»
 

Go Back   ResellerRatings Store Ratings > ResellerRatings Forums > Off Topic Community

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-11-2003, 09:07 AM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Theophylact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: inside the Beltway, outside the loop
Posts: 1,067
Theophylact is on a distinguished road
Blair Aides Are Said to Doubt Finding Weapons

From the New York Times:
Quote:
Senior officials in Prime Minister Tony Blair's government say privately that they no longer believe that unconventional weapons will be uncovered in Iraq, British news organizations reported today.

Correspondents from the BBC and Reuters who cover 10 Downing Street said unidentified officials were putting forward the argument that the weapons had indeed existed but were dismantled or hidden beyond discovery before allied troops entered Iraq in March.

Neither account said whether the officials believed that the weapons might have been hidden in Iraq or spirited abroad. But both accounts said that the best hope officials now expressed was that interviews with Iraqi scientists and military officers would determine how the concealment or destruction took place.

Mr. Blair's official spokesman rebutted the reports at today's Downing Street briefing and turned aside suggestions that the government was backing off from its previous insistence that what justified going to war was the threat of weapons. The failure to discover them has undermined Mr. Blair's credibility, dented his public support and turned a majority of Britons against a war they once supported.

"The prime minister is absolutely confident that we will find evidence not only of his W.M.D. programs, but concrete evidence of the product of those programs as well," said the spokesman, who, under government rules, cannot be identified by name.

In an appearance before a parliamentary committee on Tuesday, Mr. Blair suggested that only "evidence of weapons programs" rather than the weapons themselves would be uncovered. Combined with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's statement that the United States had not been acting on new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of unconventional weapons, Mr. Blair's modified language appeared to indicate a coordinated tactical retreat by Washington and London.

But Mr. Blair's spokesman today said that news reports focusing on the differing claims were wrong. "The prime minister believes, and is absolutely confident, that we will find material" relating to biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, he said.

Theophylact is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2003, 10:41 AM   #2 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 20
MTAtech is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to MTAtech Send a message via Yahoo to MTAtech
Bedtime Story:

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by Forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?

A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Q: Good night, dad!
__________________
MTAtech - 'Fare and Balanced'

Last edited by MTAtech; 07-11-2003 at 10:44 AM.
MTAtech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2003, 10:43 AM   #3 (permalink)
shahani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I didn't know Bush heard voices in his head.

I though he got a divine message from God to invade Iraq.

Honestly.

I mean to hear voices in the head, you need a head.

Right?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2003, 01:09 PM   #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a Cali Valley
Posts: 7,817
Mike is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike
LOL That was an entertaining read...
Where did you come up with that?
Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2003, 01:42 PM   #5 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Epidemic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 400
Epidemic is on a distinguished road
Lets go to a real story.

Q: Daddy, if saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction why didn't he provide evidence to that to the UN inspectors.

A: Because he hoped the US would back down.

Q: Daddy, when he was sure the Americans were not going to back down why didn't he provide the evidence then.

A: Because he hoped ummmm, Shut up and go to sleep.

Q: Buttttt Daddy, Did Saddam ever think that he could win against the USA Coalition?

A: No!!!

Q: Then why didn't he take his billions and Swiss bank accounts and move to France or Germany when MR Bush gave him the ultimatum?

A: I said shut up and go to sleep (thought to self maybe it was because he had no WMD, was completely innocent, hoped to retain power??? Hmmm you know what it does not make any sense no matter how you look at it.)
Epidemic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2003, 02:03 PM   #6 (permalink)
shahani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
"He couldn't admit to his people that he feared the US threat. He had to keep the illusion with the whole world that he did have WOMD."

-------Iron Duke Epidemic - circa May 2003
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2003, 02:07 PM   #7 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Epidemic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 400
Epidemic is on a distinguished road
Is that what you believe or at least do you find that a reasonable conclusion?
Epidemic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2003, 02:11 PM   #8 (permalink)
shahani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I recalled it from a 2 month old phone conversation.

Yes, plausible.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2003, 02:13 PM   #9 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,539
ClubMed is on a distinguished road
shahani who is the iron duke? I keep seeing this in your posts, whats the story behind it?
ClubMed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2003, 02:22 PM   #10 (permalink)
shahani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Iron Duke?

One day, Distinguished and Senior Member Fagin referred to the equally Distinguished and Senior Member Epidemic as Iron Duke, alluding to the latter member's awesome cyber-presence and tough talk.

Over at Creatures'.

('Course Fagin didn't know that Epidemic was the opposite of his cyber personality)

So the name stuck and at other Forums, its Iron Duke Epidemic.

Said with respect, of course.
  Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Most Active Discussions

Recent Discussions

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 AM.