Hey PB..

[Daniel]

Do me a favor and post that wall of text from democrats supporting the war in Iraq.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Give me the twenty four seconds of my life back, spent reading your senseless message, and typing this reply to said message. Including backspace time.

[Daniel]

Fuck you. Is your name PB?

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Shush commie.

[Stanley Burrell]

Give me the twenty four seconds of my life back, spent reading your senseless message, and typing this reply to said message. Including backspace time.

Go with your old userhandle to avoid confusion.

I mean, you've got the acronyms of a ParkBandit. And you don't want to eat Metamucil three times a day, do you?

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Ack... what did that even mean? I'm comfoozed...

:wtf:

[Stanley Burrell]

Ack... what did that even mean? I'm comfoozed...

:wtf:

Go back to your original PC userhandle.

[Stanley Burrell]

Or forever have at least 2 acronyms in your name that are the same as ParkBandit's, which, by the way, makes you gay in that non-derogatory way.

You're also not ParkBandit and Daniel wins.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Me have no other account on here... Kinda wish I did though, since I fucked myself with this one like a dozen times already. I can't even get Jolena to reply to me! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Gan]

Do me a favor and post that wall of text from democrats supporting the war in Iraq.

...

Wall of text says your full of shit:


"[W]e 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[Gan]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/20021223_05_mistake.gif
aaaaarrrrgh!

[Stanley Burrell]

Me have no other account on here... Kinda wish I did though, since I fucked myself with this one like a dozen times already. I can't even get Jolena to reply to me! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Unless you actually are a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that can type, you entered these forums with posting etiquette that was completely indicative that you've had at least one other userhandle here.

Maybe you're a long-time lurker, but for someone who's name is what my mom used to give me along with Shark Snacks in 1st grade, you started posting with an undoubted style that makes me think if you tell me this is your first PC userhandle that I shall say "Bupkis!" Like HarmNone was still an admin.


Wall of text says your full of shit:


"[W]e 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

You just got told, Daniel-san.

Especially because:


LOL.. I think I made the little druggie mad. Boo fucking hoo.

Anyway, I think I've given you more attention than is needed.. it's part of my "Be nice to a fucking loser" campaign of the day. I'll go back to doing what almost everyone else here does.. just skipping over your drug induced idiot post vomit. Trying to make sense of it usually just ends in futility.

Means PB (not PB&J) is always correct. Give up at the internetz now :no:

[Stanley Burrell]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/20021223_05_mistake.gif
aaaaarrrrgh!

This needed to have been invented before everyone got so darn old and forgotten. Damn it. Damn it to hell.

Good pic, tho'.

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Short-ish time "lurker", I suppose you could say. I used to pop in now and then to check auction stuff, but never made an account since I'm generally anti-forum stoof. Anywho, tis truely my first and only account here, and if ya know of any way to have that checked into (say, maybe a mod can do so, somehow?), by all means, have at it!

[Stanley Burrell]

Short-ish time "lurker", I suppose you could say. I used to pop in now and then to check auction stuff, but never made an account since I'm generally anti-forum stoof. Anywho, tis truely my first and only account here, and if ya know of any way to have that checked into (say, maybe a mod can do so, somehow?), by all means, have at it!

We've had our eye on you for a long time.

This thread sucks but it makes fun of PB so it's awesome.

What a sucky fucking awesome thread.

Bye.

[Daniel]

Thanks.

I'm actually writing an online response for a class where I need quotes from people who supported the war. I figure, I'm already a target enough at this liberal ass school. I might as well set some people up for some pwnage in the process.

"What??..I bet you didn't think Hillary Clinton said that shit now did you? Booya bitch".

[Gan]

Sentimental reading! :)

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

[Daniel]

Incidently, those are the two quotes I'm using.

[TheEschaton]

When I'm involved in politics, remind me never to trust the intelligence reports I'm handed from the CIA, backed by the Office of the President, and vouchsafed as reliable, and that, instead, I should personally verify everything they say until I know it's true.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Wait, what? Are you using your sarcasm to describe Bush, or Clinton?

[Parkbandit]

Ack... what did that even mean? I'm comfoozed...

:wtf:

Stanley has that affect on most people who don't speak Retardese.

[TheEschaton]

I'm saying the office of the President: 1) directed intelligence to look for evidence that didn't exist, 2) did not acknowledge evidence which spoke against their theories, and 3) presented the one-sided information that was gleaned from known false sources to everyone else as a fair, balanced intelligence report that would, if considered to be actually fair, and not skewed, be very alarming.

-TheE-

[Snapp]

Short-ish time "lurker", I suppose you could say. I used to pop in now and then to check auction stuff, but never made an account since I'm generally anti-forum stoof. Anywho, tis truely my first and only account here, and if ya know of any way to have that checked into (say, maybe a mod can do so, somehow?), by all means, have at it!

Don't worry about it, everyone is just paranoid anymore since the Backlash episodes. And confusion is normal when reading most Stanley posts.

[Gan]

I'm saying the office of the President: 1) directed intelligence to look for evidence that didn't exist, 2) did not acknowledge evidence which spoke against their theories, and 3) presented the one-sided information that was gleaned from known false sources to everyone else as a fair, balanced intelligence report that would, if considered to be actually fair, and not skewed, be very alarming.

-TheE-

Caution:

You are entering into the SPIN ZONE.

[Tsa`ah]

When I'm involved in politics, remind me never to trust the intelligence reports I'm handed from the CIA, backed by the Office of the President, and vouchsafed as reliable, and that, instead, I should personally verify everything they say until I know it's true.

While the italics points to sarcasm ... you really should, no matter what side of the political fence you're on.

The president may be charged with command of the military ... but it is Congress that declares war. It is Congress who can put a leash on the president's military control.

Do I care that we were bamboozled into a war we had no business getting into? You bet. However, it wasn't Bush who failed us, it was Congress. I've said it before and I'll say it again ... If a C average cheerleader from Harvard makes a claim that could result in the deaths of our fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters ... you had better be damned sure those claims are valid.

Bush was/is rightfully blamed for this war and the events since day one of said war ... Congress, until now ... has been given a free pass. The process of picking our candidates for the next general election marked the expiration date for that pass ... and honestly that pass should have expired four years ago. Had Clinton been voted out of her senate seat ... well her ugly mug and unnerving cackle wouldn't haunt me every time I surfed the channels.

I can give this to conservatives ... they stuck to their guns and didn't start with the finger pointing. It was the democrats, who shouldn't have been fooled by an idiot, who haven't taken responsibility for their votes. It's the democrats who would like us to believe it's all Dubya's fault ... and I'm sorry, but it wasn't just Bush that failed us.

[TheEschaton]

Oh, believe me, I fully hold Hillary accountable for her vote, because even I knew we shouldn't be going into this war when she voted yes. ;)

[Parkbandit]

I'm saying the office of the President: 1) directed intelligence to look for evidence that didn't exist, 2) did not acknowledge evidence which spoke against their theories, and 3) presented the one-sided information that was gleaned from known false sources to everyone else as a fair, balanced intelligence report that would, if considered to be actually fair, and not skewed, be very alarming.

-TheE-

1) Directed intelligence to look for evidence that didn't exist.. because they investigated it and found that it didn't exist. Should we simply turn a blind eye to any possibility? I have never heard of an investigation that only investigated certainty and not possibility.

2) EVERY single piece of intelligence will normally have opposite and contradictory intelligence. It is the Intelligence Department's JOB to determine what intelligence is the most credible.

3) Once #2 is determined, it is their JOB to make the case. As a Lawyer wannabe, I would think this concept would be relatively easy for you to get.

[Stanley Burrell]

Stanley has that affect on most people who don't speak Retardese.

A) You're a bad father.

D) Fuck, I dunno. B & C are where I make fun of your colostomy bag.

The Retardese seek vengeance upon the planet, you inept-at-parenting GGGILF fucker, you. Bah.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

A) You're a bad father.

D) Fuck, I dunno. B & C are where I make fun of your colostomy bag.

The Retardese seek vengeance upon the planet, you inept-at-parenting GGGILF fucker, you. Bah.

You judging someone on their parenting is rich. Are parents who foster a drug addict in their own home and let them steal from them, are those role-models?

How much longer until you go bat shit crazy again?

[Clove]

When I'm involved in politics, remind me never to trust the intelligence reports I'm handed from the CIA, backed by the Office of the President, and vouchsafed as reliable, and that, instead, I should personally verify everything they say until I know it's true.

-TheE-

Right- bad CIA reports work as an excuse for Hillary and Edwards but not Bush. Fucking hypocrite.

[Ilvane]

Actually, Bush was aware there was a good chance the intelligence wasn't true, while the Senate wasn't told about that. So nice try.

In 2002 things were a hell of a lot different than they are now. Hindsight is always 20/20, huh?

Angela

[Clove]

Actually, Bush was aware there was a good chance the intelligence wasn't true, while the Senate wasn't told about that. So nice try.

In 2002 things were a hell of a lot different than they are now. Hindsight is always 20/20, huh?

Angela

It's called the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Every time you speak you make the Baby Jesus cry, please STFU.

[Tsa`ah]

Actually, Bush was aware there was a good chance the intelligence wasn't true, while the Senate wasn't told about that. So nice try.

In 2002 things were a hell of a lot different than they are now. Hindsight is always 20/20, huh?

Again, Congress was bamboozled by a C average Harvard cheerleader and continues to displace blame instead of shouldering their share of responsibility.

I don't care if Bush was aware, they failed to do their jobs despite the findings of U.N. inspectors and reports ... in doing so they're just as culpable. This is largely why you hear rumblings about impeachment yet see no action, even though the Dems are favored with the majority. It would bring to light the utter failure ... even on their part.

[Sean of the Thread]

Actually, Bush was aware there was a good chance the intelligence wasn't true, while the Senate wasn't told about that. So nice try.

In 2002 things were a hell of a lot different than they are now. Hindsight is always 20/20, huh?

Angela

Holy fucking shit you're a god damned stupid person.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, Bush was aware there was a good chance the intelligence wasn't true, while the Senate wasn't told about that. So nice try.

In 2002 things were a hell of a lot different than they are now. Hindsight is always 20/20, huh?

Angela

The really sad part is.. you believe the stupidity you post.. even when confronted with facts.

[Gan]

Oh, believe me, I fully hold Hillary accountable for her vote, because even I knew we shouldn't be going into this war when she voted yes. ;)

This made me chuckle.

To think a snot nosed college student would know more than a Congressman/woman about the decision to aggressively attack Iraq, especially over information only available to military chiefs, national intelligence agencys, senate and house security commites, etc.

AMAZING!

Or you could say that because you are against violence and killing you thought we shouldnt go to war and leave it at that. Of course, that would require you to abandon your claim that you 'knew better' even when professionals who had tons more information at their fingertips did not.

:lol:

[Gan]

The really sad part is.. you believe the stupidity you post.. even when confronted with facts.

Thats because unlike the real world, she can go back and delete her words when they dont fit reality.

Funny thing is that the politician who closest resembles that MO is Hillary. Only she not only stole/hid files and dossiers but also erased people in order to cover her tracks.

And you wonder why she supports Hillary?

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

Yea.. big stretch there.. a pussy pacifist 'knew' war was a bad idea.

Man.. I hope we are all around in about 10 years.. and we can bump SO many threads and laugh at SO many idiots.

[Clove]

Yea.. big stretch there.. a pussy pacifist 'knew' war was a bad idea.

Man.. I hope we are all around in about 10 years.. and we can bump SO many threads and laugh at SO many idiots.

And I do too PB; and I think you will be. They're making great advances in geriatrics every year.

[Gan]

And I do too PB; and I think you will be. They're making great advances in geriatrics every year.

LOL

http://www.talentondisplay.com/CashCoveronAARP.jpg

[Tsa`ah]

Yea.. big stretch there.. a pussy pacifist 'knew' war was a bad idea.

Man.. I hope we are all around in about 10 years.. and we can bump SO many threads and laugh at SO many idiots.

I've been against the war from the start, and I could probably bump some posts from the old board and compare them to events since the war and point out more than a few idiots.

I wouldn't hold your breath on the 10 year remark. While you believe you're the champion of pointing out idiots simply because of the chorus and lack of opposition ... I'd say it is far more likely that people are just weary of the lack of substance and the never ending tail chasing.

[Parkbandit]

I've been against the war from the start, and I could probably bump some posts from the old board and compare them to events since the war and point out more than a few idiots.

I wouldn't hold your breath on the 10 year remark. While you believe you're the champion of pointing out idiots simply because of the chorus and lack of opposition ... I'd say it is far more likely that people are just weary of the lack of substance and the never ending tail chasing.

LOL.. I would think after all the threads where you've been shown to be a complete hypocrite.. you would at least be smart enough not to give me ammunition.

Seriously.. it's like you want my attention for whatever reason. I've been there, done that.. and you bore the shit out of me chump. Move along before I find entertainment in your posts and once again show you as the cheap google know nothing piece of shit you really are... and make you cry.

[Celephais]

Maybe you're a long-time lurker, but for someone who's name is what my mom used to give me along with Shark Snacks in 1st grade ...
Can I change this thread's topic to Shark Snacks? Those things fucking ruled, and the great whites were undeniably the best flavor... I think they dumped an extra 5 lbs of sugar into each great white... That or coke.

[Sean of the Thread]

Mmmm shark snacks. I used to shove a few up my nose during football games then fart deliciously mustard flavored hotdogs before talking to harvey about the FOREX.

[Gan]

I've never had shark snacks.

How could I have missed such a delacacy?

Especially when Sharks were a favorite topic of mine in my early school years. I even had my own cartoon modeled after CPO Sharkey cartoon.

[Celephais]

Mmmm shark snacks. I used to shove a few up my nose during football games then fart deliciously mustard flavored hotdogs before talking to harvey about the FOREX.
Forget to switch to your Stanely login?

[Sean of the Thread]

Forget to switch to your Stanely login?

Damn it I thought today was stainley post a like day. I just realized it was yesterday... my bad.

[Valthissa]

I don't have the link to the study but the findings (as I remember them )were interesting.

They concluded that it was an efficient use of memory for humans to only remember thoughts and events that supported their most current opinions.

On the subject of Iraq they could see that many people who had supported the idea of the war didn't justify their later opposition based on a long list of how the situation evolved but simply believed they were always against the war.

C/Valth

[Clove]

This made me chuckle.

To think a snot nosed college student would know more than a Congressman/woman about the decision to aggressively attack Iraq, especially over information only available to military chiefs, national intelligence agencys, senate and house security commites, etc.

AMAZING!

...
:lol:

We need to hook the White House up with the E'smail.

WWED?

[Daniel]

Tentative Post:

The Quotes:

Self Defense:

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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


Pre-emptive Self Defense:

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

Humanitarian Intervention:
“The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. “

I have chosen the quotes above in order to illustrate some of the inconsistencies that have been scattered throughout our readings to date. It should be noted that the concepts of self defense and humanitarian intervention have been interrelated from the very beginning. Saddam was suspected of maintaining stockpiles of NBC weapons and accused of trying to create more. However, he was hardly the first man to do so and surely won’t be the last. The problem was that he had demonstrated his willingness to utilize these weapons indiscriminately against, not only his enemies, but his own people to further his political will.
The prospect of allowing such a man to possess weapons capable of inflicting massive amounts casualties was presented as a material threat to the United States, the region and to the Iraqi people. However, as pointed out by Michael Byers, there was no positive precedent for the utilization of military forces to mitigate the *potential* for danger. Israel has frequently invoked this right in order to protect its interests at home and abroad, but their rationale has been rejected just as frequently by the international community.
The reluctance of the international community to allow such actions to be undertaken is without cause. It is a dangerous and slippery slope to allow the unilateral action of one country to act within its interests; as there is no guarantee that any country will ever operate with the best interests of the rest of the world in mind. However, as argued by the President in his SOTU in 2003, it is not acceptable to wait until the rest of the world realizes the dangers posed by a man such as Saddam. 9\11, Rwanda, and numerous other examples demonstrate the reasons why.
At the same time it would be an injustice to lump the arguments of self defense and humanitarian assistance entirely into the same groups. Although, they both are focused on the preservation of life, the methods and manner in which these arguments should be used are vastly different. In the case of self defense, you must assume that there is some entity that is devoted to the undermining of your national security and must act appropriately. This often entails difficult decisions that attempt to balance the actions necessary with the impact that these will have not, positive and negative. The perfect historical example of this is the application of nuclear weapons by the Untied States in the Second World War. Although, the utilization of these weapons were a ghastly and regrettable action, it probably saved the lives of hundreds of thousands Americans. As sad as it may be, this consideration often trumps the fact that the lives of hundreds of thousands Japanese citizens.
However, the issue of humanitarian intervention is vastly different in that the self defense because your foremost consideration is that of the people that any action will most likely affect. It is impossible to make the distinction of “collateral damage” within the context of humanitarian intervention because the goal of your actions is the preservation of life. Therefore, any loss of life, regardless of the circumstances, is a detriment to your goal, and ultimately detracts from the stated reasons for the intervention.
In my previous response I made the case that humanitarian intervention in Iraq was justified, with the caveat that the nature of the current intervention in Iraq should not be obfuscated with the fact of whether or not intervention itself was justified. As illustrated by the timing and nature of the quotes above, the humanitarian aspect of the invasion was not an afterthought a year later (as per Michael Byers), but a secondary consideration to that of self preservation.

The failure of the United States was not in the intervention itself, but rather the manner in which they went about it. In our preparations for the war, it was assumed that the humanitarian justification for the war was clear and that no special consideration beyond that of the traditional self defense strategy was necessary to achieve our goals. It was not appreciated that the self defense and humanitarian aspect of any intervention have competing considerations. It was either assumed that the self defense justification of the intervention would continue to remain valid or that the humanitarian justification would play it self out as a natural course of events. As the intelligence reports that were utilized for the case of war began to be debunked and the reality of military intervention began to play out in living rooms across America, it became shockingly apparent that this would not be the case.
This “confusion” (or overt omission if you like) led to actions that were ultimately counter productive to the goals and aims of the United States government. The basis for the self defense argument had dissipated and not only had they done nothing to improve the humanitarian situation in Iraq, they had actually contributed to the further destruction of an already fragile environment.
As a final point I would like to discuss the issue of human rights advocacy. As I pointed out, the United States Government failed to take the proper considerations before embarking on a war with humanitarian implications. However, I would also like to point a failure on the part of human rights advocates. As noted, the United States government neglected to include sufficient humanitarian preparations into its actions, but I would argue that the Humanitarian advocates failed to incorporate themselves into the defense preparations and that this is not the first time that this has occurred.
The argument is often framed as one in which military and defense considerations are often opposed to the very tents of human rights intervention. It is suggested that there is *always* an alternative to violent intervention, but as Thomas Weiss points out, this may not always be preferred by the recipients of these interventions. An ideal system, with no enforcement mechanism, has been created and it is expected to be followed, to the detriment of 6 million people in Cambodia, 3 million in Rwanda, and countless more around the world. This is not acceptable and as long as the Human Rights community is unwilling to re-evaluate the nature of their role in the world, there will no meaningful changes in the world.
War is hell. However, if it is deemed necessary then it is necessary to ensure that it is done appropriately and with the right considerations. This means that the Human Rights Framework should be an integral part of any decisions related to the use of violence. However, it should not be wedded with the other considerations that exist. The blame for what has occurred in Iraq does not just lie on the president and those within the defense community who failed to take into account the humanitarian aspect. It also lies within those with the knowledge and the expertise, within and without the USG, which refused to make sure that they took it into account.

[TheEschaton]

Uh, Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM head inspector, said before the war was started, there was no WMD, that they had destroyed 99% of WMD in 99 when he left, and that satellite monitoring had not shown any activity which would indicate a rebuilding of that arsenal.

Hans Blix found no signs of WMD. Do you remember the aluminum tubes which Bush claimed were signs of WMD? Oh, they weren't.

When they asked for a report from Iraqi officials about their capabilities in certain fields, the Iraqis provided a 1400+ page report illustrating how they DID NOT have the capability to pursue these programs, and we said, "This is a load of bullshit, because our intelligence says they can!"

The rest of the international community did not see any evidence of violation, and wanted to keep on inspecting, but the U.S. and England decided to charge in anyways.

As to the whole "hypocrite" thing, I do not think it is warranted. I've made it very clear that I think Bush directed the CIA to find evidence which supported his supposition (cf. everything Richard Clarke has ever written), suppressed evidence which disproved his supposition, and hyped up evidence which A) only tenuously, at best, supported his supposition, or B) came from unreliable sources.

So, when I say I knew better than Hillary, I did - I knew better than to trust G.W. Bush. She was the naive one in thinking that a sitting President wouldn't lie and manipulate evidence to serve his political purposes as outlined in PNAC.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

You judging someone on their parenting is rich. Are parents who foster a drug addict in their own home and let them steal from them, are those role-models?

How much longer until you go bat shit crazy again?

I had sex with your avatar, not Betheny, you disgusting fuck.

Shark Snacks.






















































































Nah, I'm just kidding, I didn't have sex with your avatar yet.

I like turtles.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/2141YECJ7HL._AA180_.jpg

[Asha]

Has everybody fucked Beth?

[Clove]

Uh, Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM head inspector, said before the war was started, there was no WMD, that they had destroyed 99% of WMD in 99 when he left, and that satellite monitoring had not shown any activity which would indicate a rebuilding of that arsenal.

Hans Blix found no signs of WMD. Do you remember the aluminum tubes which Bush claimed were signs of WMD? Oh, they weren't.

Hans Blix was also not given the requested access to search. This lead to the UN September Ultimatum. Oh. Do you also remember that Iraq was forbidden to purchase such tubes?



When they asked for a report from Iraqi officials about their capabilities in certain fields, the Iraqis provided a 1400+ page report illustrating how they DID NOT have the capability to pursue these programs, and we said, "This is a load of bullshit, because our intelligence says they can!"

These aren't the droids you're looking for...



The rest of the international community did not see any evidence of violation, and wanted to keep on inspecting, but the U.S. and England decided to charge in anyways.

Except they weren't being permitted to inspect, hence the UN deadline. Uh, why continue to inspect if the "rest of the international community" didn't see any evidence?



As to the whole "hypocrite" thing, I do not think it is warranted.

Hypocrites rarely do.



So, when I say I knew better than Hillary, I did - I knew better than to trust G.W. Bush. She was the naive one in thinking that a sitting President wouldn't lie and manipulate evidence to serve his political purposes as outlined in PNAC.

-TheE-

How did G.W. manipulate foreign intelligence services that supported our own intelligence opinions at the time?

[Clove]

Has everybody fucked Beth?

Yes.

[Methais]

Did someone say wall of text? If so it's because UNL3S R3ADILEY ACESIBLA NU INSTANCES GIEV EVEN BTER LOT THAN THIS MANY PLAEYRS WUD COMPLATELEY IGNORA THAM!!!1!1!1! OMG RADE INSTANCES ALONG DA WAY IN LEVALNG SIMPLEY AERNT VIABLE AS RADES CUT AXPEREINCE BY HALF!!11!!1 OMG FURTHAR DA ONLEY R3ASON GUILDS CAN GET 40 PLAEYRS 2 GO DO MOLTAN COR3 SI B/C THEIR R MANY MANY 60S IN TEH GM3 AT LEAST WH3N COMPAERD 2 TEH NUMBR OF PLAEYRS AT EXACTLEY SAY LEVEL 37!111!11!! OMGDA ONLEY SENSIBLE THNG TAHT I SE 2 DO WIT INSTANCES LIEK ZULGURUB 20-MAN AHNQIRAJ AND MOLT3N CORE SI 2 HAAVILEY NERF TEH MOBS 2 MAEK DA INSTANCES 5-MAN RASE3 THERE LEVELS SO TAHT TEH LOT DA INSTANCA DROPS SI SUITABLE FOR DA L3V3L WITHOUT CHANGNG IETMS REDUCE DROP RAETS AND R3MOVA TEH RADE LOKOUT!!1!!TAHT WUD AT LAAST G3T SOMA UTILITY OUT OF DA INSTANC3S RATHAR THAN BLIZARD HAVNG SPENT AL TAHT TIEM DESIGNNG INSTANCAS TAHT 3VAN RADEERS WHO HAPAN 2 PIK UP TEH GM3 AFTAR TEH EXPANSION CAN NAVER SE!!!1!!!1 OMG WTFFURTHERMORE TEH 40-MAN COMPONENT SI HARDLEY TEH ONLEY PROBLEM WIT RADES IN THEYRE PRESENT FORMULATION!1!!!1! WTFIF TH3Y W3RE 2 MAEK DA 3ND-GMA INSTANC3S 5-MAN BUT KEP AL TEH OTH3R PROBL3MS WUD TAHT MAEK FOR A FUN INSTANC3?!!!?!? RADE LOKOUTS 3XOTIC R3SISTANC3 R3QUIERMENTS PRESCH3DULNG RAGROUPNG ON MULTIPLE DAYS PIEGONHOLAD CLAS FUNCTIONS FORC3D R3SPAS REPUTATION GRINDS DKP GUILD DRMA AND KILNG DA SME MOBS IN DA SMA ORDERS USNG TEH SME TACTIS WEK AFTAR WEK AFTER WEK IN A 5-MAN INSTANCE????????NO THX!!!!1!! WTF IF TAHTS WUT IT TAEKS DA MOBS CAN KEP THEYRE EPIS FOR AL I CAER!!!!11!!! WTF IF DA PROBL3M WIT DA EXISTNG RADENG END-GME SI TAHT ITS A BORNG TIEM SINK THAN WUT SI GANEAD BY OF3RNG TEH ALTERNATIEV OF ANOTH3R BORNG TIEM SINK?!!!! WTFSHUD A 60 WIT 10 DAYS /PLAEYD WHO STIL HAS TROUBL3 WIT RAEGFIER CHASM G3T 3PIS JUST B/C HES A 60 WIT 10 DAYS /PLAEYD?!??? OMG WTFIF U GOT A THOSAND CHARACTERS 2 LEVAL 5 WUD U AXP3CT EPIS FOR TAHT??!?!3MPHASIZNG TIEM SPENT OVER SKIL LEADS 2 MIND-NUMBNGLEY R3PETITIEV CONT3NT WHICH SI 3XACTLEY WUT SHUD B AVOIEDD!1!!1 OMG WTFSURALEY IT SI BT3R 2 SPAND TAHT TIEM CR3ATNG R3AL CONTANT 3V3N IF IT M3ANS ONLEY ONE BORNG END GMA PATH INST3AD OF S3V3RAL!!!1!!PARHAPS FOR WUT TEH FINAL 3XPANSION BLIZARD HAS PLANED IT WUD MAEK SENS3 2 HAEV MULTIPLE AND-GMA PATHS SO TAHT PLAEYRS CUD ADVANC3 2 DA V3RY BST GEAR VIA 40-MAN RADES 5-MAN GROUPS SOLO CONT3NT OR WUT MIX TH3Y PR3FAR!!!1!11!! OMG WTFBUT IN TEH UNTIL THEN IT DO3SNT MAEK SENSE 2 OVARDO DA AND-GMA CONTENT WHICH WIL NED A MAJOR OVARHAUL L8R INSTEAD OF REAL CONT3NT WHICH WIL RAMANE UESFUL FOR AS LONG AS DA GMA AXISTS AND WITHOUT NEDNG 2 B COMPLATELEY R3BALANCED!!1!!! OMG WTFANOTHER ALT3RNATIEV WUD B 2 HAEV NO END-GM3 AT AL!!111!!1! OMG PUT NO RADE INSTANC3S OR R3PUTATION GRINDS IN2 TEH GMA SO TAHT ONCE U FINISH STRATHOLME SCHOLOMANCE DIER MAUL BLAKROK DEPTHS AND BLAKROK SPIER UR DONA!1!111 WTF TH3R3S NOTHNG LAFT 2 DO!1!11 OMG TAHT WUD B LIEK BLIZARD TELNG PLAEYRS CONGRATULATIONS U HAEV BAETN TEH GME!1!!11 OMG WTFNOW U SHUD CANC3L UR ACOUNT AND GO DO SOMETHNG 3LSE!1111 FOR OBVIOS BUSIENS REASONS THEY CANT DO TAHT!11!1!111 OMG L3TS NOT FORGET TAHT BLIZARD SI PLAYNG A GME 2 H3R3!111!1!! THERE TRYNG 2 MAEK AS MUCH MON3Y AS THEY POSIBLEY CAN!!1!1 WTF THES ISNT AN ANTI-CAPITALIST RANT TAHTS A GOD THNG NOT A BAD THNG!!!!!1 OMGIF BLIZARD DIDNT R ABOUT MON3Y TH3Y WUDNT R WUT PLAEYRS WANT AND CERTANELEY WUDNT ADJUST DA GM3 BAESD ON PLAEYR DAMANDS!!!1!1!!1 WTF IF U DONT SE TEH DIFERANC3 BTWEN THES AND WT DO NOW I SUGEST U GO APLEY FOR SOME P3RMIT AT A GOVARNM3NT AEGNCY SOMETIEM!1!!!1!11IT DOASNT MATER MUCH WHICH AEGNCY SO LONG AS IT ISNT D3P3NDANT ON CUS2M3R SATISFACTION FOR ITS BUDGAT!!1!1! OMG WTF INDED BLIZARD TRYNG 2 MAEK MONEY SI TEH RAASON TH3Y MAED TEH POPULAR LEVEL 1-59 SACTION OF DA GMA TEH WAY THEY DID!!!!!!11 OMG WTFBLIZARDS GREAT INSIGHT WAS TAHT EVEN IF IT WAS NACASARY FOR TEH GME 2 B PANEFUL GRINDNG ONC3 TEH CONTANT HAD RUN OUT MANY PLAEYRS DIDNT WANT DA PANEFUL GRINDNG STAEG 2 BGIN SOM3WHERE AROUND L3VEL 3!!!!1!!1 OMG WTFSO THEY POSTPON3D IT AL DA WAY UNTIL PLAEYRS HAD DON3 NEARLEY AVERYTHNG THEIR WAS 2 DO AND PLAEYRS LOVED IT!1!1!TAHT SI A BIG R3ASON Y DA GMA HAS SIX MILION OR SO SUBSCRIEBRS AND TEH COMPANY HAS (HOPEFULY) MAED MILIONS OF DOLARS IN PROFIT!!!1!!11! OMG BUT PLAEYRS SE TAHT DA GRINDNG CAN B POSTPONAD AND WANT IT POSTPON3D FURTHER OR PUT OF INDEFINIETLEY!!111 OMG WTF A COMPANY TAHT FOUND A WAY 2 DO TAHT IN A ST3REOTYPICAL MORPG WIT HAAVILEY SCRIPT3D CONTENT WUD MAEK ODL3S OF MON3Y OF IT!11!!11 OMG WTF BUT TRYNG TAHT SI P3RHAPS A HOLEY GRALE TYPA OF MISION AND ONA FOR WHICH NEITH3R BLIZARD NOR ANYON3 3LS3 ON DA PLAENT HAS A SOLUTION!!11! WTFHOW3VER BLIZARD KNAW TAHT TH3Y CUD ONLEY AD SO MUCH REAL CONT3NT 2 TEH GM3 WITHOUT MAKNG A BUNCH OF IL-CONC3IEVD GARBAEG!!1!11!!1 OMGTEH PROBLEM THAY FAECD WAS HOW 2 GAT PLAEYRS 2 KEP SUBSCRIBNG AFTER THEY HAEV RUN OUT OF CONTENT OR MORA COMONLEY SKIP3D MOST OF IT!!11! OMGTHERE SOLUTION WAS DA CUR3NT RADENG 3ND-GM3!!111!!!! OMGLOK CAERFULY AND U NOTIEC TAHT TAHT SI EXACTLEY WT AXISTNG 40-MAN RADES R BUILT FOR MORA SO THAN 2 PROVIED AN INT3RESTNG CHALENG3!11!111 WTFTHEIR SI DA RADE LOKOUT FOR EXMPLE SO TAHT A GUILD CANT KIL ONYXIA 5 TIEMS PAR DAY AND GET AVERYON3 HIS TEIR 2 H3LM IN A WEK BUT RATH3R TEH RADE CONT3NT LASTS MUCH LONGAR 3VEN AFT3R ONYXIA GOAS ON FARM STATUS!!!!!!11THEYRE R TEH SPECIALIEZD R3SISTANCE G3AR REQUIERMANTS SO TAHT PLAEYRS HAEV 2 SP3ND MUCH TIEM FARMNG FOR GAAR WHICH SI UESLES OUTSIED TEH INSTANCE IN QUESTION IN ORDER 2 DO DA RADE!11!1!!TEH 40-MAN R3QUIERMANT ITSELF FORCAS MUCH TIEM 2 B SPENT ON ORGANIZNG AND TRYNG 2 BUILD GUILDS RATH3R THAN RADENG!1!1!! WTFAND TEH MOST CL3VAR PART OF THES SI TAHT IF ONLEY SO MUCH TIEM PAR WEK CAN B SPENT ADVANCNG A MANE IT PUSHAS PLAEYRS 2 CR3AET ALTS 2 GO BAK AND R3DO CONT3NT IN A DIFER3NT WAY WIT A DIFER3NT CLAS OR P3RHAPS AVEN GO DO CONTENT TH3Y SKIPED DA FIRST TIEM AROUND!1111!1 OMG TAHT IS IT PUSH3S PLAEYRS 2 GO DO SOM3THNG FUN!1!!!!! IMAGIEN TAHT!11!1DONG TEH SM3 THNG OV3R AND OV3R AND OVAR AGANE FOR LOT SI NOT RAAL CONTANT!!!1!1!11 OMGFORTY MANE RADES SIMPLEY AERNT RAAL CONT3NT IN DA SENS3 TAHT SAY SCARLET MONASTARY OR HILSBRAD FOTHILS AER!11!1! IF ANY RADEARS WANT 2 DISAGRE WIT TAHT THEN WUD U S3RIOSLEY CLEAR MOLTEN CORE A DOZEN TIEMS PAR CHARACT3R IF IT DROPED NO LOT APIC OR OTHERWIES??!!!? OMG WTF NOT COINCIEDNTALY DA SM3 CAN B SADE OF DA VARIOS REPUTATION GRINDS IN TEH GM3!1!1!1!11 OMG WTFAFTER AL WITHOUT 3PIC REWARDS PLAEYRS SIMPLEY WUDNT DO A VERY SMAL SUBSAT OF TEH CONTENT OVER AND OVER AND OV3R AGANE AV3N IF ITS TEH BIG BAD AND BOS OF TEH GME AS IT SIMPLEY ISNT FUN!1!!! SO WUT ABOUT TEH EPIS????!!?!! OMG WTFDOESNT IT SEM OD TAHT WIT TEH 3XCAPTION OF PVP RANK 14 WAAPONS (A TIEM SINK AND A HALF IN ITS3LF) AL HIGH LAVEL EPIS COME FROM 40-MAN RADES??!!!?! W3L NOT RILLY!!!1!!11! OMG BLIZARD PUT DA END-GME RADES IN2 TEH GM3 2 PROVIED SOM3THNG 2 DO FOR THEYRE L3S CRAATIEV PLAEYRS AND PREF3RS TAHT PLAEYRS GO RADENG RATHER THAN CANCELNG ACOUNTS!1!!11! WTF PUTNG DA BST LOT IN TEH GME THEIR ENSURAS TAHT TEH APROPRIAET TYPA OF PLAEYRS WIL SPEND TEH DESIERD MOUNT OF TIEM IN SUCH INSTANC3S AND H3NCE KEP THERE SUBSCRIPTIONS ACTIEV!!111!!!1 OMG IL CONCEDE TAHT TEH LOT GAP BTWEN RADE AND NON-RADE GEAR SI AWFULY LARGA AND P3RHAPS UNECASARILEY SO SURELEY IETM LAV3L 60 3PIS FOR TEIR 1 AND 67ISH FOR TEIR 2 WUD HAEV B3N HIGH ANOUGH 2 PUSH DA PLAEYRS WHO WANT DA BST GAAR 2 RADE FOR IT!1!11 WTFBUT DA POINT R3MANES TAHT DA BST GEAR HAS 2 COMA FROM DA AND-GME PSAUDO-CONTENT TAHT BLIZARD CR3AETS SOLELEY IN AN AFORT 2 PREVANT PLAEYRS FROM CANCELNG WHEN TH3Y RATIONALY OUGHT 2!!!!1!1 WTF AFTER AL MOST RADE3RS R THEIR FOR DA EPIS NOT FOR DA CHALENGE!11!!11!1 OMG WTFMOST WONT SAY SO BUT MANY IMPLICITLEY ADMIT IT WH3N THEY ARGU3 TAHT 40-MAN RADES HAEV 2 GIEV DRASTICALY BT3R LOT THAN 5-MAN INSTANC3S OR ALSA PEOPL3 WUDNT BOTHAR 2 DO THEM!1!!1 OMG WTFSUPOSE TAHT THEYRE W3RE A TEIR 3 L3GANDARY SAT FOR EACH CLAS IN DA GME RIGHT NOW!11!!1! OMGTEH ONLEY WAY 2 G3T IT SI 2 PR3S DA Q KEY ONCA P3R SECOND FOR EIGHT HOURS STRAGEHT!11!1! OMGU CANT MACRO IT AND IF U TAEK A BR3AK FOR TWO SECONDS U FALE AND HAEV 2 START OVAR!!!1!1 WTFWUD U DO IT??!!! SURALEY U KNOW AS WEL AS I DO TAHT A LOT OF PLAEYRS WUD!1!1!1!!FURTH3RMORE IF BLIZARD L8R CR3AETD ALTARNAET METHODS 2 G3T COMPARABL3 G3AR THEYRE WUD B AN OUTCRY FROM TEH P3OPLE WHO ALREADY HAD TEH L3GENDARY SAT OF HOW THES WAS UNFARE AND TEH OTHER PEOPLA WHO WANTAD LEGANDAREIS SHUD HAEV 2 3ARN THERE GEAR BY S3VERALEY DMAGNG THEYRE WRISTS!!111!!!1 OMG AND YET AT RISK OF SOMA OF DA MORE OUTSPOKAN RADE3RS NOT UNDERSTANDNG THES EXMPLE I SHUD HOP3 TAHT IT ISNT N3C3SARY 2 EXPLANE Y SUCH A S3T SI SP3CTACULARLEY BAD GMA DESIGN!1!!1!11! OMG AND RILLY TEH CONC3PT OF 3ARNNG GEAR SI QUIET A PRAPOST3ROS ONE!1!11! OMGU AARN THNGS BY DONG SOM3THNG U DONT WANT 2 DO IN ORDER 2 GET SOMETHNG U WANT!11111 OMG WTFIF U AERNT FORTUNAET ENOUGH 2 HAEV A JOB U LOV3 TH3N UR JOB MAY STIL B WORTH DONG IN ORDER 2 G3T 3NOUGH MON3Y 2 BUY AN ONLIEN GME SUBSCRIPTION-AND NOT STARVA!!!!!11 WTFFOR THNGS TAHT NED 2 B DONE SUCH EXCHANGES 2 MAEK DONG WORK WORTHWHIEL R QUIET UESFUL!!11!11! OMG WTF BUT THES SI AN ONLIEN GMA PLAEYD FOR 3NTARTANEM3NT!11!!1 OMGIF THEYRE R P3OPL3 STARVNG IN DA WORLD ITS NOT B/C UR GUILD 2K 2 LONG 2 GET ENOUGH FIER R3SISTANCE GEAR 2 TAEK DOWN RAGNAROS!!!!1!!! COMPUTER GMES R SUPOS3D 2 B FUN!!!11!!11 DA CONT3NT ALONG DA WAY AND IN PARTICULAR DA M3ANS BY WHICH GAAR SI OBTANEED OUGHT 2 B FUN IN ITS3LF!111!1 2 MAEK U MIESRABLE IN ORD3R 2 GAT 3PIS IN A GM3 TAHT U FUNDMENTALY HAET CANOT B WORTH IT IN ANY SAEN SENSE!!1!1!!!!IT SI A RATHAR MADENNG HUMAN T3ND3NCY TAHT PEOPLE WANT 3PIS RAGARDLES OF TEH MEANS BY WHICH TH3Y R OBTANEAD!!!1! WTFRADEERS OFTEN ACUES NON-RADEERS OF WANTNG EASY EPIS!!1!1111USUALY THEIR RIGHT!1!!11 OMG WTFIT ACTUALY GOES FURTH3R THAN THIS AS WUT MANY PLAEYRS WANT SI NOT MERALEY AASY EPIS FOR THEMS3LV3S BUT ALSO FOR OTH3R PLAEYRS 2 NOT GET EASY EPIS!!!!! OMG WTFBUT RADE3RS WANT 3ASY 3PIS 2!1!!!!1! OMG WTF SO IMM NOT A RADEER AND I DONT HAEV ANY 3PIS!!1!!!POR ME RIGHT???!?!! OMG WTFWAL I HAD A FAW BUT I SOLD THEM ON DA AUCTION HOUES!!!!1! OMG WTF BUT RILLY FOR WUT DO I NED APIS?!!!!??! OMG WTF DO I NED 3PIS FOR STRATHOLM3 OR SCHOLOMANCE OR DIER MAUL??!!??? OMGHOW ABOUT FOR SILITHUS OR WINT3RSPRNG OR 3ASTERN PLAGUALANDS?!!!??? OMG WTF OF COURSE NOT!1!!!!1 WTF I WUD NED 3PIS FOR BLAKWNG LARE OR 40-MAN AHNQIRAJ EXC3PT TAHT I JUST SADE IMM NOT A RADEER!111111! OMG WTF THEIR R NO G3AR R3QUIERMENTS IN ORD3R NOT 2 DO AN INSTANC3!1!1!1!!1 OMG HE PURPOSE OF G3TNG LOT SI 2 B W3L-EQUIPED FOR FUTUR3 CHAL3NGAS!!11!!!!! WTFBUT THEIR SI ONLEY A FINIET MOUNT OF CONT3NT IN TEH GME!!!111!!! OMG WTFAT SOME POINT THEIR R NO FUTUR3 CHAL3NGES WORTH DONG-MEANNG TAHT AT TAHT POINT LOT BCOMES WORTHL3S!!!11!111 MANY PLAEYRS HAEV GONE PAST TAHT POINT WITHOUT REALIZNG IT AND STIL WANT MOR3 AND BTER EPIS!1!!111!!U CAN SE THEM WHINNG ABOUT IT HAR3 AVARY DAY!1!111!! WTFSO WUT ABOUT PVP?!!!?!! OMG ISNT IT UNFARE IF ON3 PLAEYR SI IN AL BLUE GEAR AND HAS 2 FIGHT ANOTHAR DEK3D OUT IN BLAKWNG LARE AND 40-MAN AHNQIRAJ EPIS??!!? WTFYEP PVP SI UNBALANC3D!11!1 WTF DUH!!111 WTFITS SUPOSED 2 B UNBALANCED!!1!!! WTFU SHUD HAEV FIGURAD THES OUT BY TEH TIEM U GOT UR FIRST CHARACTAR 2 LEV3L 2!1!!11! OMG HALF TEH POINT OF TEH L3V3LNG IN A L3V3LNG GM3 WIT PVP SI 2 INTANTIONALY MAEK TEH PVP UNBALANCED!1!1!1!1IF U DONT LIEK TAHT THAN DONT PVP!!!11!!! OMGPROBL3M SOLVAD!1!11!!1 IT GOES BAK 2 HOW PLAEYRS WANT EASY EPIS FOR THEMSELV3S AND NOT FOR OTH3RS!!1111! OMG WTFPLAEYRS WANT 2 WIN AND HENCE WANT WINNG 2 B BAESD ON WUT IT NEDS 2 B BAESD ON IN ORD3R FOR THEM 2 WIN!!11! OMGFOR PLAEYRS WIT MOR3 FRE TIEM THAN SKIL THEIR R LEVALNG GMAS WHAR3 WHOEVAR HAS DA MOST FRE TIEM WINS!111!!1IF UR LOKNG FOR COMBAT WHERA TEH WINAR SI BAESD ON SKIL UR TARIBLEY LOST!1!!1! WTF TRY LOKNG FOR A GMA WIT NO CONC3PT OF EXPAREINC3 L3V3LS!!!!1!! WTFBLIZARD MAEKS PVP UNBALANCED B/C TAHTS WUT PLAEYRS WANT!!!!!1!1! OMG WTF TH3Y HAEV 2 D3AL WIT TAHT RAALITY IN ORDAR 2 MAEK MON3Y!1!11!! OMG WTF AS TEH SAYNG GO3S DA CUS2MER SI ALWAYS RIGHT!11!!!11 WTF AND TAHTS Y COMPLANENG ABOUT PVP IMBALANCAS SI STUPID!!!11!!1 WTF BSIEDS IF BLIZARD W3RA 2 IMPL3MENT AL OF DA NARFS TAHT PLAEYRS HAEV CALED FOR WHEN THINKNG OF PVP IT WUD MAEK MUCH OF TEH PVA CONTANT HOR3NDOSLEY DIFICULT!!1!1!!1 OMG WTF AND TAHT WUD GIEV PLAEYRS YET ANOTHAR 2PIC ON WHICH 2 WHIEN!1!11!1 OMG WUT OTH3R RAASONS R THEYRE 2 GET EPIS APART FROM PVP AND PVA UESS????!! OMG WTF EGO P3RHAPS??!??!? WTFWHIEL I T3ND 2 PITY THOS3 WHO MAEK A HUG3 DEAL ABOUT EITHER LEVELNG OR GETNG SOME PARTICULAR DROP AS THOUGH IT WER3 SOM3 GR3AT ACOMPLISHMANT THES DOASNT MAEK MUCH S3NSE EITH3R!11!1!! OMGSUPOSE TAHT BLIZARD WERE 2 AD A NU LEGENDARY SET FOR EACH CLAS WHICH WAS UND3NIABLEY TEH BST GEAR IN DA GM3!!11!1 AL TAHT PLAEYRS HAEV 2 DO 2 G3T IT SI UPON REACHNG LEVEL 60 SI 2 COMPL3TE A TRIVIAL QUAST LIEN WHICH BASICALY CONSISTS OF TEH QUAST GIEVR #@!&AETDLEY ASKNG DA PLAEYR IF HA SI CARTANE TAHT HA WANTS TEH SAT!1!!!11 WTF THARES ONA BIG CATCH THOUGH ONC3 U G3T TEH LEGENDARY SET U CAN NAV3R AGANE ENT3R AN INSTANC3!!111! OMGNO BATL3GROUNDS NO RADE ZONES NO GROUP ZON3S NO SOLO FARMNG INSTANCAS EV3N!!1!11 WTF TAHT IS U CAN G3T TEH SET BUT CANT UES IT MUCH!!!!1!!INT3REST3D??!!! OMGIF DA PLAEYRS WHO WANT GAAR WANT IT FOR SOMETHNG OTHER THAN PVP OR PV3 UES TH3N SURALEY THES WUD B QUIET A POPULAR SAT DONT U THINK??!?!?!I CAN SYMPATHIEZ WIT NON-RADEERS WHO WANT MOR3 NON-RADENG CONTENT AD3D 2 DA GM3!!!11!!! OMG WTFWUT I CANT SYMPATHIEZ WIT SI DA PEOPL3 WHO UES EXPLOITS 2 TRIVIALIEZ (AND HENCE ASANTIALY SKIP) TEH AXISTNG CONT3NT AND THAN COMPLANE TAHT THEYVE RUN OUT OF THNGS 2 DO!!11!1 OMG U SEN WUT IMM TOKNG ABOUT TAEK A 40 IN2 DEADMIENS AND A 60 IN2 SCARLET MONASTARY!11111 WTFSUCH PAOPLE WUD TAEK AN 80 IN2 SCHOLOMANCA IF TH3Y CUD BUT THAY CANT SO INSTAAD THEY TAEK 10 PLAEYRS IN2 A 5-MAN ZONE!!1!!!!1! AND NOW TAHT EXPLOIT SI BNG CUT OF AS WEL IN PATCH 110!1!1! OMG WTF AND THEIR SCR3MNG ABOUT IT!!!1!! OMG WTFMUSNG!!1!!!1!1 OMGITS NOT HARD 2 FIND DA PROBLEMS WIT DA PEOPLE U DONT LIEK AND RADEERS HAEV JUMP3D ON THES 2 POINT OUT HOW RIDICULOS IT IS!!!1!11! OMG WTF THEIR RIGHT OF COURS3!!11! WTF WH3R3 THEY GO WRONG SI IN CLAMENG TAHT NON-RADEERS ASKED FOR EPIS FOR HARD NON-RADENG CONT3NT AND R NOW COMPLANENG ABOUT IT!1!11!1 OMG WTF DA NON-RADEARS WHO R COMPLANENG ABOUT DA CHANGES OF PATCH 110!1!!!11! OMG R NOT DA SM3 P3OPLE WHO WANT3D ACTUAL CHAL3NG3S IN NON-RADENG CONTANT SUCH AS HAVNG 2 PAY ATENTION!1!11!1 WTF SO LET IT B KNOWN IMM NOT A RADEER AND I DONT WANT EASY EPIS!!1!1!1 OMG WTFWUT I WANT SI 2 B ABL3 2 ATAK ONA CHALANGE UNTIL I GET TIERD OF FARMNG IT (AND I HAEV VARY LITLA 2L3RANCA FOR GRINDNG OF ANY SORT) AND TH3N AS A R3SULT OF HAVNG COMPLET3D DA PR3VIOS CHALENGE (AND DA ONAS BFOR3 IT) 2 B PROPARLEY AQUIP3D FOR TEH NAXT!!1!!11!! WTFWH3TH3R DA GAAR INVOLVAD SI GREN BLUE PURPLA OR ORANGE DOESNT MATER MUCH!!!11!1! OMG WTF AND I DO WANT DA CHAL3NGES 2 B WAL CHAL3NGNG AS OPOSED 2 MONO2NOS TIEM SINKS!1!!!!!1 I ROUTIENLEY TURN PLAEYRS AWAY FROM GROUPS I FORM FOR BNG 2 HIGH LEVAL!11111111 WTFA 56 WANTS 2 RUN MARAUDON OR A 38 RAZORFAN KRAUL????!!?! WTFNOT WIT ME THEY WONT!!111 OMG WTF FIEV MAN CAPS ON FIEV MAN INSTANCES R GR3AT!!11!!1 WTFI WISH BLIZARD WUD FIX TEH OVARL3VEL3D EXPLOIT AND NOT LET PLAEYRS MOR3 THAN 10 LEV3LS APART 3NT3R DA SMA INSTANC3 2G3THAR 2!1!1!!!1! OMG FINALY I WANT FOR THEYRE 2 B A N3XT CHAL3NGA!!!1!!11 WTF AV3N IF ITS CALED AN AXPANSION!!!!!111 OMG DA GM3 DO3SNT NED MORA TIEM SINKS!1!111 WTFIT NEDS MOR3 REAL CONTENT!1!!!111 OMG WTF LATS LET BLIZARD CRAAET TAHT WITHOUT G3TNG AL ANTSY IN DA MAANTIEM ABOUT NOT BNG ABLA 2 FIND A BORNG TIEM SINK TAHT ISNT WEL A BORNG TIEM SINK!1!111! OMG

[Methais]

Early mechanical clocks

No clocks survive from medieval Europe but various mentions in church records reveal some of the early history of the clock.

Medieval religious institutions required clocks to measure and indicate the passing of time because, for many centuries, daily prayer and work schedules had to be strictly regulated. This was done by various types of time-telling and recording devices, such as water clocks, sundials and marked candles, probably used in combination. Important times and durations were broadcast by bells, rung either by hand or by some mechanical device such as a falling weight or rotating beater.

The word 'horologia' (from the Greek hora, hour, and legein, to tell) was used to describe all these devices but the use of this word (still used in several romance languages) for all timekeepers conceals from us the true nature of the mechanisms. For example, there is a record that in 1176 Sens Cathedral installed a horologe but the mechanism used is unknown. In 1198, during a fire at the abbey of St Edmundsbury (now Bury St Edmunds) the monks 'ran to the clock' to fetch water, indicating that their water clock had a reservoir large enough to help extinguish the occasional fire.

These early clocks may not have used hands or dials but told the time with audible signals.
[edit]

A new mechanism

The word 'clock' (from the Latin word for "bell") which gradually supersedes 'horologe' suggests that it was the sound of bells which also characterized the prototype mechanical clocks that appeared during the 13th century.

Between 1280 and 1320 there is an increase in the number of references to clocks and horologes in church records, and this probably indicates that a new type of clock mechanism had been devised. Existing clock mechanisms that used water power were being adapted to take the driving power from falling weights. This power was controlled by some form of oscillating mechanism, probably derived from existing bell-ringing or alarm devices. This controlled release of power - the escapement - marks the beginning of the true mechanical clock.

These mechanical clocks were intended for two main purposes: for signalling and notification (e.g. the timing of services and public events), and for modelling the solar system. The former purpose is administrative, the latter arises naturally given the scholarly interest in astronomy, science, astrology, and how these subjects integrated with the religious philosopy of the time. The astrolabe was used both by astronomers and astrologers, and it was natural to apply a clockwork drive to the rotating plate to produce a working model of the solar system.

Simple clocks intended mainly for notification were installed in towers, and did not always require dials or hands. They would have announced the canonical hours or intervals between set times of prayer. Canonical hours varied in length as the times of sunrise and sunset shifted. The more sophisticated astronomical clocks would have had moving dials or hands, and would have shown the time in various time systems, including Italian hours, canonical hours, and time as measured by astronomers at the time. Both styles of clock started acquiring extravagant features such as automata.

In 1283 a large clock was installed at Dunstable Priory; its location above the rood screen suggests that it was not a water clock. In 1292, Canterbury Cathedral installed a 'great horloge'. Over the next 30 years there are brief mentions of clocks at a number of ecclesiastical institutions in England, Italy, and France. In 1322 a new clock was installed in Norwich, an expensive replacement for an earlier clock installed in 1273. This had a large (2 metre) astronomical dial with automata and bells. The costs of the installation included the full-time employment of two technicians for two years.
[edit]

Early astronomical clocks

The clocks constructed by Richard of Wallingford in St Albans by 1336, and by Giovanni da Dondi in Padua from 1348 to 1364, no longer exist but detailed descriptions of their design and construction survive, and modern reproductions have been made. They illustrate how quickly the theory of the mechanical clock had been translated into practical constructions, and also that one of the many impulses to their development had been the desire of astronomers to investigate celestial phenomena.

Wallingford's clock had a large astrolabe-type dial, showing the sun, the moon's age, phase, and node, a star map, and possibly the planets. In addition it had a wheel of fortune and an indicator of the state of the tide at London Bridge. Bells rang every hour, the number of strokes indicating the time.

Dondi's clock was a seven-sided construction, 1 metre high, with dials showing the time of day, including minutes, the motions of all the known planets, an automatic calendar of fixed and movable feasts, and an eclipse prediction hand rotating once every 18 years.

It is not known how accurate or reliable these clocks would have been. They were probably adjusted manually every day to compensate for errors caused by wear and imprecise manufacture.
[edit]

Elements of the mechanical clock

These 14th century clocks show the four key elements common to all clocks in subsequent centuries, at least up to the digital age:

* the power, supplied by a falling weight, later by a coiled spring
* the escapement, a periodic repetitive action that allows the power to escape in small bursts rather than drain away all at once
* the going train, a set of interlocking gear wheels that controls the speed of rotation of the wheels connected between the power supply and the indicators
* indicators, such as dials, hands, and bells

[edit]

Later developments

Clockmakers developed their art in various ways. Building smaller clocks was a technical challenge, as was improving accuracy and reliability. Clocks could be impressive showpieces to demonstrate skilled craftsmanship, or less expensive, mass-produced items for domestic use. The escapement in particular was an important factor affecting the clock's accuracy, so many different mechanisms were tried.

Spring-driven clocks were developed during the 15th century, and this gave the clockmakers many new problems to solve, such as how to compensate for the changing power supplied as the spring unwound.

The first record of a minute hand on a clock is 1475, in the Almanus Manuscript of Brother Paul.

During the 15th and 16th centuries, clockmaking flourished, particularly in the metalworking towns of Nuremberg and Augsburg, and, in France, Blois. Some of the more basic table clocks have only one time-keeping hand, with the dial between the hour markers being divided into four equal parts making the clocks readable to the nearest 15 minutes. Other clocks were exhibitions of craftsmanship and skill, incorporating astronomical indicators and musical movements. The cross-beat escapement was developed in 1585 by Jobst Burgi, who also developed the remontoire. Burgi's accurate clocks helped Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler to observe astronomical events with much greater precision than before.

The first record of a second hand on a clock is about 1560, on a clock now in the Fremersdorf collection. However, this clock could not have been accurate, and the second hand was probably for indicating that the clock was working.

The next development in accuracy occurred after 1657 with the invention of the pendulum clock. Galileo had the idea to use a swinging bob to propel the motion of a time telling device earlier in the 17th century. Christiaan Huygens, however, is usually credited as the inventor. He determined the mathematical formula that related pendulum length to time (99.38 cm or 39.13 inches for the one second movement) and had the first pendulum-driven clock made. In 1670, the English clockmaker William Clement created the anchor escapement, an improvement over Huygens' crown escapement. Within just one generation, minute hands and then second hands were added.

A major stimulus to improving the accuracy and reliability of clocks was the importance of precise time-keeping for navigation. The position of a ship at sea could be determined with reasonable accuracy if a navigator could refer to a clock that lost or gained less than about 10 seconds per day. Many European governments offered a large prize for anyone that could determine longitude accurately. The reward was eventually claimed in 1761 by John Harrison, who dedicated his life to improving the accuracy of his clocks. His H5 clock is reported to have lost less than 5 seconds over 10 days.

The excitement over the pendulum clock had attracted the attention of designers resulting in a proliferation of clock forms. Notably, the longcase clock (also known as the grandfather clock) was created to house the pendulum and works. The English clockmaker William Clement is also credited with developing this form in 1670 or 1671. It was also at this time that clock cases began to be made of wood and clock faces to utilize enamel as well as hand-painted ceramics.

On November 17, 1797, Eli Terry received his first patent for a clock. Terry is known as the founder of the American clock-making industry.

Alexander Bain, Scottish clockmaker, patented the electric clock in 1840. The electric clock's mainspring is wound either with an electric motor or with an electro-magnet and armature. In 1841, he first patented the electromagnetic pendulum.

The development of electronics in the twentieth century led to clocks with no clockwork parts at all. Time in these cases is measured in several ways, such as by the vibration of a tuning fork, the behaviour of quartz crystals, the decay of radioactive elements or resonance of polycarbonates. Even mechanical clocks have since come to be largely powered by batteries, removing the need for winding.
[edit]

Types

Clocks can be classified by the type of time display, as well as by the method of timekeeping.
[edit]

Time display methods
[edit]

Analog clocks
A linear clock at London's Piccadilly Circus tube station. The 24 hour band moves across the static map, keeping pace with the apparent movement of the sun above ground, and a pointer fixed on London points to the current time.
Enlarge
A linear clock at London's Piccadilly Circus tube station. The 24 hour band moves across the static map, keeping pace with the apparent movement of the sun above ground, and a pointer fixed on London points to the current time.

Analog clocks usually indicate time using angles. The most common clock face uses a fixed numbered dial or dials and moving hand or hands. It usually has a circular scale of 12 hours, which can also serve as a scale of 60 minutes, and often also as a scale of 60 seconds though many other styles and designs have been used throughout the years, including dials divided into 6, 8, 10, and 24 hours. Of these alternative versions, the 24 hour analog dial is the main type in use today. The 10 hour clock was briefly popular during the French Revolution, when the metric system was applied to time measurement, and an Italian 6 hour clock was developed in the 18th century, presumably to save power (a clock or watch chiming 24 times uses more power).

Another type of analog clock is the sundial, which tracks the sun continuously, registering the time by the shadow position of its gnomon. Sundials use some or part of the 24 hour analog dial.
[edit]

Digital clocks
A digital clock outside Kanazawa Station displays the time by controlling valves on a fountain.
Enlarge
A digital clock outside Kanazawa Station displays the time by controlling valves on a fountain.

Digital clocks display a numeric representation of time. Two numeric display formats are commonly used on digital clocks:

* the 24-hour notation with hours ranging 0023;
* the 12-hour notation with AM/PM indicator, with hours indicated as 12AM, followed by 1AM11AM, followed by 12PM, followed by 1PM11PM (a notation mostly used in the United States).

Most digital clocks use an LCD or LED display; many other display technologies are used as well (cathode ray tubes, nixie tubes, etc.). After a reset, battery change or power failure, digital clocks without a backup battery or capacitor either start counting from 00:00, or stay at 00:00, often with blinking digits indicating that time needs to be set. Some newer clocks will actually reset themselves based on internet-time servers which in turn are tuned to national atomic clocks.
Basic digital clock radio.
Enlarge
Basic digital clock radio.
[edit]

Auditory clocks

For convenience, distance, telephony or blindness, auditory clocks present the time as sounds. The sound is either spoken natural language, (e.g. "The time is twelve thirty-five"), or as auditory codes (e.g. number of sequential bell rings on the hour represents the number of the hour like the clock Big Ben).

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f100/SwiftLippin/mariogalaxies.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

That's really interesting about clocks.

[TheEschaton]

I didn't fuck Beth. When I left for Africa, she hadn't fucked anyone but was right on the verge, and when I came back, she was long gone, and Backlash was here.

-TheE-

[Methais]

That's really interesting about clocks.

Is Hades really the name of a city in Connecticut?

[Gan]

Hans Blix was also not given the requested access to search. This lead to the UN September Ultimatum. Oh. Do you also remember that Iraq was forbidden to purchase such tubes?



These aren't the droids you're looking for...



Except they weren't being permitted to inspect, hence the UN deadline. Uh, why continue to inspect if the "rest of the international community" didn't see any evidence?



Hypocrites rarely do.



How did G.W. manipulate foreign intelligence services that supported our own intelligence opinions at the time?

Outstanding post.

+500 pts for appropriate Star Wars IV reference.

[Tsa`ah]

Outstanding post.

+500 pts for appropriate Star Wars IV reference.

Reminds me of the "golden kobold" folder.

[Stanley Burrell]

Is Hades really the name of a city in Connecticut?

Everything from Washington to New Haven, pretty much.

There are a lot of cheese and antique shops, though. Don't get me started on Yale sports teams. Oh god.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Has everybody fucked Beth?

I'm pretty sure Stainley is the only one she turned down. Not that he didn't try.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm pretty sure the herpes must burn.

[Clove]

I'm pretty sure the herpes must burn.

Score!

[Stanley Burrell]

Score!

I'm pretty sure there's threads on these boards where I am pretty much actively turning her down (I'm a nancy and apologize, tho'.)

Alas, there was HarmNone.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm pretty sure the herpes must burn.

LOL. Not everyone is stupid enough to not wear a condom. I bet your parents wish they'd used some sort of contraceptive when they realized their drug addict son was also stealing from them.

[Stanley Burrell]

I bet you don't know me or my parents. Dumbass :lol:

[Stanley Burrell]

Seriously, you're being hysterical.

Stop answering me (and yourself) and put me on ignore, friggity-fuck's frickin' sake. Sheesh.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Do us all a favor and take more drugs.

[Methais]

I like drugs.

[Stanley Burrell]

Do us all a favor and take more drugs.

If I say "sure" it won't make you any less of a retard. Or will it?

Sure. I am on teh heavy doses of illegal crack/cocaine and working out of a cesspool. My laptop is smoking weed laced with WD-40 right now. Hold on, as I have a buyer for MAD GRAMS OF LA COCAINAECSTACODINETYLENOL waiting.

Shet the feck up, now? These BethsTDs have fucked up your brain, buddy.

[Parkbandit]

We can all just hope for an OD before he spawns anything. Thankfully, there's very few woman that would do him the favor.. and he doesn't have the money to buy a whore. Hopefully, his Mommy hid her purse.

[TheEschaton]

That seems a little out of line, even for you PB. :P

[Clove]

....Shet the feck up, now? These BethsTDs have fucked up your brain, buddy.

A2M can do that to you.

[Asha]

A2M can do that to you.

Arghghgh AARGHGHGHGHG

[ElanthianSiren]

This made me chuckle.

To think a snot nosed college student would know more than a Congressman/woman about the decision to aggressively attack Iraq, especially over information only available to military chiefs, national intelligence agencys, senate and house security commites, etc.

AMAZING!

Or it could be that he studied Iraq extensively in a politics course focused thusly and was aware of the fact that Hussein's vision of Iraq didn't mix with the type of radical Sunni Islam AQ endorses. Also, he could have deduced, rather easily, that Hussein was, if nothing else, a total control freak, who shot his brother in law in the head in a cabinet meeting for disagreeing with him and thus unlikely to harbor people that would disagree with him. He may have also found it a little fishy that most of the "key" preliminary intelligence came from Iraqi defectors, who oddly enough, disagreed entirely with professionally trained weapons inspectors.

It was pretty easy to poke holes in the "intelligence" used for Iraq. I agree with Tsa'ah about the failings, but I don't feel that this war has ever been about WMDs, freedom, and so on as it was sold. Daniel's posted book recommendations about the need for basing in the middle east. IMO it's not a coincidence that troop obligations in Iraq are ALWAYS billed as being support long term. I just wish they'd call it what it is.

[Daniel]

Wait, I posted what?

[ElanthianSiren]

You were posting a book review of haves and have not nations. Basing rights were involved. Not this thread. This is while you were still in Iraq, I believe.

[Parkbandit]

That seems a little out of line, even for you PB. :P

He reaps what he sows. Look at the history of Hammerrhead on these message boards. Read his posts. He's been an A+ asshole from Day 1.. but because he was in 'rehab' people felt pity for him and forgave him. "He was a victim!!!"

Sorry, I don't give many 2nd chances.. especially to those that don't deserve them.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

He reaps what he sows. Look at the history of Hammerrhead on these message boards. Read his posts. He's been an A+ asshole from Day 1.. but because he was in 'rehab' people felt pity for him and forgave him. "He was a victim!!!"

Sorry, I don't give many 2nd chances.. especially to those that don't deserve them.

He was given more than 2 chances. Lets review his maturity level...

http://www.gsplayers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14044

[Daniel]

You were posting a book review of haves and have not nations. Basing rights were involved. Not this thread. This is while you were still in Iraq, I believe.

Eh. I don't think the book I referenced had anything to do with basing in Iraq. It was more so the need to have a civilian capacity to promote non military US interests abroad and to be able to provide security outside of the military.

incidently, I'm doing exactly that now in the DoS.

[Gan]

Or it could be that he studied Iraq extensively in a politics course focused thusly and was aware of the fact that Hussein's vision of Iraq didn't mix with the type of radical Sunni Islam AQ endorses. Also, he could have deduced, rather easily, that Hussein was, if nothing else, a total control freak, who shot his brother in law in the head in a cabinet meeting for disagreeing with him and thus unlikely to harbor people that would disagree with him. He may have also found it a little fishy that most of the "key" preliminary intelligence came from Iraqi defectors, who oddly enough, disagreed entirely with professionally trained weapons inspectors.

It was pretty easy to poke holes in the "intelligence" used for Iraq. I agree with Tsa'ah about the failings, but I don't feel that this war has ever been about WMDs, freedom, and so on as it was sold. Daniel's posted book recommendations about the need for basing in the middle east. IMO it's not a coincidence that troop obligations in Iraq are ALWAYS billed as being support long term. I just wish they'd call it what it is.

Not buying it. Sounds great in retrospect, but I'm not buying that TheE managed to deduce facts and scenarios that intelligent professional people getting paid to do that kind of job, with the resources they have (which TheE didnt) and yet they managed to get hoodwinked and he did not.

:lol:

I see someone's been living in a fantasy world again.

[TheEschaton]

Resources? What resources did I need? All I needed to know was the name Ahmed Chalabi, and anyone who is well-educated enough in geopolitics should have known he shouldn't be a source we trusted in going to Iraq.

Resources? What resources did I need to know that Shia Muslims (like Osama) hated Sunni Muslims (like Saddam), other than even the least comprehensive book on Islam ever? Did I need anything more than a video from Osama saying how he hated the "pagan Saddam" to come to the conclusion "Hey, these two guys probably wouldn't work together."

The pieces were all there before the war, and sadly, they were far too obvious.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

A2M can do that to you.

Speaking as a catcher and receiver, hrm? ;)

Edited: Unless you meant Bill/Tayvin's onslaught of BethsTDs. I'm pretty sure he was the bottom component of A2M'ing in that sort of relationship. The guy's got mad cow genitalia herpes. Bill, it's not an infatuation, it's just true and I feel bad for you.

As for ParkBandit (I think he said something recently too):

You had better fuck my great grandmother. That bitch has been waiting you geriatric bastid.

[Sean of the Thread]

Seriously give it a rest man.

[Stanley Burrell]

Seriously give it a rest man.

Word the fuck up.

[Stanley Burrell]

He reaps what he sows. Look at the history of Hammerrhead on these message boards. Read his posts. He's been an A+ asshole from Day 1.. but because he was in 'rehab' people felt pity for him and forgave him. "He was a victim!!!"

Sorry, I don't give many 2nd chances.. especially to those that don't deserve them.

Mike. You're a fucking awful father. Shut your ass the fuck up. Take some viagra, lemme hook you up with my great aunt or someone, get her in one of your V.I.P. Day's Inn rooms -- And just take it from there. You need a breather from that little oxygen pipe that hangs off the back of your wheelchair. And get fucked in the sphincter by Xyelin. Then shut the fuck up, again. And again. And again. And you're older than me, so you'll very likely die sooner. Which is cool... So... Thank you?

All this fucking angst.

[Parkbandit]

I just would like the record to show I was dead on about Stanley from day #1... and it's properly documented.. unlike TheE's current fantasy claims.

[Stanley Burrell]

I just would like the record to show I was dead on about Stanley from day #1... and it's properly documented.. unlike TheE's current fantasy claims.

Tghtt. You just suck. That's about it. Night.

[Parkbandit]

Thanks to SHM, I think people can judge for themselves.

You were a piece of shit from day 1... and I'm loving this trip down memory lane. At least 2 years ago.. we could semi-understand your posts.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Mike. You're a fucking awful father. Shut your ass the fuck up. Take some viagra, lemme hook you up with my great aunt or someone, get her in one of your V.I.P. Day's Inn rooms -- And just take it from there. You need a breather from that little oxygen pipe that hangs off the back of your wheelchair. And get fucked in the sphincter by Xyelin. Then shut the fuck up, again. And again. And again. And you're older than me, so you'll very likely die sooner. Which is cool... So... Thank you?

All this fucking angst.

I think we should start a pool on when Stainley goes batshit crazy again.

[Sean of the Thread]

I think we should start a pool on when Stainley goes batshit crazy again.


Again?

At any rate he's a dip shit. I say we start a pool on when he learns to pull the trigger.

[Sean of the Thread]

INTERNET BRAVADO TIME.

I would make stainley a bleeding puddle of jello in less than 45 seconds.

Seriously stfu plz. You're beyond douche.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'll buy you a beer sometime.

[Sean of the Thread]

I wish you would. Anytime you feel like making the arrangements let me know.

[Stanley Burrell]

Coo'. See y'all around then.

[Clove]

...I just wish they'd call it what it is.

Which is what?

[Clove]

Resources? What resources did I need to know that Shia Muslims (like Osama) hated Sunni Muslims (like Saddam), other than even the least comprehensive book on Islam ever? Did I need anything more than a video from Osama saying how he hated the "pagan Saddam" to come to the conclusion "Hey, these two guys probably wouldn't work together."

The pieces were all there before the war, and sadly, they were far too obvious.

-TheE-

And the tapdance begins.

The point under discussion was, why was it okay for leading Dems to believe world intelligence agency's reports about Iraq WMD capabilities- but not Bush.

Switching to "BUT THERE WEARNT TERRORISTS THERE!@!!1!!!1!111!!" doesn't fly.

[sst]

Resources? What resources did I need to know that Shia Muslims (like Osama) hated Sunni Muslims (like Saddam)

-TheE-
Hey smart guy Osama is a Sunni. I guess you didnt know...

[Sean of the Thread]

rofl

[sst]

Ill save you the time of looking it up TheE. I'm right.

[TheEschaton]

The point under discussion was, why was it okay for leading Dems to believe world intelligence agency's reports about Iraq WMD capabilities- but not Bush.


Err, I pretty definitively said that Bush ignored intelligence saying the opposite of what he wanted, and suppressed it from Congress (and any Dem who therefore would have seen such intelligence).

As for that thing Dave mentioned, for some reason I thought Wahhabi was a sect of Shia - oh well. The point still stands that he hated Saddam and thought of him as an infidel.

-TheE-

[sst]

evidence please

From decent sources BTW

[Parkbandit]

Err, I pretty definitively said that Bush ignored intelligence saying the opposite of what he wanted, and suppressed it from Congress (and any Dem who therefore would have seen such intelligence).

As for that thing Dave mentioned, for some reason I thought Wahhabi was a sect of Shia - oh well. The point still stands that he hated Saddam and thought of him as an infidel.

-TheE-
LOL..pwned by Dave.

Kill yourself now imo... I know I would.

[TheEschaton]

LOL, at least I can admit when I'm mistaken, you ignorant gasbag.

[Parkbandit]

LOL, at least I can admit when I'm mistaken, you ignorant gasbag.


As if I've ever been wrong.

Pfft.

[Clove]

Err, I pretty definitively said that Bush ignored intelligence saying the opposite of what he wanted, and suppressed it from Congress (and any Dem who therefore would have seen such intelligence).


You've pretty much said it and it's pretty much baseless.



As for that thing Dave mentioned, for some reason I thought Wahhabi was a sect of Shia - oh well. The point still stands that he hated Saddam and thought of him as an infidel.

-TheE-

And that matters how? Because Osama is so full of principles that he would never use his enemies to fight his enemies?

[Gan]

Not buying it. Sounds great in retrospect, but I'm not buying that TheE managed to deduce facts and scenarios that intelligent professional people getting paid to do that kind of job, with the resources they have (which TheE didnt) and yet they managed to get hoodwinked and he did not.

:lol:

I see someone's been living in a fantasy world again.


Resources? What resources did I need? All I needed to know was the name Ahmed Chalabi, and anyone who is well-educated enough in geopolitics should have known he shouldn't be a source we trusted in going to Iraq.

Resources? What resources did I need to know that Shia Muslims (like Osama) hated Sunni Muslims (like Saddam), other than even the least comprehensive book on Islam ever? Did I need anything more than a video from Osama saying how he hated the "pagan Saddam" to come to the conclusion "Hey, these two guys probably wouldn't work together."

The pieces were all there before the war, and sadly, they were far too obvious.

-TheE-


Hey smart guy Osama is a Sunni. I guess you didnt know...


Err, I pretty definitively said that Bush ignored intelligence saying the opposite of what he wanted, and suppressed it from Congress (and any Dem who therefore would have seen such intelligence).

As for that thing Dave mentioned, for some reason I thought Wahhabi was a sect of Shia - oh well. The point still stands that he hated Saddam and thought of him as an infidel.

-TheE-

Since I wasnt around last night to laugh, I'll recap this morning and laugh.

:lol:

Can you imagine TheE standing up in front of a congressional comittee and saying... "OH WELL! I GUESS I WUZ WRONG YOU GUYZ!

Comedy Gold.

[CrystalTears]

So TheE is quick to believe an Iraqi report basically saying, "OMG don't bomb me I don't have WMD I swear!" but he won't believe intelligence reports from his own country, and that our so-called stupid president is brilliant enough to lie and fool a whole country.

Sweet.

[Gan]

And in an interesting twist...



(CNN) -- Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html?imw=Y

[Clove]

In summary:

Bush knew Iraq probably didn't have WMD- despite world intelligence agency's reports and despite ongoing UN inspections.

Any intelligent college student had the resources and reasoning to know this also.

Members of Congress however were less capable of drawing this conclusion (but that's not their fault, they were after all sensitive, trusting souls).

[ElanthianSiren]

Which is what?

IMO a military expansion in attempt to have easy access to allies and targets in the middle east. I simply don't believe that the administration at the time anticipated the issues they'd have setting up there (which is no huge revelation).


Edit: As for your second query about why it's okay: The answer is obviously because Bush r teh decider and congress isn't! Just kidding. It isn't okay. Government imo dropped the ball after 9/11 out of fear on many levels.

[Clove]

IMO a military expansion in attempt to have easy access to allies and targets in the middle east. I simply don't believe that the administration at the time anticipated the issues they'd have setting up there (which is no huge revelation).

Okay but we already have a presence in the Middle East and reasonable strike capability. Going to the lengths that you suggest wouldn't be practical unless we needed future staging for other large-scale invasions. Maybe Iran or Sudan next?

Let me add, that I can agree that a strong presence in the Middle East at the time was considered a pro in the decision to invade- but I can't agree that it was the reason.

[Parkbandit]

Okay but we already have a presence in the Middle East and reasonable strike capability. Going to the lengths that you suggest wouldn't be practical unless we needed future staging for other large-scale invasions. Maybe Iran or Sudan next?

Well, the theories of "He did it to get back because he threatened his Daddy", "He did it to get his oil buddies rich" and "Chaney did it to get rich from Haliburton" have all been disproven.. so this is just the next 'theory'.

[Clove]

Edit: As for your second query about why it's okay: The answer is obviously because Bush r teh decider and congress isn't! Just kidding. It isn't okay. Government imo dropped the ball after 9/11 out of fear on many levels.

And that's really my point. If you're of the opinion that the invasion decision was a huge error, then it was a bipartisan error- not some sort of sinister plot by the mediochre Bush that fooled his political opposition (but not all us clever armchair politicians).

[Celephais]

... This thread was fun for like 10 posts... it sucks again. QQ

[Clove]

... This thread was fun for like 10 posts... it sucks again. QQ

Thanks for the input; we were all waiting for your rating.

[Celephais]

Score!
A stellar contribution as well!

[sst]

TheE where is the evidence about Osama and Saddam?

[Clove]

A stellar contribution as well!

Thanks, although I see a difference between posting a "kudos" in a thread you're participating in, and a useless "I don't like this thread anymore and thought you all should know about it" post in a thread you don't intend to participate in otherwise.

Just a pet peeve. Maybe threads that suck are pet peeve of yours. Why don't you search the rest of the PC, find them and give us your report?

[Gan]

TheE where is the evidence about Osama and Saddam?

<crickets>

I'm afraid he's probably run very far away from this thread.

:lol:

[sst]

I'm really getting sick of all the bullshit people spew that has no basis in fact.

[TheEschaton]

I'd direct you to Senate Intelligence report 108-301, which discusses a paper entitled "Iraq and al-Qaida", and concludes:

1) the paper was drafted pursuant to "widely expressed interest" by "several senior policy makers", and was "aggressive in drawing connections to try and produce information that could be used to support counterterrorism operations", all the while not being happy with the "traditional analytic approach, confirming intelligence with multiple sources and making assessments only based on strongly supported reporting." It was published in June 2002, but did not reflect NESA, the Near East and South Asia group in the CIA, and its analysis, which was the traditional method.

2) Some analysts concluded (edited to add: in this "aggressive report") that intelligence reporting provides "no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations", mainly due to "mistrust and conflicting ideologies and goals" which "severely limited the opportunities for cooperation." They did conclude there may have been some contacts, but wary at best.

3) "The CIA Ombudsman for Politicization received a confidential complaint four days after the paper was published...claiming the CTC paper was misleading...in that it did not reflect NESA's views and assessments."

The report is very fascinating, actually. It talks about how the Pentagon did a run-around, at Rumsfeld request, the CIA assessments of no tangible link between the two, and included in their own seperate report the whole Atta meeting in Prague thing. A piece of intelligence which has now been seen to be not accurate.

You can read this piece starting on page 305 of the brief.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Oh, another choice quote from the January 2003 report by CIA on the ties with Al Qaida:

"This paper's conclusions - especially regarding the difficult and elusive question of the exact nature of Iraq's relations with al-Qaida - are based on currently available information that is at times contradictory and derived from sources of varying reliability."

We now know Chalabi was the source which was saying "There was a relationship!" and even I knew Chalabi shouldn't of been trusted well before 2003, so why did CIA include it? Because they were directed to be aggressive in the scope of their report.

-TheE-

[sst]

TheE please answer my question. That had nothing to do with what I asked. I would like to see where you get your information about the dislike between Osama and Saddam aside from liberal blog sites.

[Clove]

Senate Report 108-301

http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf

A summary begins on page 29. It mentions that terrorism intelligence has changed to include sources with a wider margin of error and it explains the reasoning behind the change with quotes from terrorism intelligence experts.

[Gan]

Oh, another choice quote from the January 2003 report by CIA on the ties with Al Qaida:

"This paper's conclusions - especially regarding the difficult and elusive question of the exact nature of Iraq's relations with al-Qaida - are based on currently available information that is at times contradictory and derived from sources of varying reliability."

We now know Chalabi was the source which was saying "There was a relationship!" and even I knew Chalabi shouldn't of been trusted well before 2003, so why did CIA include it? Because they were directed to be aggressive in the scope of their report.

-TheE-
We have already established the link between Iraq and Al Qaida. Based on Tenet's notes from his book.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=589556&postcount=28



Originally Posted by The Weekly Standard Article quoting Tenet's book


There was more than enough evidence to give us real concern about Iraq and al-Qa'ida; there was plenty of smoke, maybe even some fire: Ansar al-Islam [note: Tenet refers to Ansar al-Islam by its initials "AI" in several places]; Zarqawi; Kurmal; the arrests in Europe; the murder of American USAID officer Lawrence Foley, in Amman, at the hands of Zarqawi's associates; and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives in Baghdad.On Ansar al-Islam, Zarqawi, and Kurmal, Tenet elaborates further:
The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa'ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi's arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May of 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a "senior associate and collaborator" of al-Qa'ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam (AI).
We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa'ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi's reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi's men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations.
According to Tenet, al Qaeda's presence was not limited to northern Iraq:

What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northeastern Iraq.Other high-level al Qaeda terrorists set up shop in Baghdad as well. From Saddam's neo-Stalinist capital they planned attacks around the globe:
More al-Qa'ida operatives would follow, including Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, two Egyptians assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners, who arrived by mid-May of 2002. At times we lost track of them, though their associates continued to operate in Baghdad as of October 2002. Their activity in sending recruits to train in Zarqawi's camps was compelling enough.
There was also concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq. Credible information told us that Shihata was willing to strike U.S., Israeli, and Egyptian targets sometime in the future. Shihata had been linked to terrorist operations in North Africa, and while in Afghanistan he had trained North Africans in the use of truck bombs. Smoke indeed. But how much fire, if any?
It strains credulity to imagine that all of this was going on without, at the very least, Saddam's tacit approval. Tenet says that the CIA did not think Saddam had "operational direction and control" over the two Egyptians, Zarqawi, or AI. But he explains, "from an intelligence point of view it would have been difficult to conclude that the Iraqi intelligence service was not aware of their activities." "Certainly," Tenet adds, "we believe that at least one senior AI operative maintained some sort of liaison relationship with the Iraqis."
There was more. Tenet says that his analysts found evidence of a relationship spanning more than a decade. He explains:
In the laborious exercise undertaken by analysts to understand the history of a potential Iraq-al Qa'ida relationship, they went back and documented the basis of a variety of sources--some good, some secondhand, some hearsay, many from other intelligence services. There were, over a decade, a number of possible high-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida, through high-level and third-party intermediaries. Our data told us that at various points there were discussions of cooperation, safe haven, training, and reciprocal nonaggression. As has been discussed in THE WEEKLY STANDARD on a number (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp) of (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/388astht.asp) occasions (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/887nvenc.asp), the CIA also uncovered evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating on chemical weapons projects in the Sudan. The Clinton administration cited the CIA's intelligence to justify the August 20, 1998, strike on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory. That strike was launched in retaliation for al Qaeda's August 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. The al-Shifa plant operated under an Iraqi oil-for-food contract and Tenet's CIA suspected it of being one of several front companies at which Iraq was transferring chemical weapons technology (including VX nerve gas) to al Qaeda.


Tenet explains the long history of collaboration between Iraq, Sudan, and al Qaeda:
During the mid-1990s, Sudanese Islamic Front Leader Hasan al-Turabi reportedly served as a conduit for Bin Ladin between Iraq and Iran. Turabi in this period was trying to become the centerpiece of the Sunni extremist world. He was hosting conferences and facilitating the travel of North Africans to Hezbollah training camps in the Bekaa Valley, in Lebanon. There was concern that common interests may have existed in this period between Iraq, Bin Ladin, and the Sudanese, particularly with regard to the production of chemical weapons. The reports we evaluated told us of high-level Iraqi intelligence service contacts with Bin Ladin himself, though we never knew the outcome of these contacts. [Emphasis added] http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp

[Clove]

Look E, I can lift quotes too!

“Intelligence from the 1960’s and 1970’s 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. 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-1990’s. The IC continues to receive reporting on these links from detainees and document exploitation.”

Sen Rep 108-301 pg 29-30.

What do you think? Maybe Iraq was reformed by 2003 AMIRITE?

[Asha]

I never noticed before but since I've started to read the political threads lately, I've begun to appreciate Clove's posts quite a bit.

[Clove]

I never noticed before but since I've started to read the political threads lately, I've begun to appreciate Clove's posts quite a bit.

Yeah ever since Sean2 put me in the sandbox, I've been overcompensating :D. Happy to entertain Ash.

[Asha]

lol I don't know how I avoided that box.

[Parkbandit]

I think the important fact was that TheE was against the war from the beginning.. that he was smarter than the entire US Government.

:rofl:

[TheEschaton]

Dave,

The report later goes into connections between Saddam and Osama. Basically, the gist of it was this: There was no direct proof of the feelings of either men before Saddam was captured, and Saddam (of course, you would say!) denied any relationship between the two of them and how he was wary of all forms of extremist Islam. The report then goes to say, let's look at what senior al-Qaeda people said when captured - all of them knew of no link between the two men, though one thought Zarqawi might be pursuing contacts there indepedent of al-Qaeda's goals, until, of course, we destabilized the country so badly that it became our goal, and Zarqawi became a celeb. Then, the report was like, "Well...let's look at Saddam's actions." And all his actions showed him extremely suspect of all Sunni and Shia extremist sects, and he was known to imprison or execute Wahhabi supporters because he was afraid of their views.

But of course, if you read the report I cited, you would know that.

Clove,

Of course the report says that. If you read the report further, you would read how that is cited in the "Murky" report, how that report was aggressive in its analysis (and, according to the NESA group in the CIA, not an accurate reflection of how the data should be analyzed), and how the sources varied in their reliability. A lot of the more reliable ones are about Zarqawi, who some analysts think might have been flying under the al-Qaeda banner, but not known to al-Qaeda leadership until Iraq destablized. There is no link between his actions, and Osama bin Laden's actions. In fact, his organization was called al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, and in 2004, AFTER the invasion, he swore fealty to bin Laden and renamed the group Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Gan,

Tenet says something entirely different in the report, but even if what he said in the book is absolute truth (an assumption which is ridiculous, btw), the following points cannot be denied:

1) Anwar al-Islam is a KURDISH al-Qaeda affiliate, and actually speaks to how Saddam and Osama were NOT aligned, as AI sought to destablize Bagdhad.

2) Zarqawi, at best, was funded by Osama, and never swore fealty or operated under the al-Qaeda banner until 2004. There is evidence that he even may have disagreed with Al-Qaeda on key issues.

3) Islamic Jihad in EGYPT is not Al-Qaeda, and them "setting up shop" in Bagdhad is not support from Saddam. Tenet may think it "straining credibility" that there wasn't tacit support, but the 9/11 bombers lived here for years, does that mean George Bush and Bill Clinton "supported" al-Qaeda?

4) Really? The Weekly Standard? Come on.

5) The rest of what you quoted was insinuation. Which doesn't seem to be an accepted intelligence standard for finding reliable information.

Now, I have to pay attention to my Catholic Social Thought and the Law class, which, at best, says capitalism is not the goals of a truly Christian person.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Clove,

Of course the report says that. If you read the report further, you would read how that is cited in the "Murky" report, how that report was aggressive in its analysis (and, according to the NESA group in the CIA, not an accurate reflection of how the data should be analyzed), and how the sources varied in their reliability...

-TheE-

Of course if YOU read further down, the Senate report goes on to explain the shift in terrorism intelligence after 9/11 to more aggressive reporting- by experts who specialized in terrorism. It was a judgement call by those who are most familiar with that specific type of intelligence.

I'm sorry you don't approve of their methods, or that there is disagreement among other intelligence experts. I'm gonna go with the experts who work with the intelligence in question.

Whether or not there was a link to al-Qaida specifically the quote I pulled clearly summarizes 40 years of intelligence linking Iraq to terrorism. I will repeat myself, do you believe Iraq had suddenly reformed in this respect?

[Gan]

Gan,

Tenet says something entirely different in the report, but even if what he said in the book is absolute truth (an assumption which is ridiculous, btw), the following points cannot be denied:
I like how you take some things for truth from Tenet's book and yet not other things from the same book. Whatever fits your twisted version of reality bub.


1) Anwar al-Islam is a KURDISH al-Qaeda affiliate, and actually speaks to how Saddam and Osama were NOT aligned, as AI sought to destablize Bagdhad.
Source please.


2) Zarqawi, at best, was funded by Osama, and never swore fealty or operated under the al-Qaeda banner until 2004. There is evidence that he even may have disagreed with Al-Qaeda on key issues.
Source please.


3) Islamic Jihad in EGYPT is not Al-Qaeda, and them "setting up shop" in Bagdhad is not support from Saddam. Tenet may think it "straining credibility" that there wasn't tacit support, but the 9/11 bombers lived here for years, does that mean George Bush and Bill Clinton "supported" al-Qaeda?
A terrorist group setting up shop in a country that is aware of their existance in that country, that does nothing to discourage or eliminate that group's existance qualifies as support. Your analagy would be accurate if and only if Bush and Clinton knew that the Al Quaeda cells in the US existed and did nothing about it. A claim which you can not accurately make.


4) Really? The Weekly Standard? Come on.
We totally understand that if you cant refute the information you can at least attack the source in order to cover your retreat.


5) The rest of what you quoted was insinuation. Which doesn't seem to be an accepted intelligence standard for finding reliable information.
I'll take Tenet's insinuations over yours any day of the week. Unless you've managed to be the Director of some foreign intelligence service and have not told us about it. His credentials are miles beyond anything yours hope to be. :lol:

[Clove]

More bedtime reading from Sen Rep 108-301

"The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered 'yes.' Most analysts simply answered, 'no' or 'never,' but some provided more extensive responses."

Sen Rep 108-301 pg 273

[Warriorbird]

I've never claimed to like Congress much.

Weren't the Project for a New American Century/Paul Wolfowitz looking for a reason to wipe out Iraq long before any informative WMD reports?

Oh, right, yes they were.

;)

[BigWorm]

Ok, I was going to avoid this thread, but now I see you people are trying to link Al Qaeda and Hussein? That's been debunked big time. Lemme go get some citations...

[Clove]

Ok, I was going to avoid this thread, but now I see you people are trying to link Al Qaeda and Hussein? That's been debunked big time. Lemme go get some citations...

No quite. Only that intelligence prior to and around 2003 stated that Iraq had a history of harboring terrorists and promoting terrorism.

[Warriorbird]

:eye roll:

So...going into Iraq versus the areas where Osama probably was was totally a blow against Bin Laden.

Riiight.

[Clove]

:eye roll:

So...going into Iraq versus the areas where Osama probably was was totally a blow against Bin Laden.

Riiight.

Only if you're retarded enough to think that the sole reason for invading Iraq was to stop Bin Laden.

On the other hand if you think that Saddam's ability and willingness to promote terrorism was one of many reasons to forcefully remove his administration from power; you're getting warm.

[Clove]

I've never claimed to like Congress much.

Yeah... WTF does Congress know? The E said...

[Warriorbird]

That really had nothing to do with what I was saying.

:)

I was just pointing to the fallacious notion of a Saddam/Al'Qaeda link. The Wahhabi hated Saddam.

I'm not particularly anti-war in general...I just maintain that section of Pakistan that Mushareff let be ruled by radical Islamic militants might've been a wiser move strategically... especially given what Pakistan looks like currently (the idea that he didn't bump off Benazir Bhutto is hilarious... and we prodded her to go back to Pakistan... I love the one bit where he claimed she "accidentally fell).

[sst]

Nobody is saying that now with the information we know that Saddam and Osama were buddies.

We are saying that TheE knows less than he thinks he does about the situation

[Warriorbird]

That I'll agree with. That was a pretty pathetic post given how smart TheE is supposed to be.

[sst]

That I'll agree with. That was a pretty pathetic post given how smart TheE thinks he is.

I fixed it for you WB =D

[BigWorm]

No quite. Only that intelligence prior to and around 2003 stated that Iraq had a history of harboring terrorists and promoting terrorism.
Too bad that been debunked by declassified documents (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Firp%2Fcongress%2F20 05_cr%2Flevin041505.html&ei=RkGiR-OqNpTiiAGsxJiWAQ&usg=AFQjCNFWlhksGC4FqyvbNx-NqqS465kiGA&sig2=Wc87ZkvqNrqaZkavI4tOWw) made public by an inquiry led by Sen. Carl Levin of the Armed Services Committee. From the report (emphasis mine):

On October 7, 2002, President Bush asserted that "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

However, according to the newly declassified excerpts of classified documents:

* A June 21, 2002 CIA report, "Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship," states that, relative to a report that Iraq provided chemical and biological weapons assistance to al Qaeda, "the level and extent of this is assistance is not clear." The document notes the "many critical gaps" in the knowledge of Iraqi links to al Qaeda because of "limited reporting" and the "questionable reliability of many of our sources."
* The October 2, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing WMD Programs states: "As with much of the information on the overall [Iraq-al Qaeda] relationship, details on training and support are second-hand or from sources of varying reliability." It also notes that that the Intelligence Community "cannot determine...how many of the reported plans for CBW [Chemical and Biological Warfare] were actually realized."
* A January 29, 2003 CIA report, "Iraqi Support for Terrorism," discusses the lack of "evidence of completed training," and says most of the reports of training "do not make clear whether training" was "actually implemented." It indicates that some number of the reports appeared to be based on "hearsay," and that others were "simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-al Qa'ida complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them."

Also, in 2006 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence put forth a report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html) that showed that analysts disputed the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the beginning of the war.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."
And before you label this a witch hunt by Dems out to get Bush

But Republican attempts to paint the findings as a partisan rehash were undercut by intelligence committee members from the GOP. The committee report's conclusions are based on the Democrats' findings because two Republicans -- Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) -- supported those findings.

"After reviewing thousands of pages of evidence, I voted for the conclusions that most closely reflect the facts in the report," Snowe said in a written statement. "Policy-makers seemingly discounted or dismissed warnings about the veracity of critical intelligence reports that may have served as a basis for going to war."
Also, for those of you saying the Saddam made a habit of harboring radical Islamic extremists.

Democrats and Republicans agree that analysts and politicians of all political stripes were wrong about the prewar assessments of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But the committee report indicates that intelligence analysts were substantially right about Hussein's lack of operational links to al-Qaeda. And Democrats compared the administration's public statements with newly declassified intelligence assessments to build their case that efforts to link Iraq to al-Qaeda were willfully misleading.

In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat." But one day after that conclusion was published, Levin noted, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

[Clove]

Too bad that been debunked by declassified documents (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Firp%2Fcongress%2F20 05_cr%2Flevin041505.html&ei=RkGiR-OqNpTiiAGsxJiWAQ&usg=AFQjCNFWlhksGC4FqyvbNx-NqqS465kiGA&sig2=Wc87ZkvqNrqaZkavI4tOWw) made public by an inquiry led by Sen. Carl Levin of the Armed Services Committee. From the report (emphasis mine):


Read the analysis and conclusions in Sen Rep 108-301. I've given you the link, but I'm not going to transcribe the entire document.




Also, for those of you saying the Saddam made a habit of harboring radical Islamic extremists.


No quite. Only that intelligence prior to and around 2003 stated that Iraq had a history of harboring terrorists and promoting terrorism.

Just read please.

*Edit* Because selective quoting pisses me off.

What Bigworm is quoting is a selection from the Scope Note of Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship

Here is the comprehensive selection of the Scope Note (which can be found at the URL BigWorm provides as well as on page 317 of Sen Rep 108-301):

"This intelligence assessment responds to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime links to al-Qa'ida. Our approach is purposefully aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumption that any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States.

We reviewed intelligence reporting over the past decade to determine whether Iraq had a relationship with al'Qa'ida and, if so, the dimensions of the relationship.

[content black] Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida still contains many critical gaps [content black].

Some analysts concur with the assessment that intelligence reporting provides "no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," but believe that the available signs support a conclusion that Iraq has had sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qaida since the mid-1990s, rather than a relationship with al-Qaida that has developed over time. These analysts would contend that mistrust and conflicting ideologies and goals probably tempered these contacts and severely limited the opportunities for cooperation. These analysts do not rule out that Baghdad sought and obtained a nonaggression agreement or made limited offers of cooperation, training, or even safehaven (ultimately uncorroborated or withdrawn) in an effort to manipulate, penetrate, or otherwise keep tabs on al-Qaida or selected operatives."

[CrystalTears]

Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are not the only terrorists on this planet.

[TheEschaton]

TheE where is the evidence about Osama and Saddam?

Funny, and here I thought this post was asking me to refute the connection between Osama and Saddam. Nice try at switching the debate, Dave.

I have never denied Saddam harbors terrorists, I deny that he harbored Al-Qaeda and that the two organizations worked together.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

So now, please, shut the fuck up Dave.

[sst]

Funny, and here I thought this post was asking me to refute the connection between Osama and Saddam. Nice try at switching the debate, Dave.

I have never denied Saddam harbors terrorists, I deny that he harbored Al-Qaeda and that the two organizations worked together.

-TheE-

you still don't get it do you? What I have been asking this whole time is for the proof of Osama hating Saddam so much, my question has never changed.

[TheEschaton]

Oh, you mean besides the messages he taped calling Saddam an infidel? I'm sorry if I don't want to go trolling for aljazeera.net for them, but as a white guy, I'm sure you can get away with it if you want.

[sst]

oh okay.

[Tsa`ah]

The claim that we were ignorant of the "relationship" between Osama and Saddam is pretty lame.

How long have we had relations with the Saudis? With the bin Laden family?

I'm sorry ... but as deep as our nose was/is in middle east affairs, that's a pretty weak claim at best.

That and for once, Dave was actually correct on something ... you'll never shut him up. After all, he was over there so he is more knowledgeable about the events prior to his actual deployment.

[Clove]

I have never denied Saddam harbors terrorists, I deny that he harbored Al-Qaeda and that the two organizations worked together.

-TheE-

Oh good. For moment there I thought Ba'athist Iraq had been a threat.

[Clove]

Oh, you mean besides the messages he taped calling Saddam an infidel? I'm sorry if I don't want to go trolling for aljazeera.net for them, but as a white guy, I'm sure you can get away with it if you want.

I doubt Osama considered the United States the pillar of Muslim piety when he was conducting his guerrilla war against the Soviets in Afghanistan; didn't stop him from using our aid.

Is there a legal term for this kind of "proof" E? I only know the laymen's term "bullshit"

[Clove]

TThat and for once, Dave was actually correct on something ... you'll never shut him up. After all, he was over there so he is more knowledgeable about the events prior to his actual deployment.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

[Parkbandit]

:rofl:

[TheEschaton]

Dave wanted proof that Osama hated Saddam. Proof on a person's mindset can only be given through public statements, and Osama, in public statements made in video, and I believe in private conversations to his lieutenants later revealed when questioning those lieutenants, expressed a personal dislike of Saddam.

In law, this is called circumstantial. We can't know the actual truth (because we can't get inside Osama's head), but we can reasonably infer from how he acted and WHAT HE SAID the truth.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Dave wanted proof that Osama hated Saddam. Proof on a person's mindset can only be given through public statements, and Osama, in public statements made in video, and I believe in private conversations to his lieutenants later revealed when questioning those lieutenants, expressed a personal dislike of Saddam.

In law, this is called circumstantial. We can't know the actual truth (because we can't get inside Osama's head), but we can reasonably infer from how he acted and WHAT HE SAID the truth.

-TheE-
Like you inferred that Osama was Shia?

[TheEschaton]

LOL.

I admitted I was wrong about that. Come off it. That's something easily confirmable in fact, that Wahhabi is a sect of Sunni Islam, not Shia.

[BigWorm]

Senate Report 108-301

http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf

A summary begins on page 29. It mentions that terrorism intelligence has changed to include sources with a wider margin of error and it explains the reasoning behind the change with quotes from terrorism intelligence experts.

And using shitty sources turned out really well for the intelligence agencies, didn't it?

Did you read the links you're sending me? The report is in agreement that analysts were pressured to find ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The type of ties they did find are shown in the quote you posted (seriously, are you reading the stuff your putting on here?)


Some analysts concur with the assessment that intelligence reporting provides "no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," but believe that the available signs support a conclusion that Iraq has had sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qaida since the mid-1990s, rather than a relationship with al-Qaida that has developed over time. These analysts would contend that mistrust and conflicting ideologies and goals probably tempered these contacts and severely limited the opportunities for cooperation. These analysts do not rule out that Baghdad sought and obtained a nonaggression agreement or made limited offers of cooperation, training, or even safehaven (ultimately uncorroborated or withdrawn) in an effort to manipulate, penetrate, or otherwise keep tabs on al-Qaida or selected operatives."

Yeah, they're like best buddies.

I'm not going to try to explain all the evidence against a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. It's already been settled and not many who have done the critical thinking after looking at what has been put out there think that any real links ever existed. The supposed link between Iraq and al-Qaedda was just one of the many false justifications that administration put forth in support of a attack on Iraq.

I'll let Sen. Russ Feingold, the ONLY senator who voted against the resolution to authorize the war in Iraq, explain why I didn't think we should be there:


What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

[Clove]

And using shitty sources turned out really well for the intelligence agencies, didn't it?

Yes it has worked, because it has helped curtail terrorism by erring on the side of caution. Just like this excerpt explains:

“While the nature of the intelligence reporting produced or obtained by the IC has not changed dramatically in the past decade, there has been a significant shift in the way IC analysts evaluate reporting regarding terrorism, particularly in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. CIA officials interviewed by Committee staff indicated that, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the trade craft of terrorism analysis shifted and analysts now feel obligated to make more conclusive assessments regardless of the quality of the available intelligence. In this new analytic environment analysts cannot set aside intelligence reports because the information does not fit within the context of their prior knowledge or because the report has not been corroborated. The CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI), describing the unique nature of terrorism analysis, said “…terrorism analysis is just fundamentally different on some issues.” She commented further that:

‘Sometimes it is the walk-in who has the best information about the impending attack. What we teach people in trade craft is that you want to get a report. It’s preferable that that report come from a fully-vetted source whose information is from a long-established reporting record, has direct access and you’ve been able to corroborate it somehow. That’s what you would ideally like and that’s what you ideally teach analysts to look for. But with terrorism you can’t dismiss the walk-in’

The Deputy Director of the CTC’s Office of Terrorism Analysis noted that this is the most difficult issue he has encountered in his eighteen year of intelligence analysis. He also stated that:

‘On the other hand, I would also say that we’ve encouraged and developed a sense of trade craft specifically on terrorism that says push the envelope because the implications are so high and because we have to acknowledge up front that, unlike in some other cases, some other lines of analysis, that we have to accept that often our information is going to be fragmentary and, if we wait too long to reach conclusions, we might make a mistake.’

Sen Rep 108-301 pg 31 (emphasis added)

--
Nobody said Iraq and al-Qaida were buds. The CIA report states that the dislike and distrust between Ba'athist Iraq and al-Qaida impaired opportunities for them to work together, but at the same time the CIA supports "a conclusion that Iraq has had sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qaida since the mid-1990s, rather than a relationship with al-Qaida that has developed over time." That's pretty definitive. It wasn't a high-quality relationship, but there was a relationship.

Beyond that Iraq DID have a history of using its own intelligence service to commit terrorist acts, had a good history with Palestinian terrorist organizations, etc., etc. Ba'athist Iraq had ties to terrorism.

[Gan]

LOL.

I admitted I was wrong about that. Come off it. That's something easily confirmable in fact, that Wahhabi is a sect of Sunni Islam, not Shia.

Obviously not THAT easily confirmed.

:whistle:

[BigWorm]

RTFM.

Uh, I did bro. Take your own medicine, asshole. The report concluded that analyst used shitty intelligence because they were being pressured into reaching the conclusion that Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked.

FYI, linking to a 500 page document and claiming any info I post (with citations) is wrong is not a valid method of argument.

How's the Kool-Aid taste?

[BigWorm]

Way to edit your post right after I post a reply. I'm done with this.

[Gan]

Uh, I did bro. Take your own medicine, asshole. The report concluded that analyst used shitty intelligence because they were being pressured into reaching the conclusion that Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked.

So how does the report's conclusion of using shitty analysis equate to the 'bush lied and people died' conspiracy?

[Clove]

Uh, I did bro. Take your own medicine, asshole. The report concluded that analyst used shitty intelligence because they were being pressured into reaching the conclusion that Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked....


Not according to the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence:

“B. Terrorism Pressure Conclusion

Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq’s links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11. As a result, the Intelligence Community’s assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links…”

Sen Rep 108-301 pg 363
--

According to the Committee's report analysts were pressured to be more aggressive in their assessments- not being told what assessments to make. There's a world of difference between the two statements.

[Clove]

Way to edit your post right after I post a reply. I'm done with this.

Way to argue. If you like, I'll put "RTFM" back in my post for you.

[Gan]

Way to edit your post right after I post a reply. I'm done with this.

Dont retreat now, its just becomming interesting.

:lol:

[Warriorbird]

As I said about it elsewhere...

We should have gone into Pakistan to begin with. If we're going to prop up a dictator (Musharaf) we should at least prop up a useful dictator. He literally gave three sections of his country Radical Islamic self government. Where did Osama head? Guess where. We'd have done him a favor wiping them out and he could've blamed it on the big bad US.

We're too chickenhawk to go after the countries with nukes though.

[TheEschaton]

I was actually the one who first mentioned the report, though I didn't link it, using specific exerpts from it.

Yanno, to be fair.

[Gan]

I was actually the one who first mentioned the report, though I didn't link it, using specific exerpts from it.

Yanno, to be fair.

Its comical that you're still posting in this thread. Sad but yet still funny.

[Keller]

Its comical that you're still posting in this thread. Sad but yet still funny.

Because he hasn't been strongarmed out by for admitting he was wrong?

[TheEschaton]

I see, the rule is: one factual mistake, and then you're out?

No worries, I'll hold you to the same standard.

Or is it one factual mistake that you'll admit you've made? Cause then I may be fucked in terms of getting you to stfu in threads.

[Warriorbird]

That sort of sums up the Bush presidency.

[Gan]

Because he hasn't been strongarmed out by for admitting he was wrong?


I see, the rule is: one factual mistake, and then you're out?

No worries, I'll hold you to the same standard.

Or is it one factual mistake that you'll admit you've made? Cause then I may be fucked in terms of getting you to stfu in threads.

No, because you were wrong on a crucial piece of information that you used to base your claims off of.

And you've never gotten me to STFU in ANY thread. Unless you're counting your fantasy land scenarios.

[Gan]

That sort of sums up the Bush presidency.

hahahaha


SCORE!

[TheEschaton]

That I based my claims off of? I'm sorry, whether Wahhabi is a sect of Sunni or Shia, Osama STILL hates Saddam, and Saddam didn't trust Osama.

[Gan]

That I based my claims off of? I'm sorry, whether Wahhabi is a sect of Sunni or Shia, Osama STILL hates Saddam, and Saddam didn't trust Osama.

Then Tenet must have been wrong as he's quoted below:



The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa'ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi's arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May of 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a "senior associate and collaborator" of al-Qa'ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam (AI).
We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa'ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi's reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi's men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations.



Furthermore how do you justify Clinton's missle attack on the pharmaceutical Al Shifa plant in 98 that was in retaliation to the Al Qaeda embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? That plant, located in the Sudan was a joint venture between Iraq and Sudan and suspected of making chemical weapons and passing along chemical weapons technology to Al Qaeda leadership.



Just because two people may not like or trust another does not mean they wont work together to achieve a common end. Pull your fucking head out of the sand.

[Tsa`ah]

And you've never gotten me to STFU in ANY thread. Unless you're counting your fantasy land scenarios.

I think your comprehension is impaired ... because that's basically what he said ... you never stfu.

[Gan]

I think your comprehension is impaired ... because that's basically what he said ... you never stfu.

Perhaps thats your perception. Certainley isnt mine.

[Tsa`ah]

Thanks for proving the point.

[Gan]

Thanks for proving the point.

Anytime