VisorCentral.com

Pages (10): « First ... « 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Powell (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=32028)

Posted by ToolkiT on 03-03-2003 01:39 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
I don't see how anyone could _not_ enjoy a good stout or porter.

Porters are a bit too bitter for my taste... rather have a good ale or a nice 'brown' belgium beer...
But that is the good thing about beer, so many flavours there is bound to be one that you like..

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by Toby on 03-03-2003 01:47 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
Porters are a bit too bitter for my taste... rather have a good ale or a nice 'brown' belgium beer...

What porters have you tried? Other than Sierra Nevada (who never met an overhopped beer they didn't like), I don't recall having many other bitter ones. It's just not to style. Porters are supposed to lean towards the malt side. Oh, and they _are_ ales.

Well, except for the Baltic porters, but those are closer to Imperial Stouts (which are generally ales as well, though) than most porters.

quote:
But that is the good thing about beer, so many flavours there is bound to be one that you like..

Much as I detest Budweiser...True...True.

Posted by ToolkiT on 03-03-2003 01:50 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
What porters have you tried? Other than Sierra Nevada (who never met an overhopped beer they didn't like), I don't recall having many other bitter ones. It's just not to style. Porters are supposed to lean towards the malt side. Oh, and they _are_ ales. Well, except for the Baltic porters, but those are closer to Imperial Stouts (which are generally ales as well, though) than most porters

I tried James Squire porter

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by Toby on 03-03-2003 02:04 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
I tried James Squire porter

Interesting. They used a lager yeast and black roasted wheat. The black roasted wheat is probably where the bitterness is coming from (it's probably got a little astringency to it as well from that). I wonder if they export to the states.

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-03-2003 04:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

Wow, does this mean that discussing your views and opinions can actually change how people think? We all have adjusted our views after hearing the others talk...

Crazy, isn't it!

quote:
(yes in some cases force is the only sollution, but IMHO it should be the last resort..)

I think our current international debate is about the definition of "The Last Resort". (See attached if you please...)

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-03-2003 04:40 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
I think our current international debate is about the definition of "The Last Resort". (See attached if you please...)

The UN should choose a date. France, Germany, the UK, Russia, the US, *everyone* should come up with a date. No ifs ands or buts. I just don't see that as happening. Until it does, the stance of countries urging "more time" is severely weakened. Because without an end-game scenerio, calls for "more time" are equivalent to "let's do nothing." Again, I'm not sure who is right in this whole situation. I just think that if Germany, France, et. al. truly are asking for more time they need to put their money where their mouths are. If they truly believe we should never invade Iraq, they should say that too. Whether or not you agree with the Bush stance (I'm not sure myself), at least it has the clarity required to move the situation forward.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by ToolkiT on 03-04-2003 12:43 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
The UN should choose a date. France, Germany, the UK, Russia, the US, *everyone* should come up with a date. No ifs ands or buts. I just don't see that as happening. Until it does, the stance of countries urging "more time" is severely weakened. Because without an end-game scenerio, calls for "more time" are equivalent to "let's do nothing." Again, I'm not sure who is right in this whole situation. I just think that if Germany, France, et. al. truly are asking for more time they need to put their money where their mouths are. If they truly believe we should never invade Iraq, they should say that too. Whether or not you agree with the Bush stance (I'm not sure myself), at least it has the clarity required to move the situation forward.

Unfortunately it is not that simple..
Just for arguments sake, lets say saddam doesnt have any illegal weapons. How on earth can you proof that you DON'T have anything?
Even though I dislike Saddam just as much as you guys, he is still innocent till proven guilty.. just like you and me.. is the basics of justice...
So if the only deadline you can really give is to give unlimited access to UN inspectors and Spy planes or whatever is neccesary to do the investigation.. You cant put a deadline on finding things that may or may not be there...

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-04-2003 03:25 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

Unfortunately it is not that simple..
Just for arguments sake, lets say saddam doesnt have any illegal weapons. How on earth can you proof that you DON'T have anything?
Even though I dislike Saddam just as much as you guys, he is still innocent till proven guilty.. just like you and me.. is the basics of justice...

That is not true at all. There is no such stipulation in this case because we are not trying to prove the presence of weapons. We are awaiting evidence of their destruction. This problem is exactly the opposite. He is not innocent till proven guilty. He has been conclusively demonstrated as being guilty. He is now in the appeals stage with a conviction under his belt where the burden of proof is on him. Don't oversimplify things and apply one system of justice (initial criminal court proceedings) to another.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-04-2003 03:26 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

You cant put a deadline on finding things that may or may not be there...

You continue to miss the point. The inspections are not in place to find weapons. They are in place to confirm evidence of destruction. Clearly there is no such evidence.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by ToolkiT on 03-04-2003 04:01 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
You continue to miss the point. The inspections are not in place to find weapons. They are in place to confirm evidence of destruction. Clearly there is no such evidence.

mmm now I am confused, UN weaponsinspectors who are send out to find 'weapons of mass destruction' (as Bush calls it)
Are not there to find weapons??

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by Toby on 03-04-2003 03:00 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
mmm now I am confused, UN weaponsinspectors who are send out to find 'weapons of mass destruction' (as Bush calls it)
Are not there to find weapons??

No, they're not. They're there to verify that Saddam destroyed the weapons he had in the past which the UN directed him to destroy. They _know_ he had the weapons. The question is where are they now. Are they simply hidden away or have they been destroyed as he was directed to do. Much like the agreements between Russia and the US to dispose of certain types of nuclear weapons, there must be some sort of proof that the parties are holding to the treaty/agreement/resolution. You think they were just going to trust that we destroyed them (and vice versa)?

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-04-2003 03:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

mmm now I am confused, UN weaponsinspectors who are send out to find 'weapons of mass destruction' (as Bush calls it)
Are not there to find weapons??

No. They are not there to find weapons. They are there to confirm the destruction of weapons. As I said in my post.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by ToolkiT on 03-04-2003 10:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
They are in place to confirm evidence of destruction.

This was the part that confused me...
Thanx for the clarification..

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-04-2003 11:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

This was the part that confused me...
Thanx for the clarification..

Saddam had banned weapons. He claims not to have them now. The weapons inspectors are there to confirm evidence of their destruction.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 04:18 PM:

Here is an idea. Why not let the inspectors decide how long they need? Whats the point of sending them there top begin with if they are going to be rished?

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
The UN should choose a date. France, Germany, the UK, Russia, the US, *everyone* should come up with a date. No ifs ands or buts. I just don't see that as happening. Until it does, the stance of countries urging "more time" is severely weakened. Because without an end-game scenerio, calls for "more time" are equivalent to "let's do nothing." Again, I'm not sure who is right in this whole situation. I just think that if Germany, France, et. al. truly are asking for more time they need to put their money where their mouths are. If they truly believe we should never invade Iraq, they should say that too. Whether or not you agree with the Bush stance (I'm not sure myself), at least it has the clarity required to move the situation forward.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-08-2003 09:15 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Here is an idea. Why not let the inspectors decide how long they need? Whats the point of sending them there top begin with if they are going to be rished?

I do not necessarily disagree with this. As long was they don't say "...until the end of the world as we know it."

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 09:56 PM:

You see this is why I am suspicious of the U.S's actions. No one is asking the inspectors if they need more time. Adding to this, the U.S. is actively undermining the inspectors' woprk because they are not getting the response from them that they would like.

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

I do not necessarily disagree with this. As long was they don't say "...until the end of the world as we know it."

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-08-2003 10:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
You see this is why I am suspicious of the U.S's actions. No one is asking the inspectors if they need more time. Adding to this, the U.S. is actively undermining the inspectors' woprk because they are not getting the response from them that they would like.

So you think it should take 12 years to confirm the destruction of weapons?

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by MarkEagle on 03-08-2003 11:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
No one is asking the inspectors if they need more time.

The inspectors are NOT there to find weapons... they are there to find EVIDENCE of their destruction.

Time is not the issue. If Iraq has truly destroyed said weapons, and they can document it, why haven't they done so? Why the stall tactics? Does anyone really think that the Al Samoud 2 missles are the only weapons that the Iraqi's forgot to destroy?

If the inspectors were there to ferret out prohibited weapons, then I'd agree that more time was warranted. However, after 12 years, time is no longer an option. It's time to come clean and prove (conclusively) that they don't exist.

This in no way means that I want to see a war... I truly believe it can still be avoided, but that choice lies solely with the Iraqi leadership. The proverbial ball is in their court.

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by yardie on 03-09-2003 01:20 AM:

Were the inspectors there for 12 years? Why didn't they set a deadline for the inspectors BEFORE they send them in?

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
So you think it should take 12 years to confirm the destruction of weapons?

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Pages (10): « First ... « 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page