if we "decimate" them, the ideology breeds. Those in the region that are peaceful now will continue to be frustrated and will eventually turn fanatical themselves. This is a bred mentality and we are not innocent in the breeding of it. But there is no simple solution. No simple solution such as utopian diplomacy and no simple solution such as killing them all. It will take centuries for the situation to get better but it never will get better if we continue to occupy and force our culture/ideologues on a completely different culture. And for those that think that Christianity is perfect...it was the Christians that spread missionaries throughout the world and spend hundreds of years using nearly any means necessary to convert. People in Africa, Polynesia, Asia, and S America did not all just go quietly. No...Christian fanatics let them know that it was imperative to convert. Religion is an odd thing. It plays with our passions and is more powerful than any government can ever be. It can make human beings do horrifit things.

 

[local 12 proud]

Glad that you looked at your cheat sheet for which canned response to use here.

No cheat sheet necessary!

The intelligence did NOT say they were a threat and that has been proven.

Oh really? seems these folks would disagree!

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.â€
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.â€
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.â€
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.â€
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.â€
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.â€
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.â€
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.â€
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.â€
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â€
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…â€
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.â€
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do†Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …â€
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

How can I argue? Firepower sure has helped so far

Have we been attacked since 9/11?... I rest my case!

No...the USA did not start the occupation (or as you say...trying to run the Middle East out to sea) but the "West" did.

If you would read instead of spewing your left wing liberal propaganda you would see that what I said was "One Religion is hell bent on driving another into the sea"!

You see...we can fight the terrorists with no end possible. Even if we "decimate" them, the ideology breeds.

So lets cut and run, bury our heads and hope another 9/11 does'nt happen or worse yet a Nuclear Attack.

Is this your solution?

This is a bred mentality and we are not innocent in the breeding of it.

I agree with the first part about being a bred mentality, but this Holy War (jihad) was instituted eons ago, before christianity was even established.

Religion is an odd thing. It plays with our passions and is more powerful than any government can ever be. It can make human beings do horrifit things.

Yes Religion is an odd thing, but I know of no other Religion than Radical Islam that preaches Death to those who refuse to convert and are fervently carrying out that ideaology.

 

[Seatacus]

Hmmmm. Would you really want to have a Nuk plant in state where earthquakes are a regular occurrence? The bay area recently had a quake that caused quite a bit of damage and then there was the quake in Northridge that mess up a few things. Some how I don’t see that as being the best place in the world to place a power source that if damaged, could contaminate the surrounding area for a length of time measured in centuries, not weeks of months. But hey, it’s not in your back yard so what do you care.

Who says it has to be in your backyard? Have you ever heard of transmission lines. Washington state supplies power all over the West Coast from their hydroelectric dams. I'm sure there is a nice chunk of desert somewhere that can accommodate a power plant. Let's build smaller nuke plants and put them on military bases for security. And while we are at it let's drill for oil everywhere we have a deposit. Off the coasts, in the arctic. Let's start digging up coal and building gasification plants. Let's star building wind farms off the coast of Cape Cod. Let's build solar energy farms in the deserts. Let's turn our corn into fuel. Let's dam every river we can find with fish friendly hydrolectric dams. Let's give the Middle East some competition and watch how fast the price of energy comes down. We need to get this oil monkey off our backs and tell the Middle East to go "pack sand".

 

[Ch. 12]

No cheat sheet necessary!
Oh really? seems these folks would disagree!

And we've all learned that taking comments from politicians...no matter which party...is better evidence than taking the facts, right? Nice google search of "WMD references by liberals". I found it in 2 seconds flat. Again...we are talking FACTS vs. what people say. To say that "we shouldn't allow the development of" (ala Iran and N Korea...but what are we doing about them) vs. "they have them beyond all reasonable doubt" is a big difference. Let the politicians say they have WMDs...but let the intelligence community share its FACTS w/o putting a spin on it. That was the issue with our administration.

If you would read instead of spewing your left wing liberal propaganda you would see that what I said was "One Religion is hell bent on driving another into the sea"!

I sure do like how we've completely polarized this country over the past 6 years. Sure is healthy, isn't it? Regardless of what "group" you're from, you mentioned driving another into the sea. You were referring to Muslims driving us into the sea but if you look...it has been the West that has been in the Muslims' lands for 2000 years trying to drive them out to sea. What you see today is still the Crusades...just a modern era. We've never seen an invasion and occupation in W. Europe, Asia, or N/S America as we have in the M. East.

So lets cut and run, bury our heads and hope another 9/11 does'nt happen or worse yet a Nuclear Attack.

Stop with the "cut and run" drivel. That is just pride and ignorance combined to create another canned talking point. Can you converse without them? And yes...let's continue to hang up the 9/11 banner whenever an intelligent debate starts. "that will shut 'em up. nobody can respond when you tell them that they are unpatriotic or that their thoughts will lead to another 9/11." Give me a break! That is ignorant. Try debating without bringing holocaustic comments into the fray that are meant to quell any opposition.

I agree with the first part about being a bred mentality, but this Holy War (jihad) was instituted eons ago, before christianity was even established.

Huh? It has been the Christians' actions and not the Muslims words that we should concern ourselves with. Read my earlier point...it isn't the Muslims that have invaded an area with a different culture and different beliefs and occupied it for thousands of years killing civilians.

Yes Religion is an odd thing, but I know of no other Religion than Radical Islam that preaches Death to those who refuse to convert and are fervently carrying out that ideaology.

Again...ask those indigenous peoples throughout the world how it was to have Catholicism or other forms of Christianity forced on them...with penalties of torture or death for not converting. These practices existed even until the early 1900's and actually still do in parts of Africa. It is this kind of ignorance to realities in the world that sickens me. And no...no "liberal media" has pointed these issues out to me. I can read and understand history. And I don't just say "liberal media" whenever anyone comes along with an idea that counters my pre-conceived notions.

And so that you know...I'm done responding if it is just to canned comments. I can read those from my FoxNewsThisIsWhatYouSay website if I want to. Tell me what YOU really think and what YOU have discovered through research...not just what you are regurgitating.

 

[TWAnr]

Oh really? seems these folks would disagree!

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.â€
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.â€
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.â€
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.â€
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.â€
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.â€
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.â€
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.â€
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.â€
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â€
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…â€
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.â€
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do†Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …â€
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

All that you have posted are selected excerpts presented out of their context. As the old saying goes; “A half truth is worse than a lie.â€

To quote from Snopes:

All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible.

For more, please go to this web page:

Snopes: Words of Mass Destruction

 

[Seatacus]

All that you have posted are selected excerpts presented out of their context.

Their context looks pretty clear to me.

 

[Garfield1966]

Who says it has to be in your backyard? Have you ever heard of transmission lines. Washington state supplies power all over the West Coast from their hydroelectric dams. I'm sure there is a nice chunk of desert somewhere that can accommodate a power plant. Let's build smaller nuke plants and put them on military bases for security. And while we are at it let's drill for oil everywhere we have a deposit. Off the coasts, in the arctic. Let's start digging up coal and building gasification plants. Let's star building wind farms off the coast of Cape Cod. Let's build solar energy farms in the deserts. Let's turn our corn into fuel. Let's dam every river we can find with fish friendly hydrolectric dams. Let's give the Middle East some competition and watch how fast the price of energy comes down. We need to get this oil monkey off our backs and tell the Middle East to go "pack sand".

Apparently you are unfamiliar with happens to a Nuke plant when things go bad.


http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=sep93marples

With the benefit of hindsight, the April 28-June 30, 1986, evacuations of the 30-kilometer zone around the reactor are now known to have been grossly inadequate (although the complete emptying of the reactor city of Pripyat was efficient and necessary). The radioactive plume from the burning reactor at Chernobyl moved north and then west, spreading radioactive iodine across two-thirds of Belarus and on into Poland and Sweden. Longer-lived radioisotopes such as cesium 137 and strontium 90 were dispersed over a very wide area--some 100,000 square kilometers. Russia was most widely affected by the fallout path, but the most dangerous fallout was in Belarus and immediately around the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine.


Point being that the radiation will not neccesarily be contained in the plate structure. If there is a major earth quake, or rather, when there is a major earth quake, the integrity of the structure could be compromised and the resulting contamination could be horrific.

As for power alternatives. I can see no logical reason to drill everywhere and any where for oil to feed our dependence on a resource as antiquated and inefficient as fossil fuel. Corn fields, go for it, wind farms .. ok but I have read that they are not all that efficient. Solar, hell yes. The one thing you failed to mention is developing new resources. If we would spend half as much time advancing fuel cell and similar technology, we could get rid of oil completely in 20 or 30 years (just my opinion) probably less. We are dependant on oil because those in power want us to be and we (the people) do not do anything to tell them no. In fact, we go out and purchase the most inefficient vehicles, we build our cities with out public transportation and spread them out over vast expanses so that each person must have a vehicle.

I have been to the Artic, I have been to the amazon, and I would hate to see these once pristine lands damaged further by our greed and ego. Once my nieces grow up, I would love to be able to take them to Alaska or the Artic and look out across a huge vista with out the eye sore of a oil rig or pipe line. It never ceases to amaze mw how we are so willing to sacrifice nature and our surroundings to satisfy our pathetic needs.

 

[sentrido]

Why are statments by people who did not have all the information, or were given incorrect information used to justify the gross mistatements and mistakes of those that had all the information?

 

[Ch. 12]

Why are statments by people who did not have all the information, or were given incorrect information used to justify the gross mistatements and mistakes of those that had all the information?

One word "desperation". It is yet the next tactic in an effort to never admit wrong-doing.

 

[local 12 proud]

And we've all learned that taking comments from politicians...no matter which party...is better evidence than taking the facts, right?

so you admit ALL politicians are liars and fabricators...Interesting!

Nice google search of "WMD references by liberals". I found it in 2 seconds flat. Again...we are talking FACTS vs. what people say.

wow im Impressed, you know how to google search.
spin it how you like, those liberals were privy to the same Intelligence... :blink:

To say that "we shouldn't allow the development of" (ala Iran and N Korea...but what are we doing about them)

what do you propose? setting around the camp fire and having group hugs?

you mentioned driving another into the sea. You were referring to Muslims driving us into the sea but if you look...it has been the West that has been in the Muslims' lands for 2000 years trying to drive them out to sea.

No I was'nt referring to Muslims driving us into the sea, I was referring to Muslims driving Israel into the sea!

Stop with the "cut and run" drivel. That is just pride and ignorance combined to create another canned talking point. Can you converse without them? And yes...let's continue to hang up the 9/11 banner whenever an intelligent debate starts. "that will shut 'em up. nobody can respond when you tell them that they are unpatriotic or that their thoughts will lead to another 9/11." Give me a break! That is ignorant. Try debating without bringing holocaustic comments into the fray that are meant to quell any opposition.

Like I said, bury your head in the sand and all will get right with the world. as usual you refuse to answer because you have none, other than...."Stop with the drivel, stop with the canned talking points"..waaaa waaaa!

Again...ask those indigenous peoples throughout the world how it was to have Catholicism or other forms of Christianity forced on them...with penalties of torture or death for not converting.

Yes I believe Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Richard Roberts, and of course Billy Graham are all assembling a large contingent of Holy Rollers armed with their Bibles and are awaiting marching orders from W. they will convert, or slay those muslims with the edge of the WORD according to the Gospel of John...

I can read and understand history.

Obviously Not!

And so that you know...I'm done responding if it is just to canned comments.

Translation:
Since you don't have my Liberal views and bend to my beliefs, then Im taking my ball and going home!

Tell me what YOU really think and what YOU have discovered through research...not just what you are regurgitating.

I have told YOU what I really think, problem is it does'nt agree with your Perception of where the true problem lies!

regurgitating... Yea thats what I feel like doing every time I read one of your LEFT WING LIBERAL POST! :bleh:

 

[local 12 proud]

All that you have posted are selected excerpts presented out of their context. As the old saying goes; “A half truth is worse than a lie.â€￾

More spin from a liberal, if it is a snippet from the left its out of context, if it's from the right then its not..

To quote from Snopes:
For more, please go to this web page:

Snopes: Words of Mass Destruction

Man thats dynamic and amazing, a liberal website that gives the true facts...

 

[local 12 proud]

One word "desperation". It is yet the next tactic in an effort to never admit wrong-doing.

I never said Mistakes were'nt made, In fact both parties have blame to share.

NOW WHAT? finish the job, or tuck tail and run? ...Oh wait ch. 12 I think I already know your answer.

Never admit wrong-doing? Do you mean like this?

Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,â€￾ Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandyâ€￾ Berger failed to act.

â€￾I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,â€￾ Ijaz writes.

â€￾The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."