kapkomet

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) This is not realistic. Those doors are now pretty secure. With the metal locks and cross members, you'd either have to have a bomb with enough force to destroy the metal bolt, or one pwerful enough to destroy the entire rest of the door, leaving a large hole to pass through. Either way, that's a powerful explosion, and it would to a lot more than blow up the door. You'd probably do all kinds of electrical and structural damage to the cockpit and bulkhead, and quite possibly make the plane unflyable (or send it crashing to the ground). Don't tell me what's realistic. I worked for an airline and spent countless hours around jet airliners of all types. A 'shoe bomb' depending on how it is (for lack of a better word) calibrated would work just about right. Those doors are not made to withstand much at all, they're not reinforced. I don't care what deadbolts or locks have been put in place - those doors are extremely thin and can be taken out rather easily without causing much other damage.

QUOTE(S720 @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 06:56 PM) Well, my bill the other month was $456.00. Last month was $389.00. I have a two-story Georgian house with new windows installation. How do I know for sure that it was an actual read or estimated? Should I follow your path and report them to BBB? The only way to tell for sure is to read your own meter. I'd do that if I were you for a month and see what the usage compares to what you were billed. It should give you cycle dates on your bill.

You can have a 'shoe bomb' with just enough force to blow through the cockpit door - and not the shell of the plane.

It's the one-headed monster, not the two headed. Get it right. Happy Birthday!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 09:04 PM) And it might never have happened had Bush not ignored the attack on the Cole or Richard Clarke's requests for a principals-level meeting on Al Qaeda in 2001 either. There's plenty o' blame to go around. Should Clinton have done more? In hindsight, absolutely. Should Bush? In hindsight, absolutely. That's true.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 08:26 PM) Hence why I don't put too much faith into the reports that Al Qaeda has plans to attack X. I am sure the government has intelligence that has AQ attacking basically every major city, tourist trap, nuclear power plant, port, utility, energy hub, etc in the country. I am sure they have made plans to try all of that. Now the question is whether they get to a stage where they are immenent attacks, and when exactly they disrupted them. Disrupting an attack could mean something as simple as hiring an extra security guard which just happened to cover the hole that AQ thought they had found in a nuclear power plants security, or it could mean they arrested someone with the bomb strapped on them ready to go to blow themselves up. Technically both would have disrupted an attack. I don't buy into much of this at all. True.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 05:07 PM) A few years ago the FBI or DOJ or one of those organizations said 100 had been stopped since 9/11. 10 'MAJOR' attacks, and probably a few more littler ones in scale.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 05:05 PM) FACT - You people know absolutely nothing regarding Saddam's WMD's. I don't know if he hid them or moved them and you don't know if he turned them all in and decided to be a nice boy. Nobody here knows any FACTS. Saddam didn't want us to know facts. Instead of saying one guy is full of s*** and speculating, while you in turn do your own specualting....just debate your opinions. You don't have anything concrete over anybody else. You said it better then I could have.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 03:36 PM) Obama gets the grammy for spoken word. Every Senator who has won a grammy has gone on to be President. ?? More info please.

You can thank the warm winter for this. Speaking of Natgas, you should see all the drilling going on around my neighborhood. It's amazing.

QUOTE(S720 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) I am not making things up to protect the UN. I don't give a s*** about the UN. All I'm saying is the US knew damn well that Iraq did not possess the amount of WMDs as Bush and Cheney stated for their reason to go to war. The world knows that North Korea and Iran have WMDs and even nuclear capability. Why don't we go and attack them? As Colin Powell stated, "You better make sure that you really want to attack Iraq. Once you break it, you own it!" And that's exactly what the situation in Iraq is. Other countries would gradually and eventually leave Iraq. Our poor soldiers will once again be there to protect WHAT??? Kapkomet, do you know about a letter that was sent to President Clinton back in 1996 in regard to attacking Iraq even back then? Do you know whose signatures on that letter? Look, it's no secret that BushCo (thanks Flaxx) had a hard on for Iraq since the "job" didn't get finished in 1991. At the same time, though, my point is that there WERE weapons there - and to say that UNSCOM destroyed them all is lacking in thought at best to downright ignorant. That's all I'm saying. It's like Saddam became righteous, etc. and that is simply not true. That's the only reason I'm even debating this is because it's not as black and white as some folks would make it out to be.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 02:31 PM) Time for a real head-scratcher: Now, is it just me, or is there something really wrong about allowing DeLay to sit on the committee investigating Abramoff if, by definition, that means Delay is also supposedly being tengenitally investigated??? I'd post this as a thread outside the Dem only thread, but frankly I've become convinced that nobody on the other side of the fence even cares when such blatant abuse of authority is revealed any more. Nothing like keeping your enemies and information close, eh? I do think it's wrong. Put him on all these committees after he's been cleared, or not.

EXACTLY. Google is a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit hypocritical.

QUOTE(S720 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 02:19 PM) And you are making s*** UP to protect the president's reason to go to war! What's your point? I've never once said that I was protecting 'the president's reason to go to war', you've SPECULATED that was what I was doing. You could be making s*** UP that defends the UN. What's the difference?

The Blackhawks, hands down, are the worst team in hockey (NHL) this year. The Penguins aren't even this bad to watch.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 06:15 AM) Simply untrue on all accounts, according to the 9/11 commission's final report. And that report had no political motivation, either. What was it again that dickhead Sandy Berger was shoving down his pants?

And any UN report supporting anything has to be weighed by the fact that they were desparately trying to hide the oil for food fiasco. I don't believe any of it. I think no matter what documents you quote, refer to, say is the gosphel, is somehow politically manipulated. What motives did Saddam have to destroy that stuff? None. Absolutely none. I think some of it did get destroyed when Clinton lobbed a few missles Iraq's way. I think some of it did get destroyed by our no-fly zone missions and subsequent attacks. I think some of it naturally degraded into a harmless state. I think some of it did get buried in the desert sand and we haven't found it. And last, I do think some of it got moved to Syria. No one KNOWS what happened to it but Saddam and his two dead sons, and they ain't talking anymore. To reempahsize, ANYONE could have made s*** up to protect the UN and make it look like things were "working"...

Now it's getting interesting. After hearing details of the program, the tune is changing a little bit, and it's NOT the program that people have been speculating on for almost two months now. Imagine that. Again, this may not make the program "legal", but it looks like they may amend the program to MAKE it legal if it isn't. If they are changing their tune that much, 95% of the bulls*** that was speculated on happening wasn't, and this is a legit program that protects our interests. I still wish that we all could understand enough to get rid of the "legal" drama of it all, but I'm doubtful we will ever know.

QUOTE(S720 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 03:24 AM) Kapkomet, stop your BULLs*** speculation. You or ANYONE else don't even know whether Saddam had actually moved them to Syria. It's all speculation. So STOP pretending as if you actually know it. Answer me this question: When you are being attacked, when your own sons had been killed by your enemy, if you actually have those WMDs, would you have released them to kill your enemy? You want to know why we attacked Iraq USING WMDs as alibi? Because we knew damn well that Iraq's WMDs were already destroyed by all the bombings we had on that country. Let's see if we will use WMDs justification on Iran or North Korea to attack them. The world knows they have them. I don't see us attacking them! And stop YOUR BULLs*** saying you know that they were destroyed. No one knows what happened. But people who want to pour water all over the current administration want him to get hung so bad, they keep ginning this s*** up. I also think it's more likely then not that Syria has some of the s***. Not all, but some. There's been other collaborated evidence that there were shipments to Syria before the UNSCOM people were let back in the second time. Coicidence? According to BULLs***, I guess so.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 02:26 AM) Actually, my respect for Carter has grown tremendously in the last year. Of course it has. If anyone speaks out against Bush, you love them. Any dips*** that says we need to continue to fund Hamas has it wrong.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 02:17 AM) By UNSCOM's own assessment Iraq was 90-95% disarmed by the time the 1998 incident happened. Yes, but HOW!?! He MOVED THEM. He didn't destroy that s***, he MOVED it to Syria. And let me be clear, the whole thing on the intelligence was bulls***. But, I don't doubt for one single minute that he moved that stuff out of the country.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 01:55 AM) Moved them into the hands of the UNSCOM team, which destroyed them. Agreed. Pass the bong. It must be good s***. So Saddam FULLY cooperated with UNSCOM. LMFAO. They even say he didn't cooperate and he was playing shell games. So you think he legally and dutifully destroyed everything on UNSCOM's watch and was a perfect little saint. Uh huh, whatever. Keep dreaming.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 11:25 PM) I never said he complied with everything. Resolutions by the U.N. also insisted he stop killing the Kurds, for example. But the simple fact is...after Operation Rommel in '98, Iraq was WMD disarmed. The UNMOVIC team was on the verge of proving it in March of 03, and the ISG confirmed that fact in 2003-2005. Disarmed how? I'll answer that for you. He moved them.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 11:10 PM) No matter how many times you say it, that doesn't make it true. The UNSCOM inspection team in Iraq accounted for over 95% of Saddams' weapons. The portion they couldn't account for? Well, there was significant tainting of some of the water supplies, a lot of bombing, and a lot of usage over the years. When UNMOViC went back in, they not only went to the storage sites to see if anything had been moved or used (they weren't), they also looked at the equipment which would have been necessary to manufacture the stuff to see if it had been used since the UNSCOM team was in there. It wasn't. There are a lot of known facts working against this guy. They're simply not going to be right no matter how much people want to invade Syria. Saddam was such a nice guy to fully comply with everything. He was a saint and did everything that was asked of him. At least, that is what your research always tells you. :rolly

There's been a lot of speculation since before we went in that they moved the stuff to Syria. But that can't be true, because Bush has to pay for the WMD's not being there like the liberals knew all along.