Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

    Originally posted by mike_D View Post
    Do you know for sure that were not in anyway operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence.Just because you don't hear about it on CNN or Fox News doesn't mean its not happening.

    As far as Saddam having WMD, my Battalion before being deployed spent alot of time training like Saddam had WMD, and as far as I know the most of the Worlds intelligence pointed to the fact that Saddam had WMD.Where did they go?Did he have them?Did he destroy them before the invasion?These are all questions that should be asked but I don't think Bush knowingly lied. I honestly think he expected to find the huge weapons caches like most of us in the military and rest of world believed.

    Do you know for sure that they were operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence? That game plays both ways.

    What I saw was a documentary done by a Pakistani who had been living in America, and was now visiting middle east countries to get a feel on their feelings and culture. She was shocked by how her country had changed since 9/11/2001. Conjecture is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that the Taliban is now in Pakistan, working to change it into Afghanistan 2.0, and it's not a hot button issue, nor is it being talked about.

    As far as I know, there were no WMDs. You don't just hide/destroy "huge weapons caches", especially not of the WMD variety, because they require a fairly large infrastructure. I'm with you that Bush had intelligence that said there were WMDs, but that intelligence was false, and it was flimsy. If I were going to aggressively invade a foreign country that had not attacked us first, which, by the way, was a first in the history of the United States, I believe, I'd need 100% positive proof, aka. Pictures, video, or first-hand accounts from many sources that had no reason to lie. In addition, I'd have to feel a real and present danger. Saddam was no more likely to sell these alleged WMDs to terrorists than he was in the years prior to the invasion. Meaning if he had them and wanted to sell them to attack America, he would have. And yet, not once have we been attacked, and we've not foiled any plots to drop WMDs into a major city, either.

    What you're asking me to believe is that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMDs, and either destroyed them instead of proliferating them to West-hating terrorists, or that he hid them and the factories they were made in so well that we've not found them after 5 years of looking. Or, you're asking me to believe that he got rid of them to terrorists who have not once tried to use them on us in the last 5 years.

    Sorry, that's too big a string of unlikely coincidences for me to follow.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

      [quote=Eindar;536688]Do you know for sure that they were operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence? That game plays both ways. I have no idea which is why I asked the question and the only way you'll ever find out is if you were serving with special operations unit deployed there.Since your not one of them you know just as much as every other civilian in this country.You just make is sound like its a fact that we are not operating in that country.


      As far as I know, there were no WMDs. You don't just hide/destroy "huge weapons caches", especially not of the WMD variety, because they require a fairly large infrastructure. Hold on here Saddam if he wanted to had plenty of time.The first Gulf War happened what in 90-91, We went to War again in 03.Thats plenty of time to destroy or sell his weapons off to the highest bidder.



      I'm with you that Bush had intelligence that said there were WMDs, but that intelligence was false, and it was flimsy. If I were going to aggressively invade a foreign country that had not attacked us first, which, by the way, was a first in the history of the United States, I believe, I'd need 100% positive proof, aka. Pictures, video, or first-hand accounts from many sources that had no reason to lie. In addition, I'd have to feel a real and present danger.

      Did you feel like there was a "real and present danger" 9/10/2001.Secondly no intelligence is ever 100% positive proof.

      Saddam was no more likely to sell these alleged WMDs to terrorists than he was in the years prior to the invasion. Meaning if he had them and wanted to sell them to attack America, he would have. And yet, not once have we been attacked, and we've not foiled any plots to drop WMDs into a major city, either.

      First off I believe our Military and law Enforcement officials and President Bush deserve credit for making that happen.How many Americans would have thought 5 years down the road we have not suffered from another Terroist attack in this country. I also think because of that we as Americans have do have a false sense of security and think we are safer then we really are.If Local law enforcement or the Government released all the threats that we recieved on a daily basis such as Terroist group Hamas to target buses and subways it would be enough to cause panic and nobody would leave the house.

      What you're asking me to believe is that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMDs, and either destroyed them instead of proliferating them to West-hating terrorists, or that he hid them and the factories they were made in so well that we've not found them after 5 years of looking. Or, you're asking me to believe that he got rid of them to terrorists who have not once tried to use them on us in the last 5 years.

      Im not asking you to believe anything. What im saying was the guy had 12yrs from 91-2003 to do whatever he wanted with those weapons.Maybe he destoyed it, maybe he sold if off to terroist groups, maybe right before the invasion he shipped it off to Syria.I personally don't know but for people to say that Bush knowingly lied about WMD isn't fair at all.

      Sorry, that's too big a string of unlikely coincidences for me to follow.[/quote

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

        [QUOTE=mike_D;536694]
        Originally posted by Eindar View Post
        Do you know for sure that they were operating in Pakistan with the help of the Pakistani intelligence? That game plays both ways. I have no idea which is why I asked the question and the only way you'll ever find out is if you were serving with special operations unit deployed there.Since your not one of them you know just as much as every other civilian in this country.You just make is sound like its a fact that we are not operating in that country.


        As far as I know, there were no WMDs. You don't just hide/destroy "huge weapons caches", especially not of the WMD variety, because they require a fairly large infrastructure. Hold on here Saddam if he wanted to had plenty of time.The first Gulf War happened what in 90-91, We went to War again in 03.Thats plenty of time to destroy or sell his weapons off to the highest bidder.



        I'm with you that Bush had intelligence that said there were WMDs, but that intelligence was false, and it was flimsy. If I were going to aggressively invade a foreign country that had not attacked us first, which, by the way, was a first in the history of the United States, I believe, I'd need 100% positive proof, aka. Pictures, video, or first-hand accounts from many sources that had no reason to lie. In addition, I'd have to feel a real and present danger.

        Did you feel like there was a "real and present danger" 9/10/2001.Secondly no intelligence is ever 100% positive proof.

        Saddam was no more likely to sell these alleged WMDs to terrorists than he was in the years prior to the invasion. Meaning if he had them and wanted to sell them to attack America, he would have. And yet, not once have we been attacked, and we've not foiled any plots to drop WMDs into a major city, either.

        First off I believe our Military and law Enforcement officials and President Bush deserve credit for making that happen.How many Americans would have thought 5 years down the road we have not suffered from another Terroist attack in this country. I also think because of that we as Americans have do have a false sense of security and think we are safer then we really are.If Local law enforcement or the Government released all the threats that we recieved on a daily basis such as Terroist group Hamas to target buses and subways it would be enough to cause panic and nobody would leave the house.

        What you're asking me to believe is that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMDs, and either destroyed them instead of proliferating them to West-hating terrorists, or that he hid them and the factories they were made in so well that we've not found them after 5 years of looking. Or, you're asking me to believe that he got rid of them to terrorists who have not once tried to use them on us in the last 5 years.

        Im not asking you to believe anything. What im saying was the guy had 12yrs from 91-2003 to do whatever he wanted with those weapons.Maybe he destoyed it, maybe he sold if off to terroist groups, maybe right before the invasion he shipped it off to Syria.I personally don't know but for people to say that Bush knowingly lied about WMD isn't fair at all.

        Sorry, that's too big a string of unlikely coincidences for me to follow.[/quote
        If he had 12 years to do something with these mythical WMDs and didn't, then where is the big threat? Certainly not enough to warrant a war of aggression, a pre-emptive strike, if you will.

        No, I didn't feel there was a "real and present danger" from Saddam Hussein on 9/11/2001. I felt we suffered a catastrophic terrorist attack due to a breakdown in our intelligence network, combined with very, very lax security compared to most of the world. None of that has anything to do with Saddam and Iraq. If you want to claim he was funnelling money to terrorists, fine, but he's not the only dictator/state supporting terror, and yet we haven't invaded anyone else yet, nor even spoken of it.

        I work for local law enforcement, and I see and distribute every single statewide/nationwide broadcast for the state of Indiana, including heightened awareness around airports, railroads, and public areas. I'm not going to tell you what has/hasn't crossed my console, but it's far, far, far less than you think. Not even enough to make me blink, or stop to think about it when I decide to travel. Good bluff, though. That one must work wonders on other people.

        Believe me, if the FBI/CIA thwarted a terrorist attempt, you can bet on it that they'd have the guys on national TV like prize-winning fishermen, because it would be a success story and re-inforcement of why we're fighting the war on terror, something that a lot of people need reminding from time to time.

        On intelligence: Bush took one report from I think it was Israeli intelligence via Africa and decided to invade a foreign country. So, 1 piece of 3rd hand intelligence is what pushed us to launch a pre-emptive strike while simultaneously curbing our efforts to snuff out terrorism in Afghanistan and also catch the most wanted man in modern history. I never said Bush lied, if I'd felt he'd flat-out lied, I'd be talking about impeachment. I think that they took a flimsy piece of intelligence and behaved like they'd caught Saddam with his pants down.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

          [QUOTE=Eindar;536707]
          Originally posted by mike_D View Post

          If he had 12 years to do something with these mythical WMDs and didn't, then where is the big threat? Certainly not enough to warrant a war of aggression, a pre-emptive strike, if you will.
          "Mythical WMDs?" Maybe, maybe not, I don't know and you don't either. What we do know is that our entire national security machinery, including the incompetent, politicized CIA, thought otherwise, thought in fact that WMDs did exist in Iraq, were indeed a "slam dunk" as George Tenet advised the President.


          I work for local law enforcement, and I see and distribute every single statewide/nationwide broadcast for the state of Indiana, including heightened awareness around airports, railroads, and public areas. I'm not going to tell you what has/hasn't crossed my console, but it's far, far, far less than you think. Not even enough to make me blink, or stop to think about it when I decide to travel. Good bluff, though. That one must work wonders on other people.

          Believe me, if the FBI/CIA thwarted a terrorist attempt, you can bet on it that they'd have the guys on national TV like prize-winning fishermen, because it would be a success story and re-inforcement of why we're fighting the war on terror, something that a lot of people need reminding from time to time.
          Maybe that information did not come over your computer monitor, wherever it is in Indiana that you work in local law enforcement, but forgive me for not being impressed if the Shelby or Johnson or Clinton or whatever County Sheriff's Office you work in is not privy to all intelligence all around the world. No doubt your job is very important, but that doesn't mean you are exactly at Terrorist Prevention Central.

          And I do not believe you that, if a terrorist plot was thwarted, the FBI and CIA would necessarily be hawking it on TV or that it would have come across your computer monitor. In fact, what we have been told is that there is a great deal of such thwarting that has not been publicized, because doing so would tip off the terrorists on how we caught them. (That is, if the NYT hasn't already published the techniques over the President's fevered pleading that they not do so -- the NYT knows best, after all). I do believe that, in the future, we will learn about lots of successes against terrorism which was suppressed by the Bush Administration, even if its disclosure would have aided it in defending against unfair attacks such as the one you are making, because to have revealed such information would have cost us in the future.

          No, the boasting of terrorist plot foiling was the province of the Clinton administration, which took credit -- even though it had nothing to do with the event -- after an alert border guard foiled the Millenium Plot. Remember that one? That is the one where the Clintonites took credit for something they had nothing to do with -- its the same event that Sandy Berger stole confidential documents from the archives and smuggled them out in his underwear, and later cut them up with scissors so that no American could know what he and Bill Clinton had written in the margins.

          We know that the national security machinery of several other nations, including Great Britain and France, also thought Saddam had WMDs. We know that prominent Democrats thought so, and said so at the time and earlier -- see Clinton's and Gore's remarks in the late 90's. Everyone who had access to the best existing intelligence believed, as Bush did, that Iraq and Saddam had WMDs. But several years later, and after WMDs were not found -- in a war debated on the front pages of the NYT for a full year before we moved in Iraq, during which year intelligence reports showed lots of caravaning to Syria -- you and others ignore the statements identical to Bush's such as Clinton and Gore and many others, and call Bush a "liar." Speaking of liars, Joe Wilson's claim that he had investigated Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons precursor yellowcake uranium from Nigeria and had found none turned out to be contrary to what he reported to the CIA. Sure, no Democrat lie on the NYT editorial page is not worth telling during the electoral season, but lost in the Plame hoax was the fact that Iraq was found to have tried to obtain yellowcake from Nigeria. Did you ever wonder what Iraq wanted that yellowcake for, Eindar? Probably some innocent, civilian, non-WMD reason, right?

          You call them "mythical," and that is easy for you to claim now, in the comfort of your parents' basement or wherever, but what makes you so certain WMD never existed in Iraq, and what say you to the confident assertion by trained intelligence professionals in several countries who reported otherwise? If Bush "lied" when he did nothing more than believe the reports he was given by intelligence professionals, why are Clinton and Gore never said to be liars by those on the left, when Clinton and Gore made precisely the same claims as did Bush?

          Saddam had to be removed, period. We made a huge mistake in not removing him after the Gulf War (when Bush I accepted the flawed advice of St. Colin). Yet you, military expert that you must be, tell us that a war "of aggression" was not necessary, that there was no "real threat" from Iraq. How many people does a tyrant get to slaughter, how much terrorism does he sponsor, before Field Marshal Eindar thinks the tyrant "necessary" to remove? This is 20-20 hindsight, and, by the way, as shown by the CNN report of Gov. Locke's Democrat response to Bush's 2003 SOTU address, substantially different from what Dems were saying only a few years ago, when they agreed that Bush had done the right thing with Saddam.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

            [QUOTE=Bat Boy;537136]
            Originally posted by Eindar View Post

            "Mythical WMDs?" Maybe, maybe not, I don't know and you don't either. What we do know is that our entire national security machinery, including the incompetent, politicized CIA, thought otherwise, thought in fact that WMDs did exist in Iraq, were indeed a "slam dunk" as George Tenet advised the President.


            Maybe that information did not come over your computer monitor, wherever it is in Indiana that you work in local law enforcement, but forgive me for not being impressed if the Shelby or Johnson or Clinton or whatever County Sheriff's Office you work in is not privy to all intelligence all around the world. No doubt your job is very important, but that doesn't mean you are exactly at Terrorist Prevention Central.

            And I do not believe you that, if a terrorist plot was thwarted, the FBI and CIA would necessarily be hawking it on TV or that it would have come across your computer monitor. In fact, what we have been told is that there is a great deal of such thwarting that has not been publicized, because doing so would tip off the terrorists on how we caught them. (That is, if the NYT hasn't already published the techniques over the President's fevered pleading that they not do so -- the NYT knows best, after all). I do believe that, in the future, we will learn about lots of successes against terrorism which was suppressed by the Bush Administration, even if its disclosure would have aided it in defending against unfair attacks such as the one you are making, because to have revealed such information would have cost us in the future.

            No, the boasting of terrorist plot foiling was the province of the Clinton administration, which took credit -- even though it had nothing to do with the event -- after an alert border guard foiled the Millenium Plot. Remember that one? That is the one where the Clintonites took credit for something they had nothing to do with -- its the same event that Sandy Berger stole confidential documents from the archives and smuggled them out in his underwear, and later cut them up with scissors so that no American could know what he and Bill Clinton had written in the margins.

            We know that the national security machinery of several other nations, including Great Britain and France, also thought Saddam had WMDs. We know that prominent Democrats thought so, and said so at the time and earlier -- see Clinton's and Gore's remarks in the late 90's. Everyone who had access to the best existing intelligence believed, as Bush did, that Iraq and Saddam had WMDs. But several years later, and after WMDs were not found -- in a war debated on the front pages of the NYT for a full year before we moved in Iraq, during which year intelligence reports showed lots of caravaning to Syria -- you and others ignore the statements identical to Bush's such as Clinton and Gore and many others, and call Bush a "liar." Speaking of liars, Joe Wilson's claim that he had investigated Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons precursor yellowcake uranium from Nigeria and had found none turned out to be contrary to what he reported to the CIA. Sure, no Democrat lie on the NYT editorial page is not worth telling during the electoral season, but lost in the Plame hoax was the fact that Iraq was found to have tried to obtain yellowcake from Nigeria. Did you ever wonder what Iraq wanted that yellowcake for, Eindar? Probably some innocent, civilian, non-WMD reason, right?

            You call them "mythical," and that is easy for you to claim now, in the comfort of your parents' basement or wherever, but what makes you so certain WMD never existed in Iraq, and what say you to the confident assertion by trained intelligence professionals in several countries who reported otherwise? If Bush "lied" when he did nothing more than believe the reports he was given by intelligence professionals, why are Clinton and Gore never said to be liars by those on the left, when Clinton and Gore made precisely the same claims as did Bush?

            Saddam had to be removed, period. We made a huge mistake in not removing him after the Gulf War (when Bush I accepted the flawed advice of St. Colin). Yet you, military expert that you must be, tell us that a war "of aggression" was not necessary, that there was no "real threat" from Iraq. How many people does a tyrant get to slaughter, how much terrorism does he sponsor, before Field Marshal Eindar thinks the tyrant "necessary" to remove? This is 20-20 hindsight, and, by the way, as shown by the CNN report of Gov. Locke's Democrat response to Bush's 2003 SOTU address, substantially different from what Dems were saying only a few years ago, when they agreed that Bush had done the right thing with Saddam.
            My parent's basement? Yep, I'm done with you, and hopefully this board is too. Been nice knowing you.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

              Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
              You call them "mythical," and that is easy for you to claim now, in the comfort of your parents' basement or wherever, but what makes you so certain WMD never existed in Iraq, and what say you to the confident assertion by trained intelligence professionals in several countries who reported otherwise?
              Pretty slimy, my friend, pretty uncalled for.

              As for WMD, we thought they had them because Reagan gave him WMDs. Also, we know for SURE that there were WMDs in Iraq, but they were under seal by the inspectors. Of course, after we launched the war they were stolen because we didn't bother to place guards at the sites. We were too busy protecting the oil ministry. What we DO know for sure, and what the CIA repeatedly told the administration was the Iraq posed no threat to the US militarily, WMD or no.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                [quote=Eindar;536707]
                Originally posted by mike_D View Post

                If he had 12 years to do something with these mythical WMDs and didn't, then where is the big threat? Certainly not enough to warrant a war of aggression, a pre-emptive strike, if you will.

                So what it took 8 years for the Terroists to strike the WTC after the first strike.Time has nothing to do with it.We were just attacked after 9/11.Saddam was thought to have WMD and if that was the case it was reasonable to expect that Saddam could have armed them with WMD since he had the motive to do it.Everybody also forgets that Saddam could have easily avoided war, by giving the weapons inspectors full access of course he didn't do it.He had a full year while we were at the UN to get his *** into shape he refused.

                No, I didn't feel there was a "real and present danger" from Saddam Hussein on 9/11/2001. I felt we suffered a catastrophic terrorist attack due to a breakdown in our intelligence network, combined with very, very lax security compared to most of the world. None of that has anything to do with Saddam and Iraq. If you want to claim he was funnelling money to terrorists, fine, but he's not the only dictator/state supporting terror, and yet we haven't invaded anyone else yet, nor even spoken of it.

                Not only was Saddam funnelling money to Terroists he has terroist training camps in his own country.Of course the media very rarely if ever mentions that. Saddam also had his Fedayeen militia that he trained and used terroist tactics.Your right Saddam isn't the only one funneling, arming training terroists so is Iran, Syria and your right we should take them out, we should also take out the people who are arming them of course those in the extreme left/anti war crowd would be crying about invading or attacking the countries I just mentioned


                I work for local law enforcement, and I see and distribute every single statewide/nationwide broadcast for the state of Indiana, including heightened awareness around airports, railroads, and public areas. I'm not going to tell you what has/hasn't crossed my console, but it's far, far, far less than you think. Not even enough to make me blink, or stop to think about it when I decide to travel. Good bluff, though. That one must work wonders on other people.

                What Bluff??? I know what I have seen, I know what I have heard through close friends in intelligence, I know I have been deployed in certain areas my city because of CT threats relating to a specific target.Say what you want but I will stand by what I said that we recieve threats on a daily basis and few if any are ever reported to the media.

                Believe me, if the FBI/CIA thwarted a terrorist attempt, you can bet on it that they'd have the guys on national TV like prize-winning fishermen, because it would be a success story and re-inforcement of why we're fighting the war on terror, something that a lot of people need reminding from time to time.

                On intelligence: Bush took one report from I think it was Israeli intelligence via Africa and decided to invade a foreign country. So, 1 piece of 3rd hand intelligence is what pushed us to launch a pre-emptive strike while simultaneously curbing our efforts to snuff out terrorism in Afghanistan and also catch the most wanted man in modern history. I never said Bush lied, if I'd felt he'd flat-out lied, I'd be talking about impeachment. I think that they took a flimsy piece of intelligence and behaved like they'd caught Saddam with his pants down.
                so are you telling me that France, Germany, British, Austrialia,Russia and all the other countries that believed Saddam had WMD were all foolish to believe that Israeli intelligence report. John Kerry pointed out he thought Saddam had WMD, So did Bill Clinton and didn't he use air strikes on Iraq I forget the exact time frame to disable Saddams WMD arsenal.My point is alot of countries and smart politicans all thought the exact same thing you are criticizing Bush for.Almost everybody on this planet thought he had WMD's

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                  [quote=mike_D;537750]
                  Originally posted by Eindar View Post

                  so are you telling me that France, Germany, British, Austrialia,Russia and all the other countries that believed Saddam had WMD were all foolish to believe that Israeli intelligence report. John Kerry pointed out he thought Saddam had WMD, So did Bill Clinton and didn't he use air strikes on Iraq I forget the exact time frame to disable Saddams WMD arsenal.My point is alot of countries and smart politicans all thought the exact same thing you are criticizing Bush for.Almost everybody on this planet thought he had WMD's

                  Enquiries in the UK parliament have shown that the data provided to the governement was "polished" to "appear" threatening, whilst it was not at all.

                  People have lost their jobs over it and more are to lose their jobs over it.
                  In actual fact people have lost their life over it, and not just the military.
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                    [QUOTE=Eindar;537641]
                    Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post

                    My parent's basement? Yep, I'm done with you, and hopefully this board is too. Been nice knowing you.
                    Originally posted by 3Ball
                    Pretty slimy, my friend, pretty uncalled for.
                    1) Eindar: I apologize.
                    2) Eindar and 3Ball: If you are truly that offended by that jokingly-intended description of 20-20 hindsight (rather than, say, an inability or unwillingness to respond to the actual points made in the post), you might wish to re-examine the tone you routinely take in posts.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                      [QUOTE=Bat Boy;537938]
                      Originally posted by Eindar View Post



                      1) Eindar: I apologize.
                      2) Eindar and 3Ball: If you are truly that offended by that jokingly-intended description of 20-20 hindsight (rather than, say, an inability or unwillingness to respond to the actual points made in the post), you might wish to re-examine the tone you routinely take in posts.
                      There's a difference between taking an aggressive stance on an issue and personally attacking someone without knowing a thing about them. If you can't see the difference, I don't think you should be posting here. If you need help, I'm sure the moderators would be more than happy to help you with what is and isn't acceptable conduct.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                        Originally posted by Eindar View Post

                        There's a difference between taking an aggressive stance on an issue and personally attacking someone without knowing a thing about them. If you can't see the difference, I don't think you should be posting here. If you need help, I'm sure the moderators would be more than happy to help you with what is and isn't acceptable conduct.
                        Originally posted by Eindar
                        And that's another thing. Why does it always have to be left vs. right? Can't I just be a human being that happens to think my president is an idiot?
                        You personally attack the president, calling him variously an "idiot", a "liar", etc., and yet you regard this to be merely "taking an aggressive stance on an issue," even on a controversial topic such as WMD, about which there was solid consensus that Iraq did have them, and absolute puzzlement over why they were later not found. You would pretend that, from wherever your safe perch in 2007, you have more info than did the intelligence specialists who said otherwise about WMD in 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2003. You do so with absolute confidence, absolute certainty, and anyone who thought otherwise back then is a liar and an idiot in your own words. Yet when someone makes a fairly mild jest to illustrate how easy it is to take retrospective pot shots against public figures from the safety of the "parents' basement", oh my! How you have been wronged! Now its personal, the line got crossed! And its slimy too! Call the moderators!

                        I think you have a perfect right to have these feelings and opinions, and to express them. I also think that if you do so, in the vicious and nasty way you often do, you look pretty funny claiming your feelings get hurt by a single line in a long post the arguments of which you thereby avoid answering.

                        Again, go back and re-read your posts. There is NO difference between what you routinely engage in and what you complain about.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                          From the beginning, the whole WMD thing was phony. That's why they called them WMDs. The term "weapons of mass destruction" brings to mind nuclear weapons, which is the intention. What we actually thought Iraq had was a few moldy cannisters of mustard gas that Reagan gave him. Nothing that posed a threat to the United States. It was incredibly misleading and intentionally so.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                            Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                            From the beginning, the whole WMD thing was phony. That's why they called them WMDs. The term "weapons of mass destruction" brings to mind nuclear weapons, which is the intention. What we actually thought Iraq had was a few moldy cannisters of mustard gas that Reagan gave him. Nothing that posed a threat to the United States. It was incredibly misleading and intentionally so.
                            Got it. 3Ball, who objects to vituperative postings, even where it isn't vituperative, has just called the president and the administration liars. Of course, he did not use that particluar term, instead he said they gave "intentionally" "incredibly misleading" information about "phony" WMDs.

                            Of course, the entire kerfluffle about Joe Wilson's NYT editorial which (falsely and misleadingly, according to a bipartisan U.S. Senate report, as well as the reporting of many news reports) claimed Iraq was NOT trying to obtain yellowcake uranium -- which Iraq would ONLY use for WMDs, of the nuclear, non-mustard gas variety -- would suggest that the WMD issue was the farthest thing from phony. The CIA claims Wilson briefed them contrary to what he wrote in his infamous oped, and the CIA and British intelligence STILL maintain to this day that Iraq was seeking nuclear-bomb-making materials from Niger.

                            But, did the definition of "WMD" change sometime between the time Clinton was president -- in which time he and Al Gore and many prominent elected Dems claimed Iraq had WMDs, and the UN was in the midst of a decades-long series of ineffective and impotent "resolutions" against Iraq, and Iraq had banished weapons inspectors -- and the time Bush was elected? Over the past 10 years, there is an unbroken thread of American political officials, spanning administrations headed by different political parties, who had far superior access to security intelligence than you or Eindar or any of the other confident proponents of the "WMDs did not exist" claims who believed and publicly stated otherwise. Yet you selectively forget about the Dems' identical claims, and you claim that only the Bush administration was lying (oops!, I mean "intentionally and incredibly misleading" the American people) about.

                            If you refuse to discuss the facts accurately, what shall we make of your conclusions?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                              Someone else has joined my bandwagon! And with a much better idea than I had! From a wonderful column on football:
                              http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...erbrook/070130

                              What Lies Beneath: Last week the British Medical Journal, a technical publication, released a survey in which physicians said sewers, not antibiotics or vaccines, were the greatest public health advance of the last two centuries. Those who live in the favored cities of the West should never take sanitation for granted. The construction of sewage systems in European and American cities, beginning in the late 19th century, dramatically lowered rates of disease, to say nothing of making cities more livable; lowered disease in turn helped Western nations grow more productive and affluent. Today much of the developing world is held back by the fact that its citizens are often sick, and thus not productive. Open conduits of sewage run down the streets of many large developing-world cities; raw sewage pours directly into the Ganges, where bathers are supposed to go for purification rites. In many developing nations the number-one need is clean water: clean drinking water, buried sewer systems and modern wastewater treatment plants. The United States appears to have wasted nearly $1 trillion in Iraq. That sum could have brought modern public sanitation to the 25 largest cities of the developing world, and made America the hero of the world's poor for generations.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: New Fox News Poll on Iraq War

                                Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                                Got it. 3Ball, who objects to vituperative postings, even where it isn't vituperative, has just called the president and the administration liars. Of course, he did not use that particluar term, instead he said they gave "intentionally" "incredibly misleading" information about "phony" WMDs.
                                Batboy, This is just weird. I did object to you insulting a fellow poster, especially when you made personal remarks that you know nothing about. That was classless. I'm talking about a public official with information in the public record. The term WMD is misleading, but it was only the Bush administration who used to to mislead the country into war. Blair was just as much of a liar, and I think there is plenty of documentation to prove that as well. Yes, France and the others thought there were "WMDs" (a few moldy canisters of mustard gas given to him by Reagan), but could see as well as anyone that Iraq was no military threat. Even Iraq's neighbors who he invaded didn't want war.

                                I don't mind if you call me "uninformed" or even "totally wrong", and I certainly don't mind if you accuse congressional democrats of whatever. But I really do object to you going after posters in slimy ways.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X