Saddam caught?!!!

[KenpoTess]

NEW YORK -- A DNA test like the one that apparently helped confirm Saddam Hussein's identity can be done in as little as 12 hours, a forensics expert says.

New York City's DNA lab has done such speedy tests for very rare high-priority cases, said Robert Shaler, director of the department of forensic biology in the office of the city's chief medical examiner.

More Info here

 

[MisterMike]

PAUL,

You've addressed the points individully. But it's the sum of the parts that makes the whole. Individually, or if one point alone existed, it may not be reason to go in.

Disagree with some as you may, I stand behind them

We knew Korea could be handled diplomatically. See? we aren't the warmongers some think us to be.

"Some men you just can't reach."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Mike:

Well, I see you slud off my point, but OK. As for your remarks about Iraq--well, as the last poster noted, where ARE the WMDs? And to date, there has been NO evidence of a Hussein/Al Q. link...certainly nothing approximating the evidence of their little connections to Saudi Arabia, and I notice we ain't invading THEM. Maybe it's true, maybe it ain't...but I'm old-fashioned. I like there to be facts.

Still waiting, by the way, on a) a definition of, "liberal," b) some proof for your claims, c) some clear explanation of when your media utopia was, since these claims are always predicated on the notion that once upon a time...

I mean, are you familiar with Edw. R. Murrow's career? With Cronkit's, with Frank Capra's, "Why We Fight," films? With, say, H.L. Mencken? With Twain, who started writing as a newspaperman? Hell, you could make a pretty good case for the "media" being more conservative now than ever...

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
No, but there is Democrat bias in the media. As soon as the Democrat politicians

Blah Blah Blah ... now why is that you don't use the term 'Democratic'? ... what was it that Jay told you?

For those outside of Boston radio ... our local rightwing nutcase ... Jay Sevrin ... will not use the word Democratic for some reason or other ...

Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition to follow:
Pronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik
Function: adjective
Date: 1602
1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy
2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art>
4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish
- dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

 

[MisterMike]

Robert,

The only point I've cared to chime in on over the last few posts is about the media bias. It is really is quite evident. Your question about the definition of a liberal was directed to someone else form what I can tell. Seems funny that you shout so much you don't know who your shouting at.

My media claims are not predicated on anything.

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by michaeledward
Blah Blah Blah ... now why is that you don't use the term 'Democratic'? ... what was it that Jay told you?

For those outside of Boston radio ... our local rightwing nutcase ... Jay Sevrin ... will not use the word Democratic for some reason or other ...

Yes he has.

He prefers to call us a Constitutional Republic. Which is what we live in.

And Mike's comments on him being a right-wing nutcase should be taken as seriously as Jay's monologues on women drivers. There is an entertainment aspect.

 

[michaeledward]

a) Were they know to have WMD's? Yes

In 1988 the government of Iraq used chemical weapons on two populations, the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Iranian army. In 1988, the government of Iraq was a U.S. ally. Where did the Iraqi government acquire the chemical weapons? Could it be that the U.S. provided the weapons and / or the know-how.
According to all evidence (that is facts discovered by inspectors, and the U.S. military since the conquest) there were no chemical or biological weapons in existance in Iraq in the year 2003 ... which was the year we invaded the country. It is quite likely there have been no chemical or biological weapons in the country since the early 1990's.

b) Do they hate us? Yes

Please provide evidence of this statement. I have heard the president say it, but I see no evidence. Remember, the U.S. has been responsible for oppressing the people of Iraq since 1990 (with the authorization of the United Nations), certainly, this will breed some sense of resentment .... cause -> effect ... get it?

c) Do they associate with Al Queada? Yes

Again, there is no evidence that the people of Iraq associate in any way the Al Qaeda. At least not any more than I associate with Jay Sevrin or MisterMike. Al Qaeda is a fundamental religous organization that is motivated to remove all non-Islamic people from the Persian penninsula. Saddam Hussein was a presiding over a secular state. The most they had in common, is they both wanted the United States out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, et al.

d) Did they break UN resolutions? Yes

But, the United Nations did not authorize this invasion.

e) Did they pose a threat to us and seem capable of carrying through with it? Yes

What threat? They had no way to launch an inter continental ballistic missle. In fact, the missles destroyed by the United Nations weapons inspectors had a range of approximately 97 miles (I suggest you check a map for the distance between Bagdhad and Washington DC). The attempts to acquire missles of greater range from North Korea were thwarted by the Inspection Policy of the UN.

Yawn .... You need to start seeing the evidence and not listening to the Liberal Media that tells you all these things.

Mike

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by michaeledward
In 1988 the government of Iraq used chemical weapons on two populations, the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Iranian army. In 1988, the government of Iraq was a U.S. ally. Where did the Iraqi government acquire the chemical weapons? Could it be that the U.S. provided the weapons and / or the know-how.
According to all evidence (that is facts discovered by inspectors, and the U.S. military since the conquest) there were no chemical or biological weapons in existance in Iraq in the year 2003 ... which was the year we invaded the country. It is quite likely there have been no chemical or biological weapons in the country since the early 1990's.

Quite likely? WOW. That'll make the victims of 9/11 and the rest of us feel better.

Please provide evidence of this statement. I have heard the president say it, but I see no evidence. Remember, the U.S. has been responsible for oppressing the people of Iraq since 1990 (with the authorization of the United Nations), certainly, this will breed some sense of resentment .... cause -> effect ... get it?

The U.S. has been responsible? Not Saddam?

Again, there is no evidence that the people of Iraq associate in any way the Al Qaeda. At least not any more than I associate with Jay Sevrin or MisterMike. Al Qaeda is a fundamental religous organization that is motivated to remove all non-Islamic people from the Persian penninsula. Saddam Hussein was a presiding over a secular state. The most they had in common, is they both wanted the United States out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, et al.

Well, he sure supported them with the mural of the towers coming down on the wall.

But, the United Nations did not authorize this invasion.

We don't need them to. PERIOD.

What threat? They had no way to launch an inter continental ballistic missle. In fact, the missles destroyed by the United Nations weapons inspectors had a range of approximately 97 miles (I suggest you check a map for the distance between Bagdhad and Washington DC). The attempts to acquire missles of greater range from North Korea were thwarted by the Inspection Policy of the UN.

Yawn .... You need to start seeing the evidence and not listening to the Liberal Media that tells you all these things.

Mike

You don't need ICBM's to be dangerous in this day and age. Germs are just as effective. Some people need to wake up.

I guess I could type till I'm "blue in the face" but I haven't got much more will to even lead these horses to water...

This was already beat to death on another thread.

Lata..

 

[rmcrobertson]

So it's been some OTHER Mister Mike who keeps claiming that "the media," is guilty of "liberal bias?"

Huh.

I guess I'm into this thing called...what was it...oh yes...evidence. I see your response to that is, roughly, "A fig for your evidence!"

After all, you just wrote: "My media claims are not predicated on anything."

As for the Iraqi clear and present danger, well, I guess I wanted some evidence there too. I'm funny that way, old fashioned...you know, from the old-fashioned, more-moral America that we keep hearing so much about. I say, if the Prez has got the goods, present the case, ask Congress for a Declaration of War, and kick their butts. You know...like the good old days.

Something about a guy with virtually no political experience launching us into an undeclared war for reasons that don't seem to have been real reasons. Again, North Korea clearly IS a clear and present danger and they HAVE got missiles and are works for BOTH nukes and biological weapons. So....

I still want to know who these fanatic lefties in the media are, and when they took over, and when the good old days were...

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Quite likely? WOW. That'll make the victims of 9/11 and the rest of us feel better.

<imagine Ronald Reagan voice over> Well, Mike, There you go again .....

No one has linked in any way that the 19 hi-jackers were associated with the Iraqi government. In case you hadn't heard, the hi-jackings of the 4 airplanes had nothing to do with chemical and / or biological weapons.

The U.S. has been responsible? Not Saddam?

My statement was in response to your claim that "They" hate us. Well, who exactly is the 'They' you are speaking for? I assumed you meant the iraqi people. While I question the premise, if we are to assume that the iraqi people hate us, what might be the cause of those feelings ... I proposed that by preventing adequate food and medicine into the country (yes, I know that many of the goods that went in via the US sponsored oil for food program were inappropriately appropriated), they citizens of iraq might be justified in feeling frustrated with the US led embargo. How many iraqi children died because of inadequate medicine during that embargo?

Well, he sure supported them with the mural of the towers coming down on the wall.

Yeah ... and Anne Garrells walked across the face of GB Sr. every day while entering the Al Rashid ... Big Deal.

We don't need them to. PERIOD.

Of course, we don't. We reserve the right to invade another sovreign state to ourselves, just like ... hmmm ... hmmm .. say when Iraq wants to invade Kuwait.
What will you say when China invades Taiwan, I wonder?

You don't need ICBM's to be dangerous in this day and age. Germs are just as effective. Some people need to wake up.

Yes, apparently, you do ... Did you miss the point that IRAQ DOESN'T HAVE ANY GERM WEAPONS. Duh! As long as you keep buying the stories the liberal media is selling you about an impending threat from the state of Iraq, you will continue to believe as you do. I strongly suggest you find a more fair and balanced news source. Repeat after me:
There are no weapons of mass destruction.
There was no clear and present danger.

I guess I could type till I'm "blue in the face" but I haven't got much more will to even lead these horses to water...

The problem here, is that the water is behind us ... and I am stuck leading a horses ....... well ... never mind.


Mike

 

[Cruentus]

MisterMike,

If you believe that going to war was the right thing, that's fine. You are definatily entitled to your opinions, which is why america is so great.

I am having trouble with a few things though.

The only point I've cared to chime in on over the last few posts is about the media bias. It is really is quite evident. Your question about the definition of a liberal was directed to someone else form what I can tell. Seems funny that you shout so much you don't know who your shouting at.

My media claims are not predicated on anything.

On the "Media Bias" issue, many conservative personalities and celebraties have talked about the "Liberal Media Bias." A lot of this could be based on individual interpratation; a "conservative" hears something from the media he dislikes, so the media is "liberal" to them, or a "Liberal" hears something from the media he dislikes, so the media is "conservative" for him.

Point is, opinions are like bellybuttons, but that doesn't mean that they are true.

Check out the 1st link in my previous post regarding the "Liberal Media" myth. That is actual evidence that supports the idea that the media is actually conservative much more than liberal.

Quite likely? WOW. That'll make the victims of 9/11 and the rest of us feel better.

This is a major falicy, usually spread by those who don't want anyone to question the war, so they try to appeal to our emotional side by bringing up a tragidy. WMD and 9-11 terrorists are 2 seperate groups and 2 seperate issues. Not only is it "quite likely" that there were no more WMD in Iraq, but our administration told us and the rest of the world that they had proof that Irag had WMD eyond resonable doubt, and enough to justify going to war. Without finding WMD, this is Proof that the administration lied. None of this has to do with the victims of 9-11. If anything, I think the victims would have rather seen more done to prevent terrorism, to continue after Al Queda, and to have found Bin Laden, if you ask me. The war in Irag has little to do with that, though.

We don't need them to. PERIOD

The problem I see is that this creates a hypocracy. One of the reasons for going to War against Iraq is they broke UN resolutions and agreements. So, we break UN agreements to go to war over it. How is it we can break UN agreements to punish someone for breaking UN agreements? Should the UN be able to go after us for breaking UN agreements? THis, I see, is a major problem, and not a good reason for war. It makes us look retarded.

Here is what I think regarding those who support Bush and the war at this point. Most people who are supporters basically believe that Saddam is a bad guy, so for whatever reason it was we went to war in the 1st place, the results are good because we are bringing an evil man to justice.

I can appreciate this arguement, and I am glad that he is not in power, and that he has been captured. However, to me this doesn't justify the amount of $$, resources, and problems we have caused ourselves by going in unilaterally. We may have been able to accomplish beating Iraq on our own, but only to the detriment of our own money, resources, and troops. All this just to out a "bad guy". We could have accomplished the same task, in time, but with the rest of the world supporting it. Instead, we have hurt our deplomacy with the world. We can't afford to out all the evil dictators in the world. What we can do is stop supporting "evil dictators" when it fits our agenda in the short run; if anything 9-11 should have taught us, this is the lesson we should have learned. Yet, we haven't. And this worries me.

 

[MisterMike]

That's right never mind.

Just as I don't mind that the right to be thick headed and deaf precludes the fact common sense couldn't be slapped into most people like yourself.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Folks, keep the debate respectful, please.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
Folks, keep the debate respectful, please.

Sorry

 

[MisterMike]

Hehe..OK..That was my bad too.

This would be so much easier over a beer so then I could just cut people off with my own opinions a lot easier..LOL

:drinkbeer

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Hehe..OK..That was my bad too.

This would be so much easier over a beer so then I could just cut people off with my own opinions a lot easier..LOL

:drinkbeer

A couple of inane opinions, a few more beers and then "sparring" match

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
A couple of inane opinions, a few more beers and then "sparring" match

Haha, well that's 2 out of the 3 "F"'s

Unless we hit each other with dead fish...

 

[pknox]

Add some chips, vinegar, and a pint of Guinness, and now you're talking!

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. heard Hans Blix on NPR, the Communist channel, today. he says that a) His original gut feeling was that Iran still had WMDs; b) He now thinks that the stuff got destroyed in '91-'92, which makes him want to know why they were acting so weirdly last year...made him believe they were hiding something; c) There never was any clear, direct threat to the US. Wow, does he ever sound like an incompetent nut.

2. If I understood correctly, the argument was that NORTH KOREA--NORTH KOREA, a country that has been firing missiles over parts of Japan for the last ten yers, a country with which we have no diplomatic ties at all, a country that has working nuclear reactors capable of reprocessing, a country that says every five minutes, "You're damn skippy we plan on building the Bomb, we can already reach Guam and the West Coast is not out of the question," a country so desperate that there are rumors of cannibalism and even the UN has thrown up its hands, NORTH KOREA is more open to negotiation? I must be hallucinating.

3. Good to see that that conservative viewpoint, at the end, once again is backed by the threat of violence.

4. I don't know what the bellybutton thing was about, but it was the best sentence of the whole string.

 

[Cruentus]

First laugh out loud...

heard Hans Blix on NPR, the Communist channel, today.

:rofl:

2nd LOL...

Wow, does he ever sound like an incompetent nut.

3rd LOL...

NORTH KOREA is more open to negotiation? I must be hallucinating.

4th LOL...

I don't know what the bellybutton thing was about, but it was the best sentence of the whole string.

:rofl: Maybe I should explain that one...opinions are like belly buttons because everyone has them.

Anyways, I don't know if I am just slap happy or what this morning, (maybe some nerve gas busted open that me and all my 'liberal' friends have been hiding for Saddam) but your post had me on the floor.