• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 2/8/18)
See more
See less

Election Day is oming - do you know who you are voting for and WHY?

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

  • So Cessna Pilot what WAS your point?

    If Saddam Hussein was neither actively manufacturing biological weapons nor stockpiling them from previous manufacturing runs then, logically, he couldn't have had any... as far as I can deduce.

    My other job (besides scientific research) is running inventory databases btw.

    Comment


    • No, actually, it isn't false. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, as we were all told by Bush.

      Taking the liberal slant???

      How about believing the Republican LIE?

      Comment


      • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J. Turner:
        What drives me nuts about the gay marriage debate is that the candidates don't even clarify that there is distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. There should be a marked distinction as there is in France where people get married in a church and have a separate civil ceremony at the hotel de ville. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

        J. Turner, a lawyer friend of mine made that same argument... that EVERYONE should be "married" via a civil union for the legal benefits and then be married in a religious ceremony through their chosen church if they so choose. That would pretty much solve the whole gay marriage issue right there.

        Of course, it will NEVER happen in this country, but it's a nice thought!

        Comment


        • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
          Cessna,

          Providing your proof? THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The ones manufactured prior to 1991 had been destroyed. The weapons programs were dismantled. There may have been a few laying around, but NO WHERE near the threat Bush proclaimed.

          Let's get over this, shall we?? If saying at the end of the sentence, " manufactured after 1991" makes all the difference, then fine.

          It doesn't change the fact we were under NO DIRECT THREAT from Iraq, and we attacked them anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

          okay, so now YOU ADMIT there were WMD's in Iraq. But there "weren't enough to worry about". Tell me then, how many WMD's in a country that is supposed to have ZERO are enough to be a problem.

          DIRECT THREAT? was al-quaeda a DIRECT THREAT before attacking us with our own airplanes? Just because a country - hell Al-Quaeda does not even have a country does not possess the military capability to attack, does not mean that they do not have the capability of attacking the US.

          Do yourself a favor, read the key fingings in the Report and tell me that Saddam did not have ambitions on nuclear and biological weaponry.
          Love my Northampton CANTER Cutie - Cessna

          Comment


          • Cessna Pilot,


            You scare me. Truly..

            YES, I am saying that unless we are attacked, or under a clear threat of being attacked, we should not attack another nation.

            This is pretty much accepted policy, AROUND THE WORLD, at least in civilized, democratic nations.

            Please, do yourself the favor, and read a bit more, and realize that 9-11 was an attack from a small group of extremists.

            If a small group of Pro Lifers ran over to England and blew up a few abortion clinics, would England be under attack from America? After all, Bush supports Pro Lifers.

            Because the fact is NO NATION attacked us on that awful day. It was not justification to go to war with Iraq. PERIOD.

            Comment


            • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
              No, actually, it isn't false. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, as we were all told by Bush.

              Taking the liberal slant???

              How about believing the Republican LIE? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

              Can you make up your mind..... You flip flop just like a certain candidate...

              quote:
              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Originally posted by CHJoker:
              Cessna,

              Providing your proof? THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The ones manufactured prior to 1991 had been destroyed. The weapons programs were dismantled. There may have been a few laying around, but NO WHERE near the threat Bush proclaimed.

              Let's get over this, shall we?? If saying at the end of the sentence, " manufactured after 1991" makes all the difference, then fine.

              It doesn't change the fact we were under NO DIRECT THREAT from Iraq, and we attacked them anyway.



              First you say they may have been laying around, and now you say that there were NONE.
              Love my Northampton CANTER Cutie - Cessna

              Comment


              • Bush

                I'm on the ground volunteering for the campaign in Ohio...emailing from the hotel business center after a very rewarding day of going door-to-door. Actually met some hunter/jumper people here -- they were making GOTV calls over at the phonebank... very fun people

                Comment

                • Original Poster

                  Look, it's like Christmas for Bush. Apparently he got a little "gift".

                  Just when I think this administration could not possibly offend me more, I find I do not give them nearly enough credit.

                  From the New York Daily News (not exactly a bastion of journalism, so we will see if it gets picked up elsewhere)...

                  But it should be validated. Its fairly offensive.

                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us."

                  A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush."

                  He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                  Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                  Comment


                  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CessnaPilot:
                    DIRECT THREAT? was al-quaeda a DIRECT THREAT before attacking us with our own airplanes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                    Yes of course they were, and that is why under Clinton the CIA were tracking them closely.

                    I apologize but the most recent even vaguely readable article about that that I can direct you to is in the latest issue of Vanity Fair. I agree it is a rubbish magazine but the article is an OK starting point and you can look stuff up easily from there.

                    Comment


                    • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
                      Cessna Pilot,


                      You scare me. Truly..

                      YES, I am saying that unless we are attacked, or under a clear threat of being attacked, we should not attack another nation.

                      This is pretty much accepted policy, AROUND THE WORLD, at least in civilized, democratic nations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      So unless we are attacked and our people die, we cannot defend ourselves... THAT is Scary!! That is also exactly what these terrorists prey upon.

                      Hmm... IRAQ did not follow that policy, North Korea, Japan, Russia... History is FULL of nations that have not followed that policy, why the heck do you think we have a military? To PREVENT that from happening...
                      Love my Northampton CANTER Cutie - Cessna

                      Comment


                      • ChJoker and you know this how? You are sure there were none buried like Saddam himself so they wouldn't be found? You're postive they had all been dismantled and you know this because Saddam Husain is an honest trustworthy man? He will be proved innocent of all crimes and he just faked us out right?

                        He had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden, didn't ever hear of Al Quaeda. Only our President is a nasty lying cheating man, only he is responsible for all the evils happening and that will happen in the Middle East. And Kerry is a knight on a white charger to save us from Satan. It's a great story you should write for a movie script.

                        Amen! it must be wonderful to be so sure about so much.
                        http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                        Comment


                        • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by silver:
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CessnaPilot:
                          DIRECT THREAT? was al-quaeda a DIRECT THREAT before attacking us with our own airplanes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                          Yes of course they were, and that is why under Clinton the CIA were tracking them closely.

                          I apologize but the most recent even vaguely readable article about that that I can direct you to is in the latest issue of Vanity Fair. I agree it is a rubbish magazine but the article is an OK starting point and you can look stuff up easily from there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          Say no more, the fact that you would even think of using Vanity fair as a source is all I need to know...
                          Love my Northampton CANTER Cutie - Cessna

                          Comment


                          • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CessnaPilot:

                            Chjoker - try to stick to the topic at hand, I NEVER said that there were major stockpiles, or that saddam was actively manufacturing them. Once again you are taking the liberal slant that by stating they exist, then he must have been stockpiling them and manufacturing them, I did not say either of those things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            Er, no, I think it was the REPUBLICAN slant that led to everyone thinking there were stockpiles of WMD in Iraq in the first place. There are no stockpiles. If you would prefer that we liberals amend our statements of "There were no WMDs in Iraq" (which IS pretty much what everyone, liberal or not, is saying these days) to "there were no stockpiles of WMDs but might have been one or three laying around," then fine.

                            But honestly, what's your point? Any way you slice it, the picture of Iraq as "imminent threat" that Bush painted was way, way, WAY off the mark.

                            And I don't think CHJoker said anywhere that we shouldn't fight unless someone attacks us. I would guess that even most of us evil liberals would be OK with pre-emptively attacking another country that had both the MEANS and the INTENT to attack us.

                            Problem is, Iraq had neither.

                            Comment


                            • Cesna,

                              Let's hear your point. Not the rhetoric.

                              What EXACTLY is your point? That at some point in the Saddam regime, he had WMD.

                              Point made.

                              My point?

                              At the time of the IRAQ INVASION, clearly the topic of this discussion, Saddam possessed no WMD (and sorry, two shell casings and intentions don't count) and posed NO threat to us.

                              And read before you type.

                              I said "or under clear threat of being attacked". PLEASE, how tiring this gets.

                              North Korea, Russia, etc... now here are countries we want to be compared with, and use as justification. Why not add Germany under Hitler's rule to the list. Boy, what attractive company.

                              Snowbird, I won't even bother. Your writing and rants speak for themselves.

                              Comment


                              • From a recent article in our local newspaper:

                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Craig Williams, executive director of the Berea-based Chemical Weapons Working Group and co-chairman of the advisory board, said it was "unacceptable" to divert resources to look for weapons of mass destruction halfway around the world while chemical arms posed a threat to Americans in their own neighborhoods. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                For a signifcant number of Americans, the WMDs that pose the greatest threat aren't a couple of empty shells that the Iraqi army left lying around 15 years ago. They're the ones stored in bunkers a mile or less from schools and homes, and beginning to leak. According to international treaty, and for our own citizens' safety, they're supposed to be destroyed. But the budget for destroying them is being cut as a result of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq.

                                In the meantime, the threat from these weapons is real enough that our emergency agencies need to spend manpower and money on drills like this one that happened here just a few days ago.

                                Considering the huge quantities of WMDs stored in this country, which is run by a religious fanatic who stifles dissent, which is also the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on a civilian population, we should just be grateful that other countries aren't bombing us with the same justification that we use to bomb Iraq.

                                Comment


                                • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
                                  Cessna, I don't doubt that Hussein might have had other weapons, and obviously he has used chemical weapons in the past, so the fact that those existed at one time in Iraq is an established fact.

                                  But really... two 13-year-old shells? How exactly were those supposed to be a "grave and building threat" to the American public? What, was Saddam going to send one over FedEx?

                                  Bush led the world to believe that Saddam had a rigorous weapons program and was stockpiling WMDs, and that he was an immenent threat. None of that has turned out to be true. And while it just may turn out that he's got a missile silo hidden down a rabbit hole, I think most reasonable people (including Tony Blair, I believe) have come to admit that Hussein didn't have the WMDs they thought he did.

                                  Don't you think he would have used them if he had them, rather than letting the U.S. troops kick his butt? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                  Erin - I too believe that the whole world, John Kerry included - thought Saddam to have more weapons than he actually did. Given the fact that he is truly delusional and that had any of his underlings said or done anything to let him believe that his programs were not working would have been instant death.. I truly believe the HE thought he had more weapons than he actually possessed.

                                  Why not use them on U.S. troops, see above statement and realize that his army was mainly used on underarmed, oppressed opponents. When faced with a better equipped and better organized force, they simply chose to run rather than die, same as in the Gulf War.

                                  It is really easy to be the big menacing army when you use chemical weapons on unarmed people, can rape, kill, do whatever with no retribution... but when you find yourself faced with a superior opponent...
                                  Love my Northampton CANTER Cutie - Cessna

                                  Comment


                                  • But Cessnapilot Bill Clinton had very good intelligence community. Which country was it he bombed and then found out it was an aspirin factory?

                                    Now if that's two Presidents who got bad information and made big decisions would you even suspect the Intelligence Community made both boo-boo's; or was Bubba a war monger too?
                                    Gee! that would be so hard to believe because he talks so purdy and he has such a pretty face.

                                    Anybody remember who we blamed for that one? I know it must have been another Bush.
                                    http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                                    Comment


                                    • Oh I agree that Vanity Fair is generally a terrible magazine BUT it named a lot of names and it ain't that hard to look them up on google. There was concern about AlQaeda for YEARS.

                                      Comment


                                      • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHJoker:
                                        Cesna,

                                        Let's hear your point. Not the rhetoric.

                                        What EXACTLY is your point? That at some point in the Saddam regime, he had WMD.

                                        Point made.

                                        My point?

                                        At the time of the IRAQ INVASION, clearly the topic of this discussion, Saddam possessed no WMD (and sorry, two shell casings and intentions don't count) and posed NO threat to us.

                                        And read before you type.

                                        I said "or under clear threat of being attacked". PLEASE, how tiring this gets.

                                        Snowbird, I won't even bother. Your writing and rants speak for themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                        Chjoker.. we all know that it took YEARS for Al-Quaeda to plan these attacks, if Clinton was watching them, then why no "clear danger?" Why not take OBL when Sudan offered him up to us?

                                        How CLEAR does a danger have to be. Intelligence at that time from MANY credible sources pointed that Saddam was doing just what he said. Subsequently that intelligence was found to be incorrect. Hindsight is always 20/20, just ask Admiral Yamamoto what he thought after the attack on Pearl Harbor...
                                        Love my Northampton CANTER Cutie - Cessna

                                        Comment


                                        • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:

                                          He had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden, didn't ever hear of Al Quaeda. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                          Uh, actually, WE (good old Americans) are the ones saying Saddam had nothing to do with OBL or Al Qaeda. Y'know, that 9/11 commission thingie? I'm pretty sure Saddam wasn't on that panel, and that's what people are usually using as their factual basis when they say that Saddam had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda and wasn't involved in 9/11.

                                          Because, as you might remember, the independent bi-partisan 9/11 commission said that Saddam had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda and wasn't involved in 9/11.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X