Utopia Talk / Politics / Questions for Socialists

Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 23 02:05:49 Do any of you know what totalitarian means? Or do you care?
saiko Member	Sun Jan 23 04:04:57 It's easy to know, I guess. Totalitarianism is the antithesis of socialism.
milton bradley Member	Sun Jan 23 04:07:39 And also the exact opposite of Liberalism.
Paramount Member	Sun Jan 23 04:19:38 Totalitarianism is a political system practiced by a few countries supported by the USA.
Paramount Member	Sun Jan 23 04:20:14 But I don't think Hot Rod cares or knows.
milton bradley Member	Sun Jan 23 04:22:23 Its funny coming from the most totalitarian, authoritarian nitwit at UP though.
jergul Member	Sun Jan 23 05:38:21 A good working definition would be US foreign policy not directly anchored to treaty obligations - or actions done by the US government outside of the constraints of your constitution. Relevant on the most part due to US predominance in earlier times. Its activity hitting nations like a Force Majeur.
jergul Member	Sun Jan 23 05:40:13 Hot Rod You get it right? Would you like to live in a US without a Constitution? Well, that is how your foreign policy generally impacts globally. Policy set without constitutional checks and balances suck big time.
Daemon Member	Sun Jan 23 05:55:04 It's a system where the government operates prisons like Guantamano.
iii Member	Sun Jan 23 09:59:40 "Do any of you know what totalitarian means? Or do you care? " yes and yes bu the real question is: do YOU know? do YOU care? do you care enough to bomb the shit out of anyone who wants freedom just to *free them?
Aeros Member	Sun Jan 23 11:17:31 Socialism /= Totalitarianism. Just saying.
Isaksson Member	Sun Jan 23 12:46:43 I forgot what it means. The ultimate goal of communism however is to abolish the government and everyone providing his or hers to the society.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 23 12:55:47 "Aeros Member Sun Jan 23 11:17:31 Socialism /= Totalitarianism" how fucking retarded
Aeros Member	Sun Jan 23 13:20:25 Totalitarianism is a form of Government wherin you have no rights. Socialism is a method of distributing the finite resources of economic production.
Canadian Member	Sun Jan 23 16:56:52 "how fucking retarded" - You're less qualified to be talking political theory than I am with atmospheric science.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 23 17:23:57 Socialism is tyranny in economic terms.
ehcks Member	Sun Jan 23 17:29:58 Tyranny is tyranny. Socialism is public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Canadian Member	Sun Jan 23 17:36:23 Totalitarianism refers to a specific type of government where the state controls everyone. Socialism is different in practice and in theory. In practice, under what is considered a "socialist" system there is a varying degree of redistribution, but it is not absolute. Theoretically, people are supposed to own everything and cooperatively operate it (the ownership of everything by everyone), but this is practically impossible. In neither case is it tyranny, as in theory you would own a piece of everything, and in practice, some of what you earn is taken away so everyone has enough (not everyone has the same, as many critics like to suggest).
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 23 17:36:59 except public actually means government, which becomes tyranny
Aeros Member	Sun Jan 23 18:33:06 "except public actually means government, which becomes tyranny" Unless said Government is a Democracy retard.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 23 18:36:25 democracies become tyrannies when aeros and other control freaks have their way.
Canadian Member	Sun Jan 23 18:41:37 "except public actually means government, which becomes tyranny" - Which is where Stalinism, etc. come in, and why I stated already that theoretical socialism is practically infeasible. "democracies become tyrannies when aeros and other control freaks have their way." - Democracy has always been severely flawed. That being said, it is still better than a lot of other systems out there (totalitarianism being one).
Aeros Member	Sun Jan 23 20:38:54 "democracies become tyrannies when aeros and other control freaks have their way." I'm not really a Socialist. I favor Mixed economies, with market driven Capitalism, and some Socialist policies to mitigate inefficiencies with the Market, and the deficiencies inherent to it. No one economic model is perfect. You not find a single Laissez Faire economy outside of Somalia for this reason. Additionally, there is no reason why a Democracy cannot also manage a Socialist Economy. Socialism is after all, merely control of the means of production, not the distribution or the demand, which are determined by markets. Once again you are confusing Socialism with Communism, which not only controls Production, but also the distribution, the demand, and the supply.
miltonfriedman Member	Sun Jan 23 20:43:20 "Communism, which not only controls Production, but also the distribution, the demand, and the supply. " not true- that's not communism.
patom Member	Sun Jan 23 20:51:51 Totolitarian is what you right wing radicals would want.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 23 21:15:43 "there is no reason why a Democracy cannot also manage a Socialist Economy." yes there is, they are fundamental opposites.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Sun Jan 23 21:26:43 No they aren't. You are thinking freemarket/socialist economy. Democracy is not an economic model, it is a political model.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 23 21:51:21 patom - Totolitarian is what you right wing radicals would want. Where does it say in The United States Constitution that we should be a totalitarian state?
Aeros Member	Sun Jan 23 22:07:22 "Where does it say in The United States Constitution that we should be a totalitarian state?" Implying the Right Wing in the US is the only group that cares about the Constitution.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 23 22:08:53 Well there are the Libertarians, but certainly *NOT* the libertines.
Aeros Member	Sun Jan 23 22:42:02 Of course, because Liberals clearly don't care about freedom, right Rod : )
Canadian Member	Sun Jan 23 23:01:14 "Additionally, there is no reason why a Democracy cannot also manage a Socialist Economy. Socialism is after all, merely control of the means of production, not the distribution or the demand, which are determined by markets." - You're partially correct here (as some socialists would suggest that need would determine demand rather than markets), but... "Once again you are confusing Socialism with Communism, which not only controls Production, but also the distribution, the demand, and the supply." - ...end up incorrect, as under theoretical communism, there would be no government.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 23 23:16:57 Aeros - Of course, because Liberals clearly don't care about freedom, right Rod : ) Depends on if you are on the giving or receiving end. If you are on the receiving end you believe in freedom from want, the freedom to go to university for nothing, the freedom of healthcare paid for and all of the other freebies. And, if you are on the giving end you have the freedom to say you will pay for all of that stuff.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 23 23:20:26 BTW, Here is the answer I was looking for: Definition of TOTALITARIAN 1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian, dictatorial; especially : despotic b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism) 2 a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency c : exercising autocratic powers See totalitarian defined for English-language learners » Origin of TOTALITARIAN Italian totalitario, from totalità totality First Known Use: 1926
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jan 23 23:27:47 Ask yourselves. When was the last time your Progressives promoted something that advocated freedom for *EVERYONE* and not just those who want to leech off the rich. Then ask yourselves. Is the government getting more and more or less and less restrictive.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 00:40:28 ask yourself When was the last time you promoted something that advocated freedom for *EVERYONE* and not just those who want to kill approximately 1 billion women, children and men because they have brown skin. Then ask yourself: Is your straitjacket getting more or less restrictive.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 00:44:22 Ask yourself: When was the last time Lil Davey saw the light of day. Then ask yourself Are his chains getting more or less restrictive.
jergul Member	Mon Jan 24 00:51:58 Ironically, property as an extension of self is probably inherently socialist. You can see that when phrased as an "Democratic Bill of Rights" "Every person has the right to property sufficient to sustain the health of self and of dependants" Property as an extension of self in a regime with huge inequalities in division of wealth is tyranny - identical in nature to regimes where the elite reserve political rights to themselves exclusively. Of course, you would have to buy the property as an extension of the individual to buy this. But if you did, then you would equate access to wealth as identical to access to universal suffrage.
saiko Member	Mon Jan 24 02:40:50 "a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian, dictatorial; especially : despotic" "Small government"? "b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)" Freedom of speech, religion, association...?
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 02:48:04 why does anybody even respond to obvious troll threads like this?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 03:05:39 jergul - "Every person has the right to property sufficient to sustain the health of self and of dependants" That is also a part of an "Economic Bill of Rights" to which the rational response is, At whose expense? saiko, not sure what you are saying there.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 03:07:36 hr talking about rational...lol
saiko Member	Mon Jan 24 03:21:51 Totalitarians support small centralized governments, and oppose freedom of speech and association.
saiko Member	Mon Jan 24 03:22:28 ... like American conservatives.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 03:38:04 saiko - ... like American conservatives. Got a specific incidence or, better yet, a link to a study proving that?
saiko Member	Mon Jan 24 03:45:14 I am comfortable offering that as a blanket statement that does not require proof. You are welcome to present evidence on the matter if you want to make the more extraordinary opposite claim.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 03:58:26 Can you answer just one question that is specific? Who is pushing The Fairness Doctrine, the liberals or the conservatives and why? Before answering you might consider who dominates talk radio and if they do so because of *The Free Market* or through government legislation? saiko - I am comfortable offering that as a blanket statement that does not require proof. You mean like claiming for years that Bush willfully lied about WMD's when not a single liberal on UP could present a shred of evidence that he did? You see, that is why it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion with a liberal, you guys make up an outlandish lie and insist it is true without a shred of evidence.
Nekran Member	Mon Jan 24 04:57:12 "You mean like claiming for years that Bush willfully lied about WMD's when not a single liberal on UP could present a shred of evidence that he did?" Pretty much his entire administration claimed to have knowledge on something they clearly did not have knowledge on. I know you don't think that's lying, but it really is.
saiko Member	Mon Jan 24 05:24:56 "You mean like claiming for years that Bush willfully lied about WMD's when not a single liberal on UP could present a shred of evidence that he did?" Either they lied willfully, or lied about the WMD without being sure and lied about being sure. Pick one. "You see, that is why it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion with a liberal, you guys make up an outlandish lie and insist it is true without a shred of evidence." Well, you're talking to me and I certainly don't self-identify as an American liberal, but you should feel free to go on record stating that American conservatives are champions of free speech and bureaucracy.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 05:32:55 "You mean like claiming for years that Bush willfully lied about WMD's when not a single liberal on UP could present a shred of evidence that he did? You see, that is why it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion with a liberal, you guys make up an outlandish lie and insist it is true without a shred of evidence." So you're saying donald trump, who may be running for the GoP, is an outlandish lying liberal eh? Good to know, you fucking piece of shit.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 05:33:28 "You mean like claiming for years that Bush willfully lied about WMD's when not a single liberal on UP could present a shred of evidence that he did? You see, that is why it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion with a liberal, you guys make up an outlandish lie and insist it is true without a shred of evidence." So you're saying donald trump, who may be running for the GoP, is an outlandish lying liberal who one cannot have an intelligent discussion with, eh? Good to know, you fucking piece of shit.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 06:34:35 Nekran - Pretty much his entire administration claimed to have knowledge on something they clearly did not have knowledge on. saiko - Either they lied willfully, or lied about the WMD without being sure and lied about being sure. Pick one. We have been over this a hundred times. Every major intelligence bureau in The West thought there were WMD's prior to the invasion. saiko, So what it boils down to is you are making another outlandish claim that is obviously a lie, to any rational person, without a shred of proof. Want to file that one milton?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 06:34:55 End of discussion.
jergul Member	Mon Jan 24 08:06:42 Hot Rod: "At whose expense" The elite of course. Just as they paid the cost of losing some political power when poor man's, then universal suffrage were introduced. If you agree that property is an extension of self and want a non tyranny, then you need economic democracy anchored on an economic bill of rights. Though in effect, the expenses would be covered by legal entities who by definition are not humans, but control properties.
Nekran Member	Mon Jan 24 08:53:51 "Every major intelligence bureau in The West thought there were WMD's prior to the invasion." We've been over this a hundred times indeed... no they didn't. The fucking inspectors on the fucking ground were getting more and more certain each and every day that there was nothing there. But then they couldn't finish their research, because there was an army ready that just had to invade before they could be certain.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Jan 24 10:26:52 "End of discussion." LOLOL!!!
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Jan 24 10:28:52 1. pedo rod trolls with a retarded question 2. pedo rod got answers to can't retort 3. pedo rod declares "end of discussion" in the forum Classic Pedo rod
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 11:07:24 "We have been over this a hundred times. Every major intelligence bureau in The West thought there were WMD's prior to the invasion." "So you're saying donald trump, who may be running for the GoP, is an outlandish lying liberal who one cannot have an intelligent discussion with, eh? Good to know, you fucking piece of shit. "
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 11:08:10 So what it boils down to is Donald Trump is making another outlandish claim that is obviously a lie, to any rational person, without a shred of proof.
saiko Member	Mon Jan 24 18:47:47 "We have been over this a hundred times. Every major intelligence bureau in The West thought there were WMD's prior to the invasion." Actually, I clearly recall the chief WMD inspector saying there weren't. So, are you going on record stating that American conservatives are champions of free speech and bureaucracy?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 19:07:00 Just curious, why do some of you insist that, inspector - Intelligence *Agency*
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 19:12:11 inspector = Intelligence *Agency*
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Jan 24 19:12:20 Would it be correct to quote you as saying that chief WMD inspector does not collect intelligence nor does he operate a group that collects intelligence? I'd presume the answer is yes if there is no response.
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 19:19:06 Just curious, why do you insist donald trump is making another outlandish claim that is obviously a lie, to any rational person, without a shred of proof?
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 19:46:22 The guy hot rod was proudly touting as a possible GoP nominee: "the war is a Total. Catastrophe. Nothing. Less. It is such a shame this took place...and saddam hussein, whether they liked him or hated him - he hated terrorists. He'd shoot and kill terrorists. When terrorists came into his country, which he id control, he would kill the terrorists. now its a breeding ground for terrorists." "who do you blame?" "well, theres only oneperson you can blame and thats our current president. I mean obviously rumsfeld was a disaster, and other people that are giving him advice are a disaster...condoleeza is a lovely woman, but she never makes deals! She never makes a deal! She waves! She gets off the plane, she waves, she sits down with some dictator, 45 degree angle, they do the camera shot, she waves again, she gets back on the plane, she waves, no deal ever happens! You gotta make deals! The world is dying to make deals! And we dont have the right people doing it. Cheney is obviously a very hawkish guy, he said the war was going fantastic just a few months ago, I dont know if they're just bad people, they got us inte a mess, the likes of which this country has probably never seen before. Its one of the great catastrophes of all time - perhaps even worse, the rest of the world hates us. You go to germany, you go to england, you go to places where we didnt have problems, they all hate americans because of whats happened. We had a chance after 911 to be the most popular nation on earth - and we blew it. For the first time they felt sympathy and have a love for this country because of what happened - and we blew it... george bush says hes a religious man, and yet, 400,000 people have died and probably millions have been horribly maimed and injured. Whats going on? Whats going on?" "What do you think of some of the scandals unfolding in washington right now - as we speak, the attorney general is under fire, Alberto gonzalez, what do you make of this?" "Look - everything has been a lie. WMD - was a total lie. It was a way of attacking Iraq, which he thought was gonna be easy and it turned out to be the exact opposite. he reads 60 books a year, he reads a book a week. do you think he reads a book a week? I dont think so. He doesnt watch tv. hes on television being interviewed and he doesnt watch. Does anyone really believe that? Now theyre doing this whole scandal with the US attorneys, now theyre finding emails - and its proven to be a lie. Everythings a lie. Its all a Big. Lie." http://www...s5dTFM&feature=player_embedded lmao
milton bradley Member	Mon Jan 24 19:51:03 Pressed why he feels Bush deserved the punishment faced by only two other commanders-in-chief, Trump said the president misled the country in the run-up to the Iraq war, and that his actions were considerably more objectionable than those which led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. "He lied. He got us into the war with lies," Trump said. And I mean - look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true." http://pol...trump-i-wanted-bush-impeached/ "I was surprised that she didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush," Trump said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, referring to Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "It ... just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing." Donald "filthy liberal telling outrageous lies without not a shred of proof" Trump
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 20:10:00 All I ever asked for from the liberals was proof that Bush knowingly lied about WMD's. I as Donald Trump for the same proof. Calling someone a liar is not proof.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Jan 24 20:40:17 Thank you for your admission, pedo rod.
milton bradley Member	Tue Jan 25 00:44:04 No, you said a little more about anyone else than that says the war was about lies than you say about Trump, though he says the *exact* same thing. Can you guess what that is? I'll give you a clue. it starts with "you lying fucking liberals" and ends with "any rational person would realize are just outrageous lies without the slightest shred of proof"
milton bradley Member	Tue Jan 25 00:46:17 Interesting, Trumps views on the chick you said should be president "condoleeza is a lovely woman, but she never makes deals! She never makes a deal! She waves! She gets off the plane, she waves, she sits down with some dictator, 45 degree angle, they do the camera shot, she waves again, she gets back on the plane, she waves, no deal ever happens! You gotta make deals! The world is dying to make deals! And we dont have the right people doing it."
Nekran Member	Tue Jan 25 07:53:28 "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." George W. Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003 On May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found on Polish television. "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: "I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there." In the 1st one he says that they leave no doubt... obviously an impossibility, since that would mean he would've seen hard evidence, which he couldn't have, as nothing was found. In the second one he just flat out lies, hoping that something will pop up. They didn't even find those mobile labarotories he claims they've already found two of. The third one just added to show how those previous statements were obvious lies.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Jan 25 10:53:21 ttt for pedo rod
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 11:51:10 May 27, 2003 a fact finding mission to Iraq sent its report to Washington unanimously declaring that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. The report was 'shelved'.[8] May 28, 2003 the Central Intelligence Agency released a report on the supposed mobile weapons labs, stating:- Despite the lack of confirmatory samples, we nevertheless are confident that this trailer is a mobile BW production plant.[9] May 29, 2003 President George W Bush declared that they had found the weapons of mass destruction that had been claimed were in Iraq, these were in the form of mobile labs for manufacturing biological weapons. We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory
Milton Bradley Member	Tue Jan 25 14:20:17 Does HR even realize, in that misty fog in his bewildered head, that he just confirmed what Nekran said?
Milton Bradley Member	Tue Jan 25 14:23:23 In fact, why did he just repeat what nekran said? Why? Anyone?
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Jan 25 15:09:19 Pedo Rod, You just posted the wiki article with Bush saying "they had found the weapons of mass destruction." And he ended up not finding anything. It's time for you to apologize for lying about Bush.
milton bradley Member	Tue Jan 25 15:32:19 "prove that he KNEW it was a lie when he lied" - hotrod rinse/repeat in absurdum
so what Member	Tue Jan 25 16:04:09 And after he's found out and proven to have lied, he can always admit he has lied, so that he can be known as a man of integrity, according to HR logic.
kilo Member	Tue Jan 25 17:53:12 Sounds like the Cam Newton investigation. Cam didn't know so he's clear. Bush didn't know so he's clear.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 18:40:51 You guys missed what you did not want to see. "May 27, 2003 a fact finding mission to Iraq sent its report to Washington unanimously declaring that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. The report was 'shelved'.[8]" BUSH NEVER SAW THAT REPORT, IT WAS SHELVED. This is the report he saw. "May 28, 2003 the Central Intelligence Ageny released a report on the supposed mobile weapons labs, stating:- Despite the lack of confirmatory samples, we nevertheless are confident that this trailer is a mobile BW production plant.[9]" This proves the CIA lied to Bush about the WMD's. Which is what I have said all along.
saiko Member	Tue Jan 25 19:22:19 So he lied about being sure?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 19:24:34 Are you trolling or are you stupid?
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Jan 25 19:39:00 How come Bush cannot see the shelved report? Is there any evidence to show that, pedo rod? Or you just ASSUMED that? Or perhaps you took a leap of faith and assume that is the only one report that showed Iraq had no WMD?
kilo Member	Tue Jan 25 20:27:40 So the CIA lied to Bush? LOL even the CIA didn't trust Bush with sensitive informations.
milton bradley Member	Wed Jan 26 02:06:15 Tue Jan 25 15:32:19 "prove that he KNEW it was a lie when he lied" - hotrod rinse/repeat in absurdum" lol
milton bradley Member	Wed Jan 26 02:27:42 Those CIA reports were stamped *3 weeks after* the fraudulent report Bush preferred to use were used. hotrod inadvertently gave us even more proof of the cover ups and lies to attack a sovereign people. I even remember that the general public all over the world including me, except in the USA, knew that the claims were garbage at the time. On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement. The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories. Primary Piece of Evidence The story of the technical team and its reports adds a new dimension to the debate over the U.S. government's handling of intelligence related to banned Iraqi weapons programs. The trailers -- along with aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq for what was claimed to be a nuclear weapons program -- were primary pieces of evidence offered by the Bush administration before the war to support its contention that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence officials and the White House have repeatedly denied allegations that intelligence was hyped or manipulated in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. But officials familiar with the technical team's reports are questioning anew whether intelligence agencies played down or dismissed postwar evidence that contradicted the administration's public views about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The technical team was assembled in Kuwait and then flown to Baghdad to begin their work early on May 25, 2003. By that date, the two trailers had been moved to a military base on the grounds of one of deposed president Saddam Hussein's Baghdad palaces. When members of the technical team arrived, they found the trailers parked in an open lot, covered with camouflage netting. By the end of their first day, team members still had differing views about what the trailers were. But they agreed about what the trailers were not. "Within the first four hours," said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, "it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs." News of the team's early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications. http://www...6/04/11/AR2006041101888_4.html
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 05:31:12 MB - Those CIA reports were stamped *3 weeks after* the fraudulent report Bush preferred to use were used. Perhaps the *FINAL* report was. NOT THE ***PRELIMINARY*** REPORT. From your source. The technical team's preliminary report was transmitted in the early hours of May 27, just before its members began boarding planes to return home. Within 24 hours, the CIA published its white paper, "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants," on its Web site. After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations. The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?
milton bradley Member	Wed Jan 26 13:56:46 learn to read, goddamn illiterate ignoramus "The technical team's preliminary report was transmitted in the early hours of May 27..." is a different report, a correct and truthful report. The report full of lies was stamped secret 3 weeks later after they were used, thus your ridiculous BS about the CIA keeping them a secret from Bush is the same ridiculous BS that has become a by-word for you,
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jan 26 14:16:46 "Perhaps the *FINAL* report was..." Incorrect. Now that MB has pointed out your mistake, what other ridiculous lies and bullshits will you post next?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 20:17:41 mb - The report full of lies was stamped secret 3 weeks later after they were used, thus your ridiculous BS about the CIA keeping them a secret from Bush is the same ridiculous BS that has become a by-word for you, "May 27, 2003 a fact finding mission to Iraq sent its report to Washington unanimously declaring that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. The report was 'shelved'.[8]" BUSH NEVER SAW THAT REPORT, IT WAS SHELVED. This is the report he saw. "May 28, 2003 the Central Intelligence Ageny released a report on the supposed mobile weapons labs, stating:- Despite the lack of confirmatory samples, we nevertheless are confident that this trailer is a mobile BW production plant.[9]" The report full of lies was published as a White Paper and put on the CIA's website the day after the truthful report was transmitted. FROM YOUR SOURCE: "The technical team's preliminary report was transmitted in the early hours of May 27, just before its members began boarding planes to return home. Within 24 hours, the CIA published its white paper, "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants," on its Web site." The White Paper full of lies is what was shown to Bush.
river of blood Member	Wed Jan 26 20:31:27 "It's easy to know, I guess. Totalitarianism is the antithesis of socialism." LOL. What?! "Totalitarians support small centralized governments, and oppose freedom of speech and association." Where in the fucking hell are you getting this from?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jan 26 21:13:38 "BUSH NEVER SAW THAT REPORT, IT WAS SHELVED." "The White Paper full of lies is what was shown to Bush." Wait. So you admitted that the one that is full of lies was shown to Bush?! Why do you keep arguing then that Bush has never seen it?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 21:16:41 HE NEVER SAW THE TRUTHFUL PRELIMINARY REPORT THAT WAS SHELVED. Your response to that can only be, OH!.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jan 26 21:29:04 Holy crap. You are lying like crazy you couldn't even keep track of what you are saying anymore. Here is what you have admitted: So you admitted that he saw the false report And you also admitted that the real report was stamped secret 3 weeks LATER And did you read that Bush claimed that he found WMD for many months after the false report is known to be false? I hope this helps to sort out your lies.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 21:37:00 Idiot.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jan 26 21:38:22 I accept your apology and admission of lies. In the future, when you argue that Bush was not lying, this thread serves as evidence that you admitted Bush was lying to the public.
Madc0w Member	Wed Jan 26 21:49:51 I didn't read this entire thread, but how does a thread on socialism possibly turn into a debate on the Iraq War. Jeez
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jan 26 22:04:22 Pedo Rod brought up Bush and his lies.
Nekran Member	Thu Jan 27 02:59:55 Much worse has happened around this place... it surprises me that something like this is still able to surprise you, MC.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jan 27 03:18:07 Actually saiko made the statement trhat conservatives oppose freedom of speech and association. I responded with, "Got a specific incidence or, better yet, a link to a study proving that?" He came back with, "I am comfortable offering that as a blanket statement that does not require proof." I asked, "You mean like claiming for years that Bush willfully lied about WMD's when not a single liberal on UP could present a shred of evidence that he did?" And we were off to the races.
	show deleted posts