VeeshanVault

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/ ... 1427.shtml

Saddam also challenged President Bush to a debate.

HAHAHA this would be hilarious. I can already see spoofs on SNL and MAD TV.

I love Ari Fleischer:

Fleischer said it would be more helpful to the world if Saddam engaged in disarmament and not debates.

Saddam also said he's not going to destroy his Al Samoud missles. If that's not proof enough that he's not fully cooperating, then I don't know what is.

as far as the missiles thing....

on one hand it would be stupid for him to destroy them. cause there is, what a 95%+ chance he is about to be invaded. Why fuckin destroy weapons at this point?

if i were him the only way those missiles would be destroyed would be through their intended use.

i think from a strategic standpoint, if you are Saddam, you keep the missiles.

From a strategic standpoint, it's retarded that he hasn't destroyed the missles, along with all the other crap he has, to prevent an invasion in the first place.

we dont know what his long term goals are.

he is still in power 12 years later. so whatever other goals he has, he can check that box. maybe he doesnt care what happens as long as he wipes Tel Aviv off the map.

Saddam can't do anything if he's dead or out of power.

You think if he attacks Israel he's going to wait until we're beating down the doors?

That was an excellent read and I can't wait until the interview, Wednesday. If I were Saddam, I wouldn't destroy the missiles either. If they are within the guidelines of the UN, he shouldn't have to. Bush will invade Iraq one way or another, so why follow what he says? A debate would also be very interesting to watch.

Those missles are, without a doubt, outside of UN guidelines. Saddam doesn't seem to realize not everyone is intimidated by him and takes everything he says as gospel, like the Iraqi people are forced to.

If Saddam isn't going to destroy his chem/bio weapons, and fully cooperate with inspectors, then yeah there's no reason he should destroy his long range missles.

I find it ironic that Saddam isn't sure if war is inevitable, since he is the only person in this world that can stop it. Even at this point, if he just gave into all the inspectors demands, and handed over all his illegal weaponry, war could still be averted.

Brotha wrote:I find it ironic that Saddam isn't sure if war is inevitable, since he is the only person in this world that can stop it.

Umm, no. Just because he didn't say it, doesn't mean he doesn't believe it.

While he says Saddam didn't describe war with the U.S. as "inevitable," it's very clear that he does expect war.

Its pretty clear there is going to be a war. They wouldnt have all our boys in the army, and some of the reserves called up, all ready and prepared. If a few months later they are being shipped home after doing fuck all. Its a very appealing idea though, the situation, without people getting killed, unlikely, but appealing.

I'm just waiting for arsehole Blair to start conscription when it all kicks off.

Of course we're all expecting it, but it can still be avoided by Saddam's actions, and I think the only only person in this world that knows what Saddam's going to do is Saddam- unless you think Bush can read minds?

Brotha wrote:..it can still be avoided by Saddam's actions

Doubt it, no matter what he does his time as a leader is limited and I can't see him walking away. He can't win at this point of the game, if he backs down his people will boot him, if he doesn't back down he will be removed from outside.

France will initiate the proposal for military action that actually gets passed, and it will happen before summer. I'm psychic. That's assuming the US/UK don't go it alone, which doesn't seem likely at this point.

Saddam would run circles around our President in a LIVE television debate. He would make Dubya look like even more of a fucking idiot than he actually appears now. That is the #1 reason this would never happen. Bush would lose all sense of composure in within the first 10 minutes.

In all honesty, I feel that the 2 leaders should have this debate. Let's see what they have to say to each others face and who really comes of looking worse in the end.

You gotta hand it to Saddam, he's really playing his cards well.

donts mess with Texas~

Considering how weak his position is on the last 12 years, I seriously doubt that would happen, Fair.

Bush has problems with public speaking, but Barney the dinosaur could make Saddam look like an idoit over this issue.

I don't even think it would be close. Saddam over Bush, based purely on knowledge of the issues and the ability to make your points. Saddam has a little bit more of vested intrest in this debate since, you know, his life and country is on the line and all. I think Saddam's only downfall would be his focus on particular subjects that he absolutely knows are pure bullshit and wouldn't even acknowledge any other valid American arguments.

Can anyone think of any reason not to have this debate? I guess we could very well be playing right into Saddam's hands, but it could easily be argued that we've been doing that for the past year anyway.

There is no reason at all for anyone other than Saddam to agree to such a debate. After 12 years of polarization on the issue, it isn't going to change anyones minds.


Besides, it's like asking a judge to allow your murder charge to be debated in a public forum. The only one not laughing at such a request is the goober who made it in the first place.

All these politics and f'ing bullshit..

Sun Tzu must be spinning in his grave.

Animalor wrote:All these politics and f'ing bullshit..

Sun Tzu must be spinning in his grave.

Agreed.

Actually, Sun Tzu realized that politics were just as important as a sword. War is waged in many different ways, politics being just one of many.

Fairweather Pure wrote:Actually, Sun Tzu realized that politics were just as important as a sword. War is waged in many different ways, politics being just one of many.

True, however, extended political roadblocking is not mentioned in his book.

its probably a good tactic to use when you have absolutely no chance in a military conflict with your opponent.

Brotha wrote:Those missles are, without a doubt, outside of UN guidelines.

No they aren't. Some of them flew a few miles beyond the range he is allowed to have during test flights, without being equipped with a warhead or guidance system, which is another 30% of weight added to the missile.

He stated these weapons were in his posession in the book he sent to the UN. The one that the bush administration snatched up before anyone else could look at it.

Also, can anyone tell me why the bush administration would hire such an oily, smug looking toadie like ari fleischer to speak for them? That little worm turns my fucking stomach just by looking at him.

Voronwë wrote:its probably a good tactic to use when you have absolutely no chance in a military conflict with your opponent.

Exactly. Thus no reason at all why such a bullshit, political, liberal pipe-dream, media driven notion such as a debate should even be entertained.

The fact that Saddam could probably come off better in a debate has nothing to do with the probable war at hand and his indiscretions that led to it in the first place.

"That little worm turns my fucking stomach just by looking at him." Then donts rook at him aight~

True, however, extended political roadblocking is not mentioned in his book.

The fundamentals of worldwide war, politics, and the economy have changed a great deal in the past hundrad+ years. Sun Tzu's combat doctrine and the implications they contain have a solid foundation to apply to modern day military/business tactics, but you'd be a fool to disreguard the state of the modern world. Sun Tzu stressed adaptability. I think Sun Tzu would be rather proud of Saddam holding the dogs of war at arms length for so long using nothing but our own allies against us. Especially considering how much more powerful we are than him.

I've said it before and I will state my opinion again. Saddam is exceptionally good at politics. There is no way he can beat us in a war, so he is beating us politically. I feel he is accomplishing exactely what he set out to do. Actually, I think Saddam has exceeded his wildest expectations in reguards to disrupting the US politically. We've never had so many trusted allies against us, Bush's ratings are falling slowly but surely, and our own country hasen't been this divided this much since Vietnam.

the idea of a debate is ridiculous. but not surprising since it was Hussein who floated it.

the "MEDIA" (scream in panic now and run) has nothing to do with driving the notion of this debate.

the "MEDIA"'s job is to report what people like Hussein say. he said he wanted to debate Bush. It was reported. The end.

Fairweather Pure wrote:

True, however, extended political roadblocking is not mentioned in his book.

The fundamentals of worldwide war, politics, and the economy have changed a great deal in the past hundrad+ years. Sun Tzu's combat doctrine and the implications they contain have a solid foundation to apply to modern day military/business tactics, but you'd be a fool to disreguard the state of the modern world. Sun Tzu stressed adaptability. I think Sun Tzu would be rather proud of Saddam holding the dogs of war at arms length for so long using nothing but our own allies against us. Especially considering how much more powerful we are than him.

I've said it before and I will state my opinion again. Saddam is exceptionally good at politics. There is no way he can beat us in a war, so he is beating us politically. I feel he is accomplishing exactely what he set out to do. Actually, I think Saddam has exceeded his wildest expectations in reguards to disrupting the US politically. We've never had so many trusted allies against us, Bush's ratings are falling slowly but surely, and our own country hasen't been this divided this much since Vietnam.

Agreed Fair.

THE LIBERAL MEDIA WILL DESTROY US ALL FROM THE INSIDE OUT

kyoukan type-R wrote:

Brotha wrote:Those missles are, without a doubt, outside of UN guidelines.

No they aren't. Some of them flew a few miles beyond the range he is allowed to have during test flights, without being equipped with a warhead or guidance system, which is another 30% of weight added to the missile.

He stated these weapons were in his posession in the book he sent to the UN. The one that the bush administration snatched up before anyone else could look at it.

Kooky you are just twisting the facts as usual.

Check this Time report... http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 44,00.html

and quoting from that report (I added Bold for emphasis)...

It's not that the al-Samoud 2 is, in any sense, a weapon of mass destruction; it is a medium-range missile designed to carry a conventional explosive warhead. But where the missile falls foul of the inspection regime is that its range exceeds the 93-mile limit set by the UN in 1991. (A number of technical specifications also exceed UN limits in ways that prompt Blix's team to suspect it may simply be version 2.0 of a planned long-range Iraqi missile.) The fact that the extent of the al-Samoud 2's infraction is reportedly no more than about 30 miles may indeed give it little significance to Iraq's current strategic capability, but Dr. Blix is insisting on upholding the letter of the law.

Kooky, they violate the standard, in multiple ways (the range by nearly 30% alone). End of story. How can you baldly state "no they don't" when they clearly do? Sounds like you may have some defective mental processes in play there dear Kooky.

wow if you keep calling me that 120 times every post you make maybe one day someone might take you seriously!

if a bare rocket exceeds the range limit with absolutely no weight added to it, then it's not really exceeding the range limit at all. Try test firing one with a warhead and a guidance system and let me know what kind of results you get.

PREDICTED RESPONSE:

KOOKY KOOKY ROFL KOOKY KOKOY OOKYK KOOKY LMAO KOOEYL KEOOYKEY LOOKEYKOOK

the question on the range limits is:

is the range limit defined as a weapon with full payload, or a bare missile? i would think that was clearly delineated in whatever terms have been issued.

i dont know the answer, but Blix said for him to get rid of them by Saturday.

This would make a great Pay Per View event!..anyone know Vince McMahon's phone number?...Would love to see Saddam with "The Iron Shiek" in his corner vs. G.W. Bush with Bob Backlund in his. hehe...well worth 35$

Voronwë wrote:the question on the range limits is:

is the range limit defined as a weapon with full payload, or a bare missile? i would think that was clearly delineated in whatever terms have been issued.

i dont know the answer, but Blix said for him to get rid of them by Saturday.

I don't think it was defined in the UN weapon enforcements on Iraq. I think that that is where the argument lies. I don't even think a rocket without a payload or a guidance system can even be considered a missile.

I agree it would probably be smart to do what Blix says, despite the fact that Bush is going to attack Iraq regardless of anything now.

kyoukan type-R wrote:wow if you keep calling me that 120 times every post you make maybe one day someone might take you seriously!

if a bare rocket exceeds the range limit with absolutely no weight added to it, then it's not really exceeding the range limit at all. Try test firing one with a warhead and a guidance system and let me know what kind of results you get.

PREDICTED RESPONSE:

KOOKY KOOKY ROFL KOOKY KOKOY OOKYK KOOKY LMAO KOOEYL KEOOYKEY LOOKEYKOOK

Sucks to be Saddam doesn't it?

I call you Kooky because it so aptly describes your ideas. And it's a helluva lot easier to remember than your official name...

I thought you did it because you are a stupid fucking moron who hasn't had an original thought in his entire life, so he parrots whatever other people say in a blind hope that one day someone might acknowledge him by accident and validate his thus far worthless oxygen wasting existence on this planet.

Sucks to be you Kooky, I guess you were that accident

Voronwë wrote:its probably a good tactic to use when you have absolutely no chance in a military conflict with your opponent.

The fact is though that this isn't really a conflict at all. This is just Saddam and BWB having a pissing content with each other.

Bush's preffed pissing method is letting a LOT of stream fly pretty much everywhere at the same time while Sadam is running around with his pants around his ackles, dodging Bush's torrent of urine while attempting to find a good place from where to hit bush with his thimblefull of humidity.

To have a war, you need 2 teams actively killing each other.

In all honesty, I feel that the 2 leaders should have this debate. Let's see what they have to say to each others face and who really comes of looking worse in the end.

Why watch the debate, you have already made your mind up as to who would come off looking worse in the end.

don't even think it would be close. Saddam over Bush, based purely on knowledge of the issues and the ability to make your points. Saddam has a little bit more of vested intrest in this debate since, you know, his life and country is on the line and all. I think Saddam's only downfall would be his focus on particular subjects that he absolutely knows are pure bullshit and wouldn't even acknowledge any other valid American arguments

I think the only intrest Saddam has vested is his own life and want of power.
You state he would make statements that are pure bullshit so why waste time on listening to him in a debate?

Can anyone think of any reason not to have this debate?

Yes all he has to do is disarm, do what they have told him to do,whats to debate? Walking away would be good also, he has proven that he does not intend to follow the UNs rules and thumbs his nose at the world.

There is no way he can beat us in a war, so he is beating us politically. I feel he is accomplishing exactely what he set out to do. Actually, I think Saddam has exceeded his wildest expectations in reguards to disrupting the US politically. We've never had so many trusted allies against us, Bush's ratings are falling slowly but surely, and our own country hasen't been this divided this much since Vietnam.

Well I understand how people feel this way when they are so interrested in hearing a debate challenged by a man like Saddam, keep giving him credit I'm sure he is sitting in his bunker laughing his ass off every time he has another American or our allies country men protesting over the likes of him.

Personally I think measuring range of a missile without guidance system and warhead is ridiculous but that's just me..

I think the only intrest Saddam has vested is his own life and want of power.

Quite a few would say the same about Bush.

Of course, I expect most of you to defend the Vietnam Vet who ran onto the basketball court waving an American flag in the face of the student who made a statement.

Actually Saddam remains in power no matter what because no one will challenge him but Bush I assume wants a shot at next term as president so yes I would say there is a difference between the two.

I want Saddam gone and over will because I personally don't want this crap to keep coming up with him over the years to come.

Silvarel, I wouldn't reccommend you trying to argue with me on FlameVault. I really don't want to hand my guild leader's wife a verbal smackdown

Suffice it to say, I can actually debate without flaming, but flaming is just more fun. So here's my non-flame, and rather boring response.

Why watch the debate, you have already made your mind up as to who would come off looking worse in the end.

I like to see people in charge called out on thier lies and stupidity. Besides, Bush may actually surprise us all and speak exceptionally during this sort of debate. Having the 2 leaders of the countries that are about to engage in war debate the reasons for that war would definately be an eye opener.

You state he would make statements that are pure bullshit so why waste time on listening to him in a debate?

You misread my point. I feel Saddam would focus on things like our suppossed photos of bunkers and trucks full of bombs, which he may very well know are complete bullshit. He would be caught up in defending himself against what he knows are obvious lies and ignore whenever the subject needed to be changed to address actual infractions.

Yes all he has to do is disarm, do what they have told him to do,whats to debate?

This is one of the many things that would do well for a live debate. Disarm what? Hell, I still don't know what Iraq needs to disarm, and I follow this drama daily. I find it odd that only the al-Samoud 2 missile, a freaking 93 ranged mile medium warhead no less, is America's "ace in the hole" and case for war. All the other "hot-words" like dirty bomb, chemical weapons, and weapons of mass destruction simply have not been found. As has been stated on this board and others time and time again, these weapons require proper storage, maintenance, and upkeep. These are not items that can simply be buried in the desert and dug up 2 years from now and be used to terrorize the world. They just don't work like that. I see plenty to debate.

Well I understand how people feel this way when they are so interrested in hearing a debate challenged by a man like Saddam, keep giving him credit I'm sure he is sitting in his bunker laughing his ass off every time he has another American or our allies country men protesting over the likes of him.

Saddam deserves credit for the exact reasons I stated above. He is doing what very few people in history have ever done by holding of an invading force using only diplomacy and politics. However, my respect for Saddam ends there. I do not feel he is an honest or just leader. I don't see anyone cheering on Saddam on this forum or on television. I see people that empathize with his perdicament and appreciate the way he is handeling himself.

America just needs to step off the war wagon and let the inspectors do thier job. It will produce more results and cost less money and lives, both innocents and Americans. The people that want war need to realize that there is precious little to even destroy in Iraq. That country barely has anything left standing as it is, and it never was a bastion of modern civilization anyway. Our governemt is waging an unjust war IMO. There is not enough proof or evidence for me to lend my support to a war against Iraq. Furthermore, our little war will cost us billions and billions of dollars more than what has already been spent at a time when the country is seriously hurting financialy. Our country's priorities are really messed up right now IMO.

Here is a link to one of the few Senators with enough balls to point out the obvious. I suggest taking a good look and trying not to disreguard the many, many excellent points that are brought up in this article.

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/by ... ary_9.html

I also feel that Bush's highly criticized "axis of evil" speech has caused more harm than people think. I believe that single comment is the motivating drive behind the North Korean's current defensive nature. This "pre-emptive" strike strategy that America is adopting is making our precieved future enemies dig deep and start thinking about the only way they hope to have a chance against our military might: Nukes. And lots of 'em! This administration's actions will be haunting us for decades, both financially and in terms of our allies, who's opinions we dismiss with a wave of the hand. We need damage control more than we need a war with Iraq. Although, I wouldn't really call an unprovoked attack on a country where 50% population are children a war per-say. Hell, I don't even know what we'd "go to war" against. The country is still in shambels from the last war.

Then again, if we did level the whole country, killing hundreds or thousands of innocents as well as losing American soldiers, at least you "Won't have to put up with Saddam's crap over the years to come".

Silvarel, feel free to debate me, but please do so with more than a snip from a paragraph. Address the point I bring up, not the wording or semantics of my post. Also, keep it flame free, or else my gloves come off. I know you have a temper Everyone else can flame me at will, because they all know I think they're retards, and they think the same about me However, with guildmates I would like to keep things civil. Just remeber: You started it!

What exactly would the debate be about?

Bush: You have WMD's!

Hussein: No I don't!

Bush: Yes you do!

Hussein: No I don't!

What exactly would the debate be about?

Bush: You have WMD's!

Hussein: No I don't!

Bush: Yes you do!

Hussein: No I don't!

I agree. Wouldn't it be cool if the US and Iraqis had representitives at all the sites in question via satalite though? They could walk around and point to various things and argue thier points for thier perspective leader. Blix could be the side-line commentator telling us what all the technical mumbo jumbo meant. Then they'd go back to the leaders and have them discuss how to come to terms about that particular arument. If they couldn't discuss things rationally, there would be a UN appointed panel that would look at the facts and make a decision on the spot. The loser has to conceed the argument about the particular factory or missle. If Bush wins, it's destroyed. If Saddam wins, he gets to keep it. ---you know I'm just talking out my ass right now, right?

Anyway, no one will take my knife fight seriously. Tie Saddam and Bush together at the wrist just like that Micheal Jackson video. Winner takes all. I bet we could even get Micheal to sing "Beat It" live while the fight ensues. Admit it. That would be fucking sweet.

Fair;


Twelve years bud.

How long does it take for inspections to work?

You know they won't work without cooperation from those being inspected. You are that intelligent.

You don't liek you government, and that's your right. I think you need to spend a little more time on your alternative solution, however.

Silvarel, I wouldn't reccommend you trying to argue with me on FlameVault. I really don't want to hand my guild leader's wife a verbal smackdown

First let me state that I am a big girl and can take care of myself very well and have done so for 39 years.

Actually I wasn't trying to argue with you I was simply wanting you to answer some questions. See I like to make a attempt to understand peoples reasoning behind things they say. I also tried to keep the quotes small and was not trying to take snipets of what you said.
And I don't think I made any attempt to flame you at all as you appear to feel I did. If it makes you feel better I won't respond to any of the issues or points you bring up.

And Fairweather, if I ever flame you and believe me dear you will know because your ass will be on fire then by all means "take your gloves off".

And as far as this board and this type of discussion goes it has nothing to do with EQ or our guild.

Oh and just a side note, even though I voted for Bush I agree the axis of evil is what got NKorea fired up again, but then we know this isn't the first time they have gotten fired up, it just happened to be a huge slap in the face.
I maybe considered more on the conservative side but there is a lot about me and my views that would blow your mind.

Silvarel Mistmoon wrote:

Silvarel, I wouldn't reccommend you trying to argue with me on FlameVault. I really don't want to hand my guild leader's wife a verbal smackdown

First let me state that I am a big girl and can take care of myself very well and have done so for 39 years.

Actually I wasn't trying to argue with you I was simply wanting you to answer some questions. See I like to make a attempt to understand peoples reasoning behind things they say. I also tried to keep the quotes small and was not trying to take snipets of what you said.
And I don't think I made any attempt to flame you at all as you appear to feel I did. If it makes you feel better I won't respond to any of the issues or points you bring up.

And Fairweather, if I ever flame you and believe me dear you will know because your ass will be on fire then by all means "take your gloves off".

And as far as this board and this type of discussion goes it has nothing to do with EQ or our guild.

Oh and just a side note, even though I voted for Bush I agree the axis of evil is what got NKorea fired up again, but then we know this isn't the first time they have gotten fired up, it just happened to be a huge slap in the face.
I maybe considered more on the conservative side but there is a lot about me and my views that would blow your mind.

Bravo Silvarel! Well spoken. I particularly liked the "your ass will be on fire" line! Woooooot!

the axis of evil is what got NKorea fired up again

What got Korth Korea fired up again was the gold-plated opportunity to suck up more fucking welfare money.

Fallanthas wrote:What got Korth Korea fired up again was the gold-plated opportunity to suck up more fucking welfare money.

your retard's guide to world politics is a source of almost constant hilarity to me.

Someone just bought the domain name.... Shouldn't be long now.

http://www.humanshield.org/