The Miss Education of Republicans..
#1
The Miss Education of Republicans..
#2
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
F'ing retards. The 9/11 commision proves without a doubt there were none, and BUSH admits there were none, and they still beleive there were. People like that need to be dragged out back and shot. Well, maybe not shot, but beat with a rubber hose maybe.
-Chris
-Chris
#4
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Even though I still don't think that's the REAL reason we went there, I'd bet you some will turn up over time. So what do you think about the caveats in the report?
Did you mean mis-education? I thought I was going to see a hot republican chick in this thread.
#6
Originally Posted by Salty
#7
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 409
Car Info: 2003 WRX Wgn
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Can anyone explain to me how that's not evidence of a weapons program?
They were allowed to have the HMX and RDX because they are also used in civil/industrial razing. It was well known that they had these and that they tried and failed to develop a nuclear program with these items in the 80's. There has been no evidence of a renewed program since the gulf war.
Where is the outrage that tons of this material has gone missing under the 'watchful eye' of our military? Why is the first instinct---"see, I told you they have WMD" instead of, "holy ****, our military just let 380 tons of explosives dissapear into thin air"
#8
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Posts: 2,064
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Originally Posted by syncopation
Sure,
They were allowed to have the HMX and RDX because they are also used in civil/industrial razing. It was well known that they had these and that they tried and failed to develop a nuclear program with these items in the 80's. There has been no evidence of a renewed program since the gulf war.
Where is the outrage that tons of this material has gone missing under the 'watchful eye' of our military? Why is the first instinct---"see, I told you they have WMD" instead of, "holy ****, our military just let 380 tons of explosives dissapear into thin air"
They were allowed to have the HMX and RDX because they are also used in civil/industrial razing. It was well known that they had these and that they tried and failed to develop a nuclear program with these items in the 80's. There has been no evidence of a renewed program since the gulf war.
Where is the outrage that tons of this material has gone missing under the 'watchful eye' of our military? Why is the first instinct---"see, I told you they have WMD" instead of, "holy ****, our military just let 380 tons of explosives dissapear into thin air"
#9
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
Strong ties with al Qaeda have been refuted but nobody knows about the possibility of WMDs
Didn't Rumsfeld admit that there were no WMD's already? I could have sworn he said they were wrong about that a few weeks ago...are you one of the people they're talking about in the article Salty?
#10
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
Didn't Rumsfeld admit that there were no WMD's already? I could have sworn he said they were wrong about that a few weeks ago...are you one of the people they're talking about in the article Salty?
Rumsfeld did that to save face IMHO. There's no telling what's under all that sand and we may never know for hundreds of years
#11
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Actually there are several excellent ways to detect things under sand. Sonar works alright, certain radio frequencies can be used...bombs/bunkers have much different densities than sand, and we can definatly figure out densities under ground from aerial methods...how do you think we image/find the bunkers we do blow up? Or how about underground oil? The earth can be imaged deeper than Iraq is capable of digging...and IMHO, I'll bet we've imaged the whole country (wouldn't be all that hard). So if you thought Rumsfeld admited what he did IYHO just to save face, then I say you ARE one of the people talked about in the article.
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
Originally Posted by MVWRX
Actually there are several excellent ways to detect things under sand. Sonar works alright, certain radio frequencies can be used...bombs/bunkers have much different densities than sand, and we can definatly figure out densities under ground from aerial methods...how do you think we image/find the bunkers we do blow up? Or how about underground oil? The earth can be imaged deeper than Iraq is capable of digging...and IMHO, I'll bet we've imaged the whole country (wouldn't be all that hard). So if you thought Rumsfeld admited what he did IYHO just to save face, then I say you ARE one of the people talked about in the article.
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
Originally Posted by MVWRX
how do you think we image/find the bunkers we do blow up?
Last edited by deyes; 10-25-2004 at 12:23 PM.
#14
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/haarp.htm
That link describes the technology and is a research proposal to set up stations around the globe for military use (haven't done it yet, but the technology is around, just not in a standardized form that can cover the whole NHemisphere like they propose).
http://www.sandia.gov/RIE/OilAndGasA.htm
This one describes Sandia using the same technology to find gas/oil. They have been testing for many years, and I'm sure our military has some working prototypes of this type of technology.
Haven't you seen the pictures they show on the news of underground-imaged bunkers?
In addition to all this, I'm sure X-rays and even the newly developed T-rays could be used.
All I'm saying is that there really isn't anywhere in Iraq where a bunch of WMDs could be hidden...we would have found them by now. And Rumsfeld admited he they were wrong about the WMDs because...gasp...they were!
That link describes the technology and is a research proposal to set up stations around the globe for military use (haven't done it yet, but the technology is around, just not in a standardized form that can cover the whole NHemisphere like they propose).
http://www.sandia.gov/RIE/OilAndGasA.htm
This one describes Sandia using the same technology to find gas/oil. They have been testing for many years, and I'm sure our military has some working prototypes of this type of technology.
Haven't you seen the pictures they show on the news of underground-imaged bunkers?
In addition to all this, I'm sure X-rays and even the newly developed T-rays could be used.
All I'm saying is that there really isn't anywhere in Iraq where a bunch of WMDs could be hidden...we would have found them by now. And Rumsfeld admited he they were wrong about the WMDs because...gasp...they were!
#15
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 409
Car Info: 2003 WRX Wgn
Originally Posted by deyes
Pray tell. How DO we image/find the bunkers we do blow up? I imagine that we use a vast aerial formation of art deco robots with sonar and radio scanners behind their cyclops like visors.
Appeal To Complexity:
if the arguer doesn't understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody's.
I actually do know something about the technology, and, although it may not be easy (as in quick and effortless), it can be done, and is being done.
In addition:
Burden Of Proof:
the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.
There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority - but why is it him who wins by default? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Last edited by syncopation; 10-25-2004 at 12:39 PM.