Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-27-2008, 10:40 AM #43
Kellster
Pretentious Hipster
 
Kellster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Praha, Česká
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
We have a job shortage because there are too many stupid people that picked management, marketing, or bull**** human environmental sciences in college so it would be easy.
Then when they graduate with 100 other people in their class they ***** when they can’t find a job, I guess these people fell asleep during Microeconomics 101.

If more young people would be willing to study and go into IT, engineering, and chemistry we wouldn't be outsourcing them.

I was an MIS major at Alabama and I was able to pick from four different companies to work for, so no it's not hard to find a job you just need the have the skills that people are looking for.
Personally, I don't think there's a "job shortage," creating jobs is easy, creating wealth is the hard part.

I think I'm going to do the JD/MBA program at UA, but MIS is a good major there.
__________________
85%
Kellster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 03-27-2008, 10:51 AM #44
careyman_462
Maverick says :tup:
 
careyman_462's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: TN
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
How do you reconcile the differences in intelligence? Why in 2001 did Saddam not have WMDs, then in 2003 he did? I have yet to meet anyone who can answer this question. Maybe you can.
It's possible he could have purchased or stolen them in that two year span. He could have even had them before 2001, and kept them hidden. Just because you don't have a project to create your own doesn't mean you can't obtain them.

This is from my textbook, Terrorism Today, lmk if you want it fully cited.

"The Russian Mafya has moved from purely internal criminal activities to the exporting of terrorist weapons, some with the potential of mass destruction. WMD's have been placed on the market for sale to the highest bidder, and some of these sophisticated weapons have ended up in the hands of Third World countries."

"In respect to Russia in particular, the threat of theft of weapons-grade material such as highly enriched uranium (HEU), the compound needed to make a nuclear weapon, is still a major cause for concern. While treaties have been drawn up between the U.S. and Russia, much work in destroying the stockpiles and securing the existing one must be addressed. The material for the terrorist [or anyone else] to build [a] bomb is available and currently not that secure."
__________________
Old PbNation Feedback
(+19/-0)
careyman_462 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 10:56 AM #45
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
I cut out what they said because I really don't give a ****.

Think for yourself, and try to think logically.

FACT:
they've used chemical weapons in the past...even on us
FACT:
they had ballistic missiles during the gulf war

If we know FOR A FACT that they've been sadistic enough to use them and had the capability to use them in the past what's to say that they won't do so again in the future. Any person with basic logic can see this...please don't deny the past because it will repeat itself.

I guess you wanted to just wait until they actually had a working model again sometime in the future and used it. Which would make sense to me because liberals do just live for the day.
FACT: They killed more Iranians than anyone else with their chemical weapons. Why again are you complaining? Isn't that what you wanted? Secular states taking on Islamofacists sounds right up your alley.

FACT: There are no WMDs in Iraq.

Also, your attempt to discredit these findings, or lack of, soley against liberals is retarded. I can name many conservatives that share the same views as liberals regarding the Iraq war.

Starting with Paul Craig Roberts, President Reagan's highest ranking treasury department official. He is quoted as saying " "an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history."

James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: "The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."

Our own CIA put out a report just a few days before our War Resolution vote saying that Hussein was so weak economically and militarily he was really not capable of attacking anyone unless forced into it. He really controls very little outside the city of Baghdad.

I could go on and on with examples, but I've decided to instead stop, and play your game. Murph, you seem gung ho and in support of the Iraq war. I have one question for you: How come you're not there supporting the mission? Are you a coward?
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 11:02 AM #46
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by careyman_462 View Post
It's possible he could have purchased or stolen them in that two year span. He could have even had them before 2001, and kept them hidden. Just because you don't have a project to create your own doesn't mean you can't obtain them.

"
This is speculation with no evidence to suggest otherwise.
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 11:08 AM #47
careyman_462
Maverick says :tup:
 
careyman_462's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: TN
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
This is speculation with no evidence to suggest otherwise.
The exact same thing can be said for both sides. We do not know if Saddam had WMD's or not. All we know is that we didn't find any.

I was answering your question. It is certainly possible that Saddam acquired weapons by alternate routes. If you're going to throw all that out the window, then why the hell bother asking the question? There are no absolute facts that Saddam had WMD's. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
__________________
Old PbNation Feedback
(+19/-0)

Last edited by careyman_462 : 03-27-2008 at 11:10 AM.
careyman_462 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 11:19 AM #48
elTwitcho
***** ***** *****
 
elTwitcho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto Canada
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph1329 View Post
I cut out what they said because I really don't give a ****.

Think for yourself, and try to think logically.

FACT:
they've used chemical weapons in the past...even on us
FACT:
they had ballistic missiles during the gulf war

If we know FOR A FACT that they've been sadistic enough to use them and had the capability to use them in the past what's to say that they won't do so again in the future. Any person with basic logic can see this...please don't deny the past because it will repeat itself.

I guess you wanted to just wait until they actually had a working model again sometime in the future and used it. Which would make sense to me because liberals do just live for the day.
Oh there you went...

I'd wondered where you'd scampered off to when in the last thread I asked you to provide a source (any source) that would refute the ISGs findings that Iraq did not have any WMD stockpiles and was not in the process of re building their WMD capabilities.

Funny that you left the thread after you couldn't back up your claims but you came to this one and kept towing the same line.

Got any sources that refute the ISGs findings yet?


And as to your ******* "they used them in the past and history repeats itself and they need to be stopped!!!!" argument, I surely hope you have some way of incorporating the fact that the United States is the one country to have used the single most destructive WMD on civillians in all of human history.

They did it once they'll do it again?

History always repeats itself? (It doesn't actually, but that's your argument)

I suppose someone better go in and disarm the US before they strike again, no?


But hey, how about that refuting the ISGs findings on no WMDs in Iraq?
__________________
ST:Photo - Trust me, you made a wrong turn

A Haiku about Life - By Secret Asian Man
twitch slaps me around
he likes to make me his *****
Because of small cock

Last edited by elTwitcho : 03-27-2008 at 11:23 AM.
elTwitcho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 11:22 AM #49
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by careyman_462 View Post
The exact same thing can be said for both sides. We do not know if Saddam had WMD's or not. All we know is that we didn't find any.

I was answering your question. It is certainly possible that Saddam acquired weapons by alternate routes. If you're going to throw all that out the window, then why the hell bother asking the question? There are no absolute facts that Saddam had WMD's. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I believe we just think differently. You believe it's OK to sacrifice the lives of men, women, and children based on speculation, whereas I am only OK sacrificing said lives based on evidence.

I guess it doesn't matter. The war against Iraq will continue no matter what you and I say.

GO TEAM!

Meanwhile, the only war I DID support 100% because of the overwhelming evidence, the war in Afghanistan, is put on the backburner and nobody gives a **** about it. Highly frustrating.
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 11:37 AM #50
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
I believe we just think differently. You believe it's OK to sacrifice the lives of men, women, and children based on speculation, whereas I am only OK sacrificing said lives based on evidence.
Like I pointed out earlier, every major intelligence community in the world during the run up to Iraq believed that Iraq had WMD, not just the Bush administration.

Also, Saddam knew that we were headed in, so it's quite possible that he used the 6 months to 1 year of time he had available to get rid of them or move them out.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 11:45 AM #51
berserker19
 
 
berserker19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Rampart Range
berserker19 is an NCPA player
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
Meanwhile, the only war I DID support 100% because of the overwhelming evidence, the war in Afghanistan, is put on the backburner and nobody gives a **** about it. Highly frustrating.
Maybe from a media standpoint, but I can assure you that the Army is still taking the Afghan/OEF mission quite seriously. We are sending just as many transition teams to OEF as we do to OIF.

Swerve is right in that Saddam had plenty of time to get rid of his weapons. I'm sure he didn't just sit on his thumbs while the whole world was discussing the issue. The guy built an enormous freaking cannon to fire at Israel, I'm sure he had something capable of causing serious damage hidden away. That said, I don't believe we should have invaded anyways. I am getting so ****ing sick of the "if we weren't fighting them over there we would be fighting over here" argument. That is so ignorant. That and the way the media portrays Iraqi insurgents as "al qaeda", when they only took that name to piss us off. If it came down to it, I would rather they would come and fight us here. It would save us money, and the troops could be at home at the same time. I would love to be able to take a break from combat to drive my Bradley through the burger king drive thru and get a whopper
berserker19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 11:53 AM #52
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by berserker19 View Post
Maybe from a media standpoint, but I can assure you that the Army is still taking the Afghan/OEF mission quite seriously. We are sending just as many transition teams to OEF as we do to OIF.

Swerve is right in that Saddam had plenty of time to get rid of his weapons. I'm sure he didn't just sit on his thumbs while the whole world was discussing the issue. The guy built an enormous freaking cannon to fire at Israel, I'm sure he had something capable of causing serious damage hidden away. That said, I don't believe we should have invaded anyways. I am getting so ****ing sick of the "if we weren't fighting them over there we would be fighting over here" argument. That is so ignorant. That and the way the media portrays Iraqi insurgents as "al qaeda", when they only took that name to piss us off. If it came down to it, I would rather they would come and fight us here. It would save us money, and the troops could be at home at the same time. I would love to be able to take a break from combat to drive my Bradley through the burger king drive thru and get a whopper
LOL
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 12:25 PM #53
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Since we're speculating, let's say I'm evil and I actually possess WMDs. A more powerful force in the world, known simply as "America", is coming to get me. Why wouldn't I use my WMDs against this force? Of course, I'd still be wiped out, but at least I'd take around 100,000 American troops with me. Why would I hide them, and then dig a hole in the desert and live underground till somebody found me? Why would I give them to Syria and not go a long with them? What is easier for Syria to hide? Saddam? or stockpiles of weapons?

To me, the most logical answer is the evil guy didn't have them to begin with.

But what is your take?
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 12:29 PM #54
careyman_462
Maverick says :tup:
 
careyman_462's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: TN
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
I believe we just think differently. You believe it's OK to sacrifice the lives of men, women, and children based on speculation, whereas I am only OK sacrificing said lives based on evidence.
Good job putting words in my mouth.

Quote:
I guess it doesn't matter. The war against Iraq will continue no matter what you and I say.
True.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swerve22 View Post
Like I pointed out earlier, every major intelligence community in the world during the run up to Iraq believed that Iraq had WMD, not just the Bush administration.

Also, Saddam knew that we were headed in, so it's quite possible that he used the 6 months to 1 year of time he had available to get rid of them or move them out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by berserker19 View Post
I would love to be able to take a break from combat to drive my Bradley through the burger king drive thru and get a whopper
Lol, yeah, in Baghdad you have to stand in line.

__________________
Old PbNation Feedback
(+19/-0)
careyman_462 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 12:31 PM #55
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by careyman_462 View Post
Good job putting words in my mouth.
What was your point again?
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 12:33 PM #56
careyman_462
Maverick says :tup:
 
careyman_462's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: TN
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
Since we're speculating, let's say I'm evil and I actually possess WMDs. A more powerful force in the world, known simply as "America", is coming to get me. Why wouldn't I use my WMDs against this force? Of course, I'd still be wiped out, but at least I'd take around 100,000 American troops with me. Why would I hide them, and then dig a hole in the desert and live underground till somebody found me? Why would I give them to Syria and not go a long with them? What is easier for Syria to hide? Saddam? or stockpiles of weapons?

To me, the most logical answer is the evil guy didn't have them to begin with.

But what is your take?
Saddam said himself that he didn't think we were actually going to come in like we did. He thought we were bluffing, and were only going to send in more weapons inspectors and file more sanctions against him. If he was afraid of being caught with said weapons he might hide them or get rid of them. Of course he didn't admit to having them, that would have made us correct.
__________________
Old PbNation Feedback
(+19/-0)
careyman_462 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 12:41 PM #57
2term8r
Free Baller
 
2term8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mass.
 has been a member for 10 years
If he never had WMD, why didn't he just come clean with it? Why was he pushing around UN sanctioned weapon inspectors? Why didn't he show evidence? Was he just being strong headed? For someone that has nothing to hide he sure did try to hide alot!
2term8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 12:51 PM #58
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by careyman_462 View Post
Saddam said himself that he didn't think we were actually going to come in like we did. He thought we were bluffing, and were only going to send in more weapons inspectors and file more sanctions against him. If he was afraid of being caught with said weapons he might hide them or get rid of them. Of course he didn't admit to having them, that would have made us correct.
And you believe him?

He also said he let the world THINK he had WMDs because he was thwarting another Iranian invasion.

Do you still believe him?
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 12:52 PM #59
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2term8r View Post
If he never had WMD, why didn't he just come clean with it? Why was he pushing around UN sanctioned weapon inspectors? Why didn't he show evidence? Was he just being strong headed? For someone that has nothing to hide he sure did try to hide alot!

I just answered this in the post above me.
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 12:59 PM #60
careyman_462
Maverick says :tup:
 
careyman_462's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: TN
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
And you believe him?

He also said he let the world THINK he had WMDs because he was thwarting another Iranian invasion.

Do you still believe him?
Like I already said, of course he would not admit to having them, that would make us correct.

As far as believing him... No, I don't consider Saddam Hussein a very reliable character. But, you cannot ignore what he said about thinking we were bluffing. This may explain why he ended up running for the hills (or holes) at the last minute.
__________________
Old PbNation Feedback
(+19/-0)
careyman_462 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 01:13 PM #61
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
Since we're speculating, let's say I'm evil and I actually possess WMDs. A more powerful force in the world, known simply as "America", is coming to get me. Why wouldn't I use my WMDs against this force? Of course, I'd still be wiped out, but at least I'd take around 100,000 American troops with me. Why would I hide them, and then dig a hole in the desert and live underground till somebody found me? Why would I give them to Syria and not go a long with them? What is easier for Syria to hide? Saddam? or stockpiles of weapons?

To me, the most logical answer is the evil guy didn't have them to begin with.
1) They may not have been developed to a usable state as of yet and/or

2) If he uses them and then loses anyway he's done (he was done anyway but it would have been a much greater guarantee) meaning that to justify using them he would have had to think he could win by doing so.
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 01:16 PM #62
timmyt (Banned)
relentless
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Did some of you guys support taking over Iraq before 9/11?
timmyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 01:17 PM #63
2term8r
Free Baller
 
2term8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mass.
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt View Post
I just answered this in the post above me.
That is assuming his weapon system was actually fully deployed and working. So if he has only gotten 50% of the way to completing his WMD its ok right?

You're flawed.
2term8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump