Confirmed: Nuclear Compenents and Docs found in Iraq!

[SDW2001]

[Edit: Comp-O-nents....that's the spelling!)


Where are the WMD?

Here's where:


http://www.msnbc.com/news/931304.asp?0cm=c10

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html


This is proof positive that Iraq was, at least concealing elements of a nuclear weapons programs, whether active or not.

[Scott]

Nothing to see here folks. Giant already proved that Iraq had nothing and even if it did it has decayed away years ago. Bush would be satan but I'm an atheist.

[Akumulator]

:no:

They were concealing these components 12 years ago. BEFORE the first gulf war. Not that impressive of a find in my opinion.

[Scott]

Still a violation of 1441 and a nuke program none the less.


Had we done what ... umm I don't know let's pick a country at random .. France wanted then UN would have lifted everything, given France's pal Saddam a free hand, allowed this to be dug up and the program restarted and ... 10 years from now the Jews would have been nuked.

But that's not France's problem is it? There's cheap oil to be bought.

[giant]

which of these things is not like the others? which of these doesn't belong? [/music]

http://www.25yearsofenergy.gov/images/photos/album_photo84-4.jpg

http://www.aecc.ru/eng/img/m1.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/images/06/25/top.centrifuge.iraq1ex.jpg

I like how WRH said it: "Saying these few parts make a WMD is like finding a couple screws and deciding that this is evidence of a car."

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Akumulator
:no:

They were concealing these components 12 years ago. BEFORE the first gulf war. Not that impressive of a find in my opinion.

Not that impressive? Congratulations! You are the first ostrich of the thread:



http://homepage.mac.com/sdw2001/.Pictures/ostrich.gif

Iraq was banned from having ANY nuclear program whatsoever. ANY evidence of such a program being concealed, whether active or not, is total material breach and direct threat to the national security of the United States. Period. End of story. giant, tonton, pfflam et al: You lose...bigtime. So does every other Demcoratic politician that began to jump on the no WMD bandwagon.

BTW, they also found sacks of plant material that was labeled as fertilizer. Actually, it was the basis for Ricin toxin, not fertilizer.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001


Iraq was banned from having ANY nuclear program whatsoever. ANY evidence of such a program being concealed, whether active or not, is total material breach and direct threat to the national security of the United States. Period.

Sorry, but some forgotten and useless 'screws' are about as far from an 'ugent' and 'immenent threat' as one can get.

Don't you people have any shame?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by giant
which of these things is not like the others? which of these doesn't belong? [/music]

http://www.25yearsofenergy.gov/images/photos/album_photo84-4.jpg

http://www.aecc.ru/eng/img/m1.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/images/06/25/top.centrifuge.iraq1ex.jpg

I like how WRH said it: "Saying these few parts make a WMD is like finding a couple screws and deciding that this is evidence of a car."



Give up. It's over. Iraq concealed nuclear weapons program materials. Active or not, they had it. There is NO argument here. You might as well concede because you are going to get killed on this one.

[giant]

http://www.ms.ornl.gov/researchgroups/composites/images/CPDFpic.jpg

[giant]

http://www.npp.hu/uran/kepek/centri.jpg

and in case you forgot, this is what was found:

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/images/06/25/top.centrifuge.iraq1ex.jpg

have a good night.

[Akumulator]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Not that impressive? Congratulations! You are the first ostrich of the thread:



http://homepage.mac.com/sdw2001/.Pictures/ostrich.gif

Iraq was banned from having ANY nuclear program whatsoever. ANY evidence of such a program being concealed, whether active or not, is total material breach and direct threat to the national security of the United States. Period. End of story. giant, tonton, pfflam et al: You lose...bigtime. So does every other Demcoratic politician that began to jump on the no WMD bandwagon.

BTW, they also found sacks of plant material that was labeled as fertilizer. Actually, it was the basis for Ricin toxin, not fertilizer.

I thought I was more like a pretty unicorn...

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:889r3PiYZIgC:rupert.goulburn.net.au/~wendy/pictures/animals/unicorn.gif

[Scott]

There is no 1441.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
There is no 1441.

Not according to the US Government.

[Scott]

Of course the US thinks there's a 1441. And here's the proof that Iraq violated it and as such suffered "serious consequences".

[pfflam]

If they find WMD then, however much I dislike the administration, it is good for the US and can only be a good thing.

But they need to find more than this in order to justify invading a country
Maybe they will?!?!

Does Castor oil come from Castor bean plants?

[Moogs]

My God, some people are so tied into their politics it's ridiculous. Take a step back and LOOK for crying out loud. This is headline fodder for CNN, period.

Look at the size, number and scale of the parts they have. They could be a part of many types of machinery. Where the hell is the rest of it? Any of it even?! Disintegrated? Shot by Scud into the nearest Black Hole? Next rose bush over?

Either there were centrifuges and large-scale equipment caches for a nuclear program, or there was none. If there were, there simply HAVE to be more parts than this to be found. If there weren't, then this is Hagi's big find at the local black market swap meet. BFD.

This is not a smoking gun ...it's a waft of smokey odor from something that smells sorta like a smoking gun. Find the gun and I'll be impressed. And I don't mean a finished nuke -- that's not what's needed to prove the N part of NBC.

This is weak at best.

[alcimedes]

this is weak, but likely just a start. they're getting people out, giving them places to live and jobs. it'll make it interesting for the next few months, odds are more information will fall into place.

a bit of patience is probably in order here. personally, i get the feeling this is the tip of the iceburg, not the entire package.

[groverat]

It's a nuclear component, part of a prohibited nuclear weapons program with a lot of accompanying documents.

It doesn't matter (WRT UN resolutions) if it's a prohibited centrifuge or a half-built warhead. It's a proscribed nuclear program.

[tonton]

This thread is such a joke. 1991, people. 1991.

These sure look like the high-tech components Iraq needs to conceal just in case they can revive their nucular weapons program. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Doesn't anyone think it's possible these things were simply forgotten?

Knee. Jerk.

[tonton]

Desperation could not be more obvious than this.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
It's a proscribed nuclear program.

And that in turn empowers the United States to attack?

[groverat]

And that in turn empowers the United States to attack?

What do you mean by "empower"?

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
What do you mean by "empower"?

em·pow·er __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(m-pour)
tr.v. em·pow·ered, em·pow·er·ing, em·pow·ers
To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. See Synonyms at authorize.

[fred_lj]

We had to have known something more than meets the eye (which is always the case with our government; the CIA is "the tip of the iceberg" in terms of intelligence) for an attack on Iraq to occur. The middle east needed intervention in some form or fashion, and this is just the beginning I have a feeling. Iran will be next, as soon as the Palestinians and Israelis can be kept from destroying each other. Remember that Israel is by no means defenseless; it has its own nukes. I would in no way want to be in the middle of government at such a time as this. Shudder.....Bush and his team should be praised, not scorned.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Moogs
My God, some people are so tied into their politics it's ridiculous. Take a step back and LOOK for crying out loud. This is headline fodder for CNN, period.

Look at the size, number and scale of the parts they have. They could be a part of many types of machinery. Where the hell is the rest of it? Any of it even?! Disintegrated? Shot by Scud into the nearest Black Hole? Next rose bush over?

Either there were centrifuges and large-scale equipment caches for a nuclear program, or there was none. If there were, there simply HAVE to be more parts than this to be found. If there weren't, then this is Hagi's big find at the local black market swap meet. BFD.

This is not a smoking gun ...it's a waft of smokey odor from something that smells sorta like a smoking gun. Find the gun and I'll be impressed. And I don't mean a finished nuke -- that's not what's needed to prove the N part of NBC.

This is weak at best.


Nice spin but ...

U.S. investigators in Iraq have found equipment for a nuclear weapons program and millions of detailed documents relating to chemical and biological weapons, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.

[alcimedes]

the documentation hurts, but let's face it, those who insist Iraq was innocent and Bush is evil will not be happy no matter what is found.

there will always be an excuse, some justification, some reason why it doesn't matter, doesn't count.

and life goes on.

No Bush for Oil!!!!!

:rolleyes:

[billybobsky]

there is no indication that this was part of an active nuclear program. there was no way that these three chunks of metal and some papers could constitute an active biological, chemical or nuclear program at the point the war began. this is very very weak. i am sure by next week 98% of the us will believe that Saddam buried these pieces just days before the war... :no:

[Scott]

Oh I must have misread 1441? Only "active" programs were proscribed?

[alcimedes]

Experts said the documents and pieces Obeidi gave the United States were the critical information and parts to restart a nuclear weapons program, and would have saved Saddam's regime several years and as much as hundreds of millions of dollars for research.

interesting.....

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by alcimedes
the documentation hurts, but let's face it, those who insist Iraq was innocent and Bush is evil will not be happy no matter what is found.

there will always be an excuse, some justification, some reason why it doesn't matter, doesn't count.

and life goes on.

No Bush for Oil!!!!!

:rolleyes:


No no no!

There were no WMDs! Keep on message/mantra! Say it loud, say it proud! Energize the base! Grab the attention! Foam at the mouth!

Then, just before the election, when the WMDs are finally and loudly found....

Landslide! Term 2!

Perfect!

The Democrats are walking into such an ambush....

Aries 1B

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Oh I must have misread 1441?

Yes, you have. Only it must have been in ways you can't comprehend.

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes
interesting.....

Except that...they were buried...for 12 years...in some guy's backyard.

THAT'S interesting.

If Iraq had any intention of restarting the program at some point after the first Gulf War, why were these things still buried? Did Saddam even know they were still in existence?

I'm sure Iraqi landfills will be full of all sorts of ugly things.

[Scott]

Bunge you may want to stop spinning before you throw up.

[Tulkas]

Ok, so what do we have here?
1)Documents, from as recent as 2001, containing instructions on what to hide and how to hide them. Also included was: how to deceive UN weapons inspectors looking for nuke, chem or bio weapons programs.
2)Buried parts. Small part, yes, but part critical and difficult to reobtain that were not destroyed as Iraq said. Hmmmm...why did they hide them I wonder? I guess they just forgot them. It couldn't be that they intended to use them in a future weapons program.
3)Castor beans. Well, maybe they were going to use them to make oil...guess that why they labeled them as fertilizer. Oh course they wouldn't use them to make ricin. If we can't blame it on the US, it must not be real.


Now, one can stick one's head in they sand about all of this and say it is meaningless, or one can get a grip on reality. There is only one reason for the parts to have been buried. There is only one reason for the documents to have been buried. There is only one reason for the instructions on deceiving the UN and hiding materials. That reason, simply, is to enable the speedy restarting of banned weapons programs. These finds put Iraq so far into violation it isn't funny, yet some still find them meaningless. No one in the admin or military called it a smoking gun. But only a fool would claim it isn't compelling evidence. Unless one's head was in the sand.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Bunge you may want to stop spinning before you throw up.

Check the post two above this one I've quoted. Thanks.

[shetline]

Recent searches in Iraq have also uncovered... this! :wow:

http://www.mts.net/~coinz123/crud/PowerMacG5.jpg

[Scott]

Could one of the moderators delete the annoying large and irrelevant image from this thread. Thanks.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
There is only one reason for the parts to have been buried. There is only one reason for the documents to have been buried. There is only one reason for the instructions on deceiving the UN and hiding materials. That reason, simply, is to enable the speedy restarting of banned weapons programs.

Why where they still buried nearly 15 years later, even after 4+ years of supposed prime WMD making years of Saddam?

[curiousuburb]

Originally posted by groverat
It's a nuclear component, part of a prohibited nuclear weapons program with a lot of accompanying documents.

It doesn't matter (WRT UN resolutions) if it's a prohibited centrifuge or a half-built warhead. It's a proscribed nuclear program.

Whereas North Korea, that has an actual Nuclear Weapons Reprocessing plant in situ, turns off monitoring cameras, publicly announces an intent, and then flagrantly begins building the real stuff gets... um...


Since 1991, UN inspectors have been combing over Iraq. Documents and testimony from Iraqi defectors in US custody since at least 1995 claim all such prohibited weapons were destroyed. Blix and his teams actually supervised the destruction of some missiles, and the IAEA found NO evidence of Nuclear proliferation.

After the US invaded (on the claim Blix couldn't find his butt with both hands) more than "30 specialist teams with equipment and sensitive intelligence not provided to the UN" searched Iraq, presumably honing in on all the places US Intelligence had on their Top 100 list, but didn't feel like sharing, and then went home because "they had run out of places to look and hadn't found anything" < News Headlines documenting these exact quotes are easily googled. >

Curiously, for a US soooo panicked about the risk of a Dirty Bomb sold to terrorists (another justification for removing Saddam), US troops reportedly made no efforts whatsoever to prevent well documented looting of the Iraqi Nuclear Facility, thereby actually facilitating the potential sale of Dirty Bomb materiel. Not even a token Special Forces squad at the only known potential source of Nuclear material in Iraq. Iraqi civilians with high levels of radiation are now coming forward and admitting 'proximity to looting' at this facility, also expressing wonder at the fact the US that seemed soooo interested in stopping a supposed Nuke program were nowhere to be seen as this obvious facility was ransacked.

hmmmm.... colour me skeptical.

tune in next week for the "discovery" of Plutonium (with wet paint in Arabic over the Hanford logo)

Tony Blair is in serious trouble over the WMD fabrications. If he goes, pressure will rise.

[Scott]

UN sanctions were still in effect and Saddam et al didn't want to risk it? Or maybe there are several copies that were unearthed or maybe a million other reasons that don't give Iraq/Saddam an excuse.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
UN sanctions were still in effect and Saddam et al didn't want to risk it?

You mean...he wasn't an imminent threat!!?!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Give up. It's over. Iraq concealed nuclear weapons program materials. Active or not, they had it. There is NO argument here. You might as well concede because you are going to get killed on this one.


Even the CNN story said this wasn't evidence of a nuclear program. You should give up your wishful thinking before you're slaughtered in this one.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html


Still in check.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
It's a nuclear component, part of a prohibited nuclear weapons program with a lot of accompanying documents.

It doesn't matter (WRT UN resolutions) if it's a prohibited centrifuge or a half-built warhead. It's a proscribed nuclear program.


Read my post to SDW.:rolleyes:

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by tonton


Doesn't anyone think it's possible these things were simply forgotten?




I think that's very likely.

[1337_5L4Xx0R]

If you honestly feel that the 'wealth of evidence' found above justifies the actions of your country in the last two years, and helps you sleep better at night, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Going against UN, world opinion, weapons inspectors' advice, militarily infiltrating a country in a volatile part of the world (on false pretexts like "Ties to Al Quaeda" for effect), ravaging America's relationships with virtually every major nation on this planet, killing thousands, plunging said country into chaos and pillaging, losing American soldiers lives in the process, sending half your military in to try to retain some semblance of order, spending billions of (ever devalueing) American Dollars in a time when your economy is in serious trouble...

...with no end in sight, bar complete economic collapse.

Even a flag waving ****ing idiot can see that's not cool.

Can you imagine how many people the Bush Admin has on the ground, searching desperately for some shred of evidence to back up their claims of what a huge and immediate threat to world security Saddam's Iraq was? And this is all they can offer? Months after the war is over, this is the 'decisive proof' your administration can come up with? Let's file this with the empty "chemical weapons warheads" (empty tin cannisters) the weapons inspectors found peacefully, before the war.

Thank god both your Congress and the British equivalent are investigating the trail of gross exaggerations and lies that Blair and Bush propagated as pretext for military violence.

[Anders]

Originally posted by tonton

Doesn't anyone think it's possible these things were simply forgotten?


No. Every nation with just the barebone administrative power doesn´t just lose (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,965231,00.html) track of component of their WoMD program.

[fishdoc]

Man - even the Bush administration isn't saying this is a "smoking gun"....just another in an endless series of reports that they have "found evidence" that later turns out to be either wrong, bogus, or at best not a reasonable justification for war.

In related news:

"The State Department's intelligence division is disputing the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion that mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making biological weapons, United States government officials said today."

I suspect that the Bush administration plans on just continuing to say they have evidence, in the hopes that by sheer force of number of claims they will convince the public. It seems to have worked so far - 22% of Americans believe that Iraq actually USED WMD on US troops, and 1/3 believe we have already found WMD in Iraq.

Fish

[tonton]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Ok, so what do we have here?
1)Documents, from as recent as 2001...

If this is true, then I doubt they would have been forgotten, unless they were buried by someone who was dead, and no one else knew where they were. Were there documents really from 2001?

[giant]

BTW: did no one notice something missing on the cia's site?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html

Don't you hawk wannabes ever learn?

Originally posted by tonton
If this is true, then I doubt they would have been forgotten, unless they were buried by someone who was dead, and no one else knew where they were. Were there documents really from 2001?
Those documents he is referring to are not connected to the CNN story. They were reportedly found in an entirely seperate situation.

[BuonRotto]

This thread is hilarious. People can't even agree on what to argue or disagree on!

[Moogs]

All I'm saying is, it's just as assinine to look at less than a half dozen small machine parts and say "OMFG, proof of a nuclear weapons program!" as it is to say "It's impossible those were obtained to produce a nuclear weapon."

WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW YET. Not even close to knowing. We don't have enough material or enough data (millions of documents my ass, I want something substantial before I'll take my bow and concur that Bush was right all along). No politician will ever get off that easily if I'm the constituent they're "answering to". Hell, I WANT him to find something good ... I really do ... I just don't think he will.

Can we please find a real friggin cache of something resembling weapons-manufacturing machinery before we buy into all this CNN media SPIN (right Scott?)? All I'm asking is for the hawks to think a bit. Doesn't reflect well on any of you to try and defend the implications of this find so vehemently, when there's little that can definitively be said about the find....

[bunge]

Originally posted by Moogs
All I'm asking is for the hawks to think a bit.

*biting my tongue...*

[alcimedes]

*biting my tongue...*

wow, the perfect lefty. ;)

[groverat]

All I'm saying is, it's just as assinine to look at less than a half dozen small machine parts and say "OMFG, proof of a nuclear weapons program!" as it is to say "It's impossible those were obtained to produce a nuclear weapon."

Actually it's not the same at all because a small piece of equipment and some documentation hidden from the inspections process can easily constitute a weapons program and absolutely nothing I have read from the UN reads otherwise.

It's not a matter of subjective "I'm not satisfied because I don't like George". That's neither here nor there.

Iraq had an unauthorized nuclear program. Whatever you read into that is your own problem, not anyone else's.

[BRussell]

Hmm, so they had a pre-1991 nuclear program. We knew that. Israel bombed one of them. They dumped this one during the Gulf War. OK.

Now, the program was by definition never re-started. Doesn't that prove the skeptics' point? I mean, that Sodom actually didn't have any WMD, even though he used to have them?
Originally posted by Aries 1B
[BThen, just before the election, when the WMDs are finally and loudly found....

Landslide! Term 2!

Perfect!

The Democrats are walking into such an ambush....[/B]Hmm, that wouldn't be surprising at all. A nice October surprise for the re-election effort?

[Moogs]

Originally posted by groverat
Actually it's not the same at all because a small piece of equipment and some documentation hidden from the inspections process can easily constitute a weapons program....

This is true, but I frankly don't see a lot of logic in it. That is, logic in how the ruling is constituted. To me, there has to be the capability to make a weapon before there is a "weapons program". Not saying you want to let things slide to the point of that happening, but doing what we did to Iraq was probably justified if there was an actual program. I think all we have so far is a few dinky parts.

IOW, I wonder if they ever came close to an actual "program", nuclear-wise. Of course... this may all be academic, because it's much easier to create and hide a small bio or chemical weapons program than it is a nuclear one. And we certainly have some evidence of those types of programs that is more substantial than the evidence we are describing here. At least, IMO.

[tonton]

If the documents and parts are from 1991 then this means nothing. Nada. Zip.

Look at the parts. These parts are not going to save billions and decades of research. Documents, on the other hand... but I still say these were forgotten or lost.

But if there are documents from 2001, then this is significant. Where's the story about that?

[alcimedes]

Look at the parts. These parts are not going to save billions and decades of research.

ugh, sorta the opposite.

again, in case you missed it the first time through.

Experts said the documents and pieces Obeidi gave the United States were the critical information and parts to restart a nuclear weapons program, and would have saved Saddam's regime several years and as much as hundreds of millions of dollars for research.


sounds like these were key parts, hard to get, hard to replicate. not just random nuts and bolts.

[sammi jo]

Not according to the IAEA. LINK (http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=B7E04EA8-FFAF-4989-87B3-8CF010973C31)

It's mindboggling how some of you folk can give credence to the claims of this administration, after the consistency and blatancy of their lies. I would trust the IAEA over the Bush Adminstration any day. I have about the same degree of trust in Bush (and co) as I have for that other notorious serial liar, Saddam Hussein.

Some further articles:

LINK (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/24/1056220578841.html)

farce (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/26_wmd.html)

Trailer trash (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/international/worldspecial/26WEAP.html?ex=1057204800&en=f85e9019a0a9f568&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

more lies (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_opbody.asp?oid=26690)

[tonton]

Originally posted by sammi jo
It's mindboggling how some of you folk can give credence to the claims of this administration, after the consistency and blatancy of their lies.

New name for Bush (for me anyway): Chicken Little.

[tonton]

From the AP story discrediting the US claims:

"Indirectly challenging a U.S. argument for war on Iraq, the UN atomic agency said Thursday that a find of parts from Baghdad's original nuclear weapons program appears to back its stance that the project had never been reactivated."

Duh. 1991, people.

The argument they make is an excellent one. Bush claimed that Saddam was actively pursuing a nucular arms program on many occasions. He used this as one reason why we needed to go to war now.

Well, if Saddam had been working on reviving the program (as opposed to just thinking about it), wouldn't he have dug that shyt up by now, dontcha think?

So this just proves another one of Bush's lies.

Chicken Little, we will trust you no more.

[bunge]

Hold on here people. Are you saying, that, the President, the President of the United States, the most sacred institution in the whole universe, is deceiving us??!?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by bunge
Hold on here people. Are you saying, that, the President, the President of the United States, the most sacred institution in the whole universe, is deceiving us??!?


What do you think?;) :lol:

[SDW2001]

Well, the responses here sum it up for hopeless Left.

We found components of a NUCLEAR program. We found documents on how to conceal items from the UN inspectors.


....yet, some here are STILL defending Saddam. It's ridiculous. This is irrefutable proof Saddam was able to restart his nuclear program at any time...and also proof he was decieving the UN. I SAY AGAIN: We have proof he was deceiving the UN...and now we have folks saying that Iraq was disarmed ACCORDING TO the UN? :lol:

Sometimes I wonder: If a nuclear missile slammed into Los Angeles and we were somehow able to read "With Love from North Korea" on the side before impact, would the liberals suggest that Bush had it painted on there?


Oh, and BTW: Blix NEVER claimed Iraq was disarmed. Never.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, the responses here sum it up for hopeless Left.

We found components of a NUCLEAR program. We found documents on how to conceal items from the UN inspectors.


....yet, some here are STILL defending Saddam. It's ridiculous. This is irrefutable proof Saddam was able to restart his nuclear program at any time...and also proof he was decieving the UN. I SAY AGAIN: We have proof he was deceiving the UN...and now we have folks saying that Iraq was disarmed ACCORDING TO the UN? :lol:

Sometimes I wonder: If a nuclear missile slammed into Los Angeles and we were somehow able to read "With Love from North Korea" on the side before impact, would the liberals suggest that Bush had it painted on there?


Oh, and BTW: Blix NEVER claimed Iraq was disarmed. Never.

Who's defending Saddam? And where is the proof that Saddam was able to restart his nuclear program at any time? The internet probably holds as much info as the documents that were found.

[Akumulator]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
This thread is hilarious. People can't even agree on what to argue or disagree on!

But we can all agree I'm a beautiful unicorn!

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Akumulator
But we can all agree I'm a beautiful unicorn! I disagree. Mediocre, yes. Beautiful, no way.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, the responses here sum it up for hopeless Left.

We found components of a NUCLEAR program. We found documents on how to conceal items from the UN inspectors.


....yet, some here are STILL defending Saddam. It's ridiculous. This is irrefutable proof Saddam was able to restart his nuclear program at any time...and also proof he was decieving the UN. I SAY AGAIN: We have proof he was deceiving the UN...and now we have folks saying that Iraq was disarmed ACCORDING TO the UN? :lol:

Sometimes I wonder: If a nuclear missile slammed into Los Angeles and we were somehow able to read "With Love from North Korea" on the side before impact, would the liberals suggest that Bush had it painted on there?


Oh, and BTW: Blix NEVER claimed Iraq was disarmed. Never.


Eaaaaaaaaaaaadnt! ( buzzer sound ). Wrong. Didn't you read the CNN article I linked to? More expert men than you say it wasn't evidence of a program or a smoking gun.

Still in check.;)

[SDW2001]

Nuclear components found.

Nuclear components not allowed.

Documents found on how to hide things from Un inspectors

Documents=undeniable proof.



It's that simple. There isn't even an argument here. "Smoking gun". Jesus.

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Documents found on how to hide things from Un inspectors
Documents=undeniable proof.


Sorry, but am I missing something here? I haven't heard anything at all about recent documents except in this thread. Can someone point me to the story?

Like I said, if documents about concealing weapons from 2001 have in fact been found, then it's the most significant find so far. Reason to go to war? Mebbe not. But it's still significant.

[groverat]

Why would it have to be from 2001? If it's not allowed and they didn't declare it then it is streng verboten.

All this "justify a war" talk is garbage because there's no justifying it to those who has already made up their mind not to think it was just.

If the stories of thousands of people being disappeared, mass graves all from Hussein isn't enough to justify the war that successfully got rid of him then there is no convincing you.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
Why would it have to be from 2001? If it's not allowed and they didn't declare it then it is streng verboten.

All this "justify a war" talk is garbage because there's no justifying it to those who has already made up their mind not to think it was just.

If the stories of thousands of people being disappeared, mass graves all from Hussein isn't enough to justify the war that successfully got rid of him then there is no convincing you.


Well you can go right on patting yourselves on the back if you want. The rest of the world is saying this isn't the smoking gun proof you think it is. I'm glad you guys aren't calling the shots.

If you were right about this there wouldn't still be articles like this :

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030707-461781,00.html?cnn=yes

Also your'e right about one thing. A lot of us know about Saddam and his ways. We also know this isn't the only place in the world where this sort of thing happens. Yes, we made up our minds a long time ago that this war wasn't as advertised.

Hmmm? Gosh maybe we should have gone after China when they gunned down those student protesters? Of course we just stood by while South Africa did unspeakable things to their own people. Gosh maybe in the future we should just attack everybody that is unjust to their own?


groverat, nobody here is saying that Saddam was a nice man. However the only reason this war got off the ground was for reasons that haven't been revealed to the american people. They covered them in a nice fluffy frosting of WOMD and Threat to the U.S.

WOMD and threat still hasn't been proven. Even if these parts and drawings could have eventually led to something they didn't. There was no big nuclear arsenal. No WOMD. No threat.

The fact that they weren't supposed to have them isn't the point here. What we're talking about is : Did Iraq have ( already fabricated ) WOMD and in some way were they a threat?

I wonder how many backyards in the world you could dig up and find interesting things?


I'm sorry but the idea that this find justifies everything is really grasping at straws. That argument holds water like a sieve.

[LiquidR]

originally posted by fred_lj
Remember that Israel is by no means defenseless; it has its own nukes.

As I stated in another thread, there is no proof. They are a signee of the NPT and have never tested warheads nor ballistics capable of nuclear delivery. They haven't even made political moves to obtain such devices.

[giant]

Originally posted by LiquidR
originally posted by fred_lj
As I stated in another thread, there is no proof. They are a signee of the NPT and have never tested warheads nor ballistics capable of nuclear delivery. They haven't even made political moves to obtain such devices.

Wrong.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
This is irrefutable proof Saddam was able to restart his nuclear program at any time
Saddam had an internet connection therefore it was possible for him to research weapons of mass destrution at any time. Is that justification for attacking?

The point remains that none of this evidence proves that he actually did restart his program. Answer this question directly SDW: How does the ability to restart the program constitute ACTIVELY PURSUING one?.

You are reaching as usual and are as looney as ever.

[BR]

Originally posted by groverat
If the stories of thousands of people being disappeared, mass graves all from Hussein isn't enough to justify the war that successfully got rid of him then there is no convincing you.

If that was the reason from the start and we went around to every other corrupt dictatorship and did the same thing to free those people, fine.

It still all boils down to this:

Bush asks UN for permission thereby accepting the power of the UN.

UN says no.

Bush doesn't like answer. Bush sends invasion force anyway.

Whether or not the war was just or did any good is irrelevant. Deceiving the American people as to the REASON for the war (which has changed around 6,000 times) is the issue here.

Yes, the war will hopefully end up helping the Iraqi people. That's good. I don't deny that. I do, however, take issue with my president lying to me on a daily basis.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
If the stories of thousands of people being disappeared, mass graves all from Hussein isn't enough to justify the war that successfully got rid of him then there is no convincing you.

It's more about how to justify not going to war in other scenarios now. If it's not the oil, why haven't we invaded the Congo where over three million people have been killed in the past 5 years?

[giant]

Originally posted by bunge
It's more about how to justify not going to war in other scenarios now. If it's not the oil, why haven't we invaded the Congo where over three million people have been killed in the past 5 years?

because Israel doesn't care about Congo

but it is the oil and reconstruction contracts, too

[giant]

Originally posted by groverat

If the stories of thousands of people being disappeared, mass graves all from Hussein isn't enough to justify the war that successfully got rid of him then there is no convincing you.

Of course, most say this situation is worse now:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030627.uiraq0628/BNStory/International/

This is basically what an Iraqi friend of mine was saying last night. Her family finally got a call from some of their relatives thanks to the red cross, and they were pretty damn unhappy about what the US has been doing there. And these folks are assirians, one of the most persecuted groups in the country. Why do you think her family came here?

[Scott]

I heard the fluffy puppies are hurting too.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Aww, look. Scott really cares.

Originally posted by Scott
I heard the fluffy puppies are hurting too.

About the poor ikkle Iwaqi puppies.

The human beings can go and hang themselves, of course. The important thing is that AMERICA WON THE WAR! Way-hay!

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
I heard the fluffy puppies are hurting too.

Just because groverat is no longer a moderator doesn't mean you can make fun of him because he supports a 'humanitarian' war.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by bunge
Just because groverat is no longer a moderator doesn't mean you can make fun of him because he supports a 'humanitarian' war.



:lol:

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Give up. It's over. Iraq concealed nuclear weapons program materials. Active or not, they had it. There is NO argument here. You might as well concede because you are going to get killed on this one.

You will be assimilated or you will be destroyed!

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
No no no!

There were no WMDs! Keep on message/mantra! Say it loud, say it proud! Energize the base! Grab the attention! Foam at the mouth!

Then, just before the election, when the WMDs are finally and loudly found....

Landslide! Term 2!

Perfect!

The Democrats are walking into such an ambush....

Aries 1B

The more you believe that the greater your disappointing next election.

[jimmac]

I wonder how SDW is doing with his morning coffee and the news this morning?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/sprj.irq.bush.sotu/index.html






;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
I wonder how SDW is doing with his morning coffee and the news this morning?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/sprj.irq.bush.sotu/index.html


;)


I see the White House has admitted the intel on the Niger purchase was incorrect. Ok, then. It was incorrect. I have some questions: 1) Why was it incorrect? 2) Who gathered it? 3) Did Bush personally know it was incorrect (or seriously suspected it) when he used it?

Unless #3 is a "yes", this doesn't mean anything politically. In fact, the White House has done exactly what Bush did during the campaign with his DUI. They admitted it, and thereby took the story away.

Look, all partisanship and ideology aside for a second here: The House and Senate are controlled by Republicans and will be until at least next Novemeber. There isn't going to be a witch hunt or Watergate-style investigation/scandal. It's just not going to be politcal reality...even if Bush did lie.

jimmac and company: You can keep running around giggling "Bush is so screwed! Out the door in 2004!" all you want. If it makes you feel better, then go ahead and keep doing it. The political reality is that Aries1B is correct: The Dems have set themelves up yet AGAIN (which even I am starting to find unbelieveable). If significant WMD are found, The Bush administration is going to plaster it everywhere on this free earth. They might even rent billboards! The political reality is that George W. Bush is more than likely to win re-election in a landslide. They set themselves up for the tax cut. They set themselves up for medicare. They set themselves up for the war.

Enjoy your time until the election, though, because when he wins again I'm not going to be a very good winner.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I see the White House has admitted the intel on the Niger purchase was incorrect. Ok, then. It was incorrect. I have some questions: 1) Why was it incorrect? 2) Who gathered it? 3) Did Bush personally know it was incorrect (or seriously suspected it) when he used it?

Unless #3 is a "yes", this doesn't mean anything politically. In fact, the White House has done exactly what Bush did during the campaign with his DUI. They admitted it, and thereby took the story away.

Look, all partisanship and ideology aside for a second here: The House and Senate are controlled by Republicans and will be until at least next Novemeber. There isn't going to be a witch hunt or Watergate-style investigation/scandal. It's just not going to be politcal reality...even if Bush did lie.

jimmac and company: You can keep running around giggling "Bush is so screwed! Out the door in 2004!" all you want. If it makes you feel better, then go ahead and keep doing it. The political reality is that Aries1B is correct: The Dems have set themelves up yet AGAIN (which even I am starting to find unbelieveable). If significant WMD are found, The Bush administration is going to plaster it everywhere on this free earth. Tthey might even rent billboards to tell how wrong the the Dems were. The political reality is that George W. Bush is more than likely to win re-election in a landslide. Enjoy your time until then, though, because when he wins again I'm not going to be a very nice winner.



A scene from the future : SDW is being taken away in a jacket mumbling " There were WOMD in Iraq.....All 50 states.........it's all Katie Courics's fault! "


Come on SDW! I suppose if Bush fries over this it'll be someone elses fault?

The fact of the matter is right now unless Bush and company can come up with a very good ( and plausible ) explanation this is a very major rock in his road.


Cheers ( as they say )!

Still in check.;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
A scene from the future : SDW is being taken away in a jacket mumbling " There were WOMD in Iraq.....All 50 states.........it's all Katie Courics's fault! "


Come on SDW! I suppose if Bush fries over this it'll be someone elses fault?

The fact of the matter is right now unless Bush and company can come up with a very good ( and plausible ) explanation this is a very major rock in his road.


Cheers ( as they say )!

Still in check.;)

Personal insults aside:

If Bush fries over this (which he won't...you can quote me on that), it will be because he's done something so blatantly illegal and stupid that even his own party can't ignore it. The only way this could happen with regards to WMD is if somehow it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt (no legal context intended) that Bush unequivocally KNEW the intelligence was flawed when he used it. It would have to be proven that he intentionally mislead Congress. Let me say that again: INTENTIONALLY.

Now really jimmac, let's go back to Ocham's Razor for a second: Assuming the already unlikely and implausiable event that Bush DID lie as stated above, which do you think is more likely?

1) Bush will take the heat and resign or be removed in a blazing hellfire of shame?

2) Bush's poltical machine will scapegoat someone for faulty intelligence, assigning all blame to a few individuals.

Seriously, you and I both know the answer here. This is even assuming that the administrative team could so shit-all stupid as to let him go out there an knowingly lie to start a war.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Personal insults aside:

If Bush fries over this (which he won't...you can quote me on that), it will be because he's done something so blatantly illegal and stupid that even his own party can't ignore it. The only way this could happen with regards to WMD is if somehow it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt (no legal context intended) that Bush unequivocally KNEW the intelligence was flawed when he used it. It would have to be proven that he intentionally mislead Congress. Let me say that again: INTENTIONALLY.

Now really jimmac, let's go back to Ocham's Razor for a second: Assuming the already unlikely and implausiable event that Bush DID lie as stated above, which do you think is more likely?

1) Bush will take the heat and resign or be removed in a blazing hellfire of shame?

2) Bush's poltical machine will scapegoat someone for faulty intelligence, assigning all blame to a few individuals.

Seriously, you and I both know the answer here. This is even assuming that the administrative team could so shit-all stupid as to let him go out there an knowingly lie to start a war.


But he's president. He was soooooooo sure. No one seemed to want to stop him because he had proof! This is so blatant I vote for number one. The intelligence community is saying that they were telling him it was a falsehood nine months before! Stuff like this can be like pulling thread out of a sweater. Once it starts to unravel other things may come to light and it might not stop! He'd better come up with a good one fast!


Sorry but it's not looking like he will come away from this uneffected. Once a lie has been established the american people don't react so kindly. Just look at Clinton.


Still in check. ;)

[SDW2001]

ut he's president. He was soooooooo sure. No one seemed to want to stop him because he had proof! This is so blatant I vote for number one. The intelligence community is saying that they were telling him it was a falsehood nine months before! Stuff like this can be like pulling thread out of a sweater. Once it starts to unravel other things may come to light and it might not stop!


Sorry but it's not looking like he will come away from this uneffected. Once a lie has been established the american people don't react so kindly. Just look at Clinton.


Still in check.


You've perverted the accusation, jimmac.

What has been said (and hasn't been proved, btw] is that the intel community presented information to "The White House". That doesn't mean it got to him. I would venture to guess that there is a lot of intel coming in to his team, and that only a small pert of it is presented to him BY OTHER PEOPLE.

He won't take the fall. I guarantee you!

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Let me say that again: INTENTIONALLY.


Back to your typical defence of "but Bush is grossly incompetent, not a liar."

Personal insults aside:

really, your posts do the work for us.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
[strawman]



You've perverted the accusation, jimmac.

What has been said (and hasn't been proved, btw] is that the intel community presented information to "The White House". That doesn't mean it got to him. I would venture to guess that there is a lot of intel coming in to his team, and that only a small pert of it is presented to him BY OTHER PEOPLE.

He won't take the fall. I guarantee you!


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Geez!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by giant
Back to your typical defence of "but Bush is grossly incompetent, not a liar."



really, your posts do the work for us.

Ohhh! Two strawmen in one field Mommy!

I never said Bush was incompetent...you did. Proving that would be difficult as well. If the intelligenc eitself was wrong, does that make HIM incompetent? No. What if the people that collected the intelligence changed it when they presented it to Bush's team? What if someone on the team itself distorted it when it was presented to Bush? Does this make Bush incompetent? No.

The hunt for WMD is not over, even though you'd like it to be. Even if WMD is not found (and my contention is that it may have already been or wll be before the next election), Bush is NOT going to take the fall. You can't possibly be so naive as to think he will...even if he is guilty.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Ohhh! Two strawmen in one field Mommy!

I never said Bush was incompetent...you did. Proving that would be difficult as well. If the intelligenc eitself was wrong, does that make HIM incompetent? No. What if the people that collected the intelligence changed it when they presented it to Bush's team? What if someone on the team itself distorted it when it was presented to Bush? Does this make Bush incompetent? No.

The hunt for WMD is not over, even though you'd like it to be. Even if WMD is not found (and my contention is that it may have already been or wll be before the next election), Bush is NOT going to take the fall. You can't possibly be so naive as to think he will...even if he is guilty.


Talk about straw you're clutching at them!


Look I've got to go to work but I'll be back. We'll see how the day unfolds.;)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You can't possibly be so naive as to think he will...even if he is guilty. Is this really all it's about to you? Reelection? I've noticed in several war threads now, you just say "yeah, but he'll be re-elected, even if he is guilty." We all understand, from the other political threads you've started, that you really really want Bush re-elected. But what about simple right and wrong?

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I never said Bush was incompetent.

Sorry, but anyone who really looked at the evidence knew that what was being presented was BS. The president is ultimately responsible not only for the decisions he makes, but for the fate of the country militarily. The buck stops there.

Really there are only two possibilities: he is grossly incompetent or he lied.

And hasn't your belief system been decimated enough?

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
What has been said (and hasn't been proved, btw] is that the intel community presented information to "The White House". That doesn't mean it got to him.

He's still 100% responsible.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BRussell
Is this really all it's about to you? Reelection? I've noticed in several war threads now, you just say "yeah, but he'll be re-elected, even if he is guilty." We all understand, from the other political threads you've started, that you really really want Bush re-elected. But what about simple right and wrong?

No. Of course not. I don't believe Bush knowingly lied. If I see evidence he did, then we have a problem. So far, I have zeen about zero evidence of that. Zero. All we have is questions which laypeople can't usually know the answers to right away.

Sorry, but anyone who really looked at the evidence knew that what was being presented was BS. The president is ultimately responsible not only for the decisions he makes, but for the fate of the country militarily. The buck stops there.

Really there are only two possibilities: he is grossly incompetent or he lied.

And hasn't your belief system been decimated enough?

Let's look at giants debate techniques:

The first sentence tries to make the old "reasonable person" argument. Basically, he's saying "anyone who saw what I saw would agree". Ummm. No.

The second and third sentences are a perversion of the "responsible for the conduct of the crew under my command" idea. If this logic is taken to the extreme, Bush could be help responsible for a Captain in the Army cheating on his wife (a court martial offense).

The next part about possibilities is a classic use of the "False Dilemma" debate tactic. The debator presents two choices when in fact there are many more possibilities. Either way, the choices benefit the presenter. Nice try.

The last part is what I call the "disqualification" technique. The presenter attempts to invalidate the argument by invalidating not the argument, but the opponent himself. Again, nice try.

The answer to your question, btw, is no. My belief system has been anything but disproven. It is liberals like you who have been proven wrong on virtually every national security issue since the Cold War.

And bunge: I disagree. He can't be held responsible (legally or probably, politically) if the information given to him by trusted advisors was flawed. He can rhetorically assume it, but it it's kind of meaningless to say "he's responsible". As I said, by your logic Clinton should have been tried for manslaughter for every casualty in the military under his command.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The first sentence tries to make the old "reasonable person" argument. Basically, he's saying "anyone who saw what I saw would agree". Ummm. No.

Ummm, yeah.

I liked how blix put it:

"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons," Blix said in an interview with the New York Times.

"I don't see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied" existing reports by UN inspectors, he said.

"Is the United Nations on a different planet? Are reports from here totally unread south of the Hudson?"


The second and third sentences are a perversion of the "responsible for the conduct of the crew under my command" idea.

By definition of his job he is responsible. Oh, and by defintion of his his, he is the one who holds responsibility for leading us to war.

The next part about possibilities is a classic use of the "False Dilemma" debate tactic.

It's not a debate tactic, it's the simple truth. Any alternative you've presented falls squarely under incompetence. The fact is that anyone who looked at the reports knew there was no threat. So either he lied or is grossly incompetent. An, no, you can't put the blame on anyone else for Bush's actions.

The last part is what I call the "disqualification" technique. The presenter attempts to invalidate the argument by invalidating not the argument, but the opponent himself...My belief system has been anything but disproven. It is liberals like you who have been proven wrong on virtually every national security issue since the Cold War.

Well, while you are looking to rationalize yourself out of your sad, sad pit, the rest of us are dealing with reality. How many threads have you started saying 'look WMD' and have turned out to be false? The sheer number of times you have been so blatantly and royally WRONG is enough to make the earth spin backwards.

He can't be held responsible (legally or probably, politically) if the information given to him by trusted advisors was flawed.
Yes he can. Any dipshit that is that incompetent needs to go. Refer to Blix's quote above.

[SDW2001]

Ummm, yeah.

I liked how blix put it:

"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons," Blix said in an interview with the New York Times.

"I don't see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied" existing reports by UN inspectors, he said.

"Is the United Nations on a different planet? Are reports from here totally unread south of the Hudson?"



Hans Blix is an idiot. He was the 23rd choice for his job. He was consistently anti-American and anti-war. His job was not to prevent war. His job was to disarm Iraq. In any case, the quote above makes it seem as if Blix was saying that there were no real weapons. That's your INTERPRETATION of his comments. It could have easily meant that such WMD were incredibly compact and more stealthily hidden than US forces thought. Nice try.



By definition of his job he is responsible. Oh, and by defintion of his his, he is the one who holds responsibility for leading us to war.


If the intelligence presented to him was flawed, then he cannot be held responsible. Period. It's academic anyway.



It's not a debate tactic, it's the simple truth. Any alternative you've presented falls squarely under incompetence. The fact is that anyone who looked at the reports knew there was no threat. So either he lied or is grossly incompetent. An, no, you can't put the blame on anyone else for Bush's actions.


What reports? The UN's? :lol:

The UN iteself was unbelievably incompetent and spineless. You CANNOT be putting faith in the toothless inspection regime, now can you? And who do you mean by anyone? You? Did you look at the them? Show me the relevant passages showing that Iraq had clearly disarmed. It wasn't *just* about imminent threat, it was about IRAQ DISARMING.
Your argument is pompous and arrogant. "Anyone who looked at the report would conclude there was no threat..." My God. Apparently not. Apparently such ignorama as Colin Powell, Dr. Condi Rice and George Tenet don't agree with you.



Well, while you are looking to rationalize yourself out of your sad, sad pit, the rest of us are dealing with reality. How many threads have you started saying 'look WMD' and have turned out to be false? The sheer number of times you have been so blatantly and royally WRONG is enough to make the earth spin backwards.


Which threads were those? I starred one about the inspectors finding banned chemical warheads. Those weren't disproven. I also started the Nuclear centrifuge thread...which to my knowledge hasn't been disproven either. Which times have I been wrong?? Show me even ONE time on this issue!!!





Yes he can. Any dipshit that is that incompetent needs to go. Refer to Blix's quote above. [/broken record]

[b]False Dilemma. Say it with me. You still haven't answered: Why is it that Bush is incompetent if he was presented with faulty intel ? BTW, this is academic as well...because the hunt for WMD is not over.

[giant]

Sorry, SWF, but you spend far too much time speculating and far too little time actually studying the intelligence community.

Here's a couple books to get you started:

The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public & Political
On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World

Once you are done with those, it would be a good idea to spend a couple years paying attention to some of the private intel services like stratfor. Subscribe to them and watch over the course of a couple of years for patterns.

During this time, do a search at www.theatlantic.com for articles on inteligence aquisition, analysis and communication.

Next, do the same thing at the New Yorker.

Both of the above magazines have had some of the most well respected articles on current events in the intel community published over the past 15 years, which has been a great time of flux.

Next, go to www.newamericancentury.org and read all of the articles there. PNAC is the repository of papers written by admin officials that have directed our foreign policy through their posts in the Bush admin.

Next, go to www.foreignaffairs.org and sign up for a year subscription (only $32). It is THE 'industry publication' and the articles are written by the acedemics and global admin officials involved in the decision making processes (Rice and Rumsfeld both wrote articles last year). But you should already know that if you are informed enough to comment on the Bush admin and it's policies and inner workings.

Last, but not least, take a class or two on American Politics from a respectable university.

When you have done all this, maybe you will be in a better position to for a view of the global intelligence community and American politics that is at least halfway realistic.

[shetline]

Originally posted by giant
Sorry, SWF
Didn't you mean SDW, as in short for SDW2001? But I guess you're too busy using your awesome powers of global awareness to fuss over little details like using the right names.

[...some condescension and book recommendations removed...]
Once you are done with those, it would be a good idea to spend a couple years [emphasis mine]paying attention to some of the private intel services like stratfor. Subscribe to them and watch over the course of a couple of years for patterns.

Sort of the way John Nash spent years finding patterns in A Beautiful Mind? How are your supplies of colored string and push pins holding out?

During this time [...instructions on how to emulate the life of our intensely acute hero, giant, removed.]

When you have done all this, maybe you will be in a better position to for a view of the global intelligence community and American politics that is at least halfway realistic.

SDW: Yes, do all of this, and in a few years maybe, just maybe, you'll have attained enough enlightenment to shuffle around the outskirts of giant's Higher Consciousness.

giant: Perhaps you need to find another forum... hard as this might be... where your intellectual equals might be found. Well, not equals... I mean, ppfhh! Let's get real... But perhaps a few special individuals who are maybe 75-80% up to your level, so it's not too painful for you to have to explain your wisdom and insight... something which is obviously an altogether too difficult task to expect among the cretinous, ignorant swine on AI.

Chances are I'm actually much closer to you than SDW2001 when it comes opinions on Iraq and WoMB... but that doesn't make you any less insufferable.

[giant]

Originally posted by shetline
Didn't you mean SDW, as in short for SDW2001? But I guess you're too busy using your awesome powers of global awareness to fuss over little details like using the right names.

It was intentional. But, sorry, I know you consider it condesending to point out the obvious.

giant: Perhaps you need to find another forum... hard as this might be... where your intellectual equals might be found. Well, not equals... I mean, ppfhh! Let's get real... But perhaps a few special individuals who are maybe 75-80% up to your level, so it's not too painful for you to have to explain your wisdom and insight... something which is obviously an altogether too difficult task to expect among the cretinous, ignorant swine on AI.

You seem to be feeling a bit inadequate. Or do you just have a crush?

So now I get penalized for actually studying something before talking about it? Hmmm.

AI's not the problem, certain indivudals that either preach the benefits of ignorant opinion (or just live by it) are.

And why focus on me, when SJO can't post a letter without the boys club ridiculing her? Oh yeah, because you are just full of sh*tline (FYI: intentional).

[giant]

Oh, PS. My first post in FC and all thereafter predicted the outcome of this war, and was followed by intense abuse including swear words referring to my mother's genitalia. All because I pointed out a year ago that the Bush admin was lying. Those same people are the ones I've singled out, particularly the ones that were either banned or otherwise restrained by moderators. Sorry, but you're pointing your stick in the wrong direction. When I start calling your parents names because you point out that the sky is blue, then you can commence your attack on me.

[shetline]

Originally posted by giant
You seem to be feeling a bit inadequate. Or do you just have a crush?
I couldn't possibly have as big a crush on you as you have on yourself.

So now I get penalized for actually studying something before talking about it? Hmmm.

No penalty at all for studying. For lording it over other people, yes.

There are plenty of intelligent, well-educated people out there in the world who can convey what they know without condescension, who can explain what they know and inspire further exploration, rather than using what they know as a convenient excuse for not having to bother explaining themselves to their "lessers". You are not one of these people.

And why focus on me, when SJO can't post a letter without the boys club ridiculing her?

I've both disagreed and agreed with sammi jo. I've occasionally found her frustrating, but I've also found her informative and have learned a thing or two from her. She is a better communicator than you, and doesn't even come close to your arrogance. You show very little inclination to explain and discuss, and a great inclination to assert, bicker, condescend, and pose.

Oh yeah, because you are just full of sh*tline (FYI: intentional).

How comforting to know that after years of education and study that you haven't lost touch with your fifth grade sense of humor.

[SDW2001]

First, thanks shetline. You're the kind of person I respect because you can disagree with someone without insulting him for having a different opinion.

As for you giant, not only is your last post (^) ridiculous, it is, as usual, in violation of the posting guidelines.

...full of sh*tline (FYI: Intentional)

That's over the top.

Expectedly, you strut around the forum as if you are somehow more informed than the rest of us because you read the New Yorker (:lol:) and subscribe to foreignaffairs.org. That is a prepostorous supposition. The kind of information we are talking about here is stuff that is NOT YET available to the general public. As much as you'd like to think otherwise, that includes you. Read the excrutiatingly liberal New Yorker all you want...it won't help you defeat common sense and general reason, which tell us that as ordinary citizens, we DON'T KNOW everything the government knows.

In almost every thread, you label other's opinions ignorant. You are the definitive example of the kind of elitist, guilty, white liberal America-blaming snob I like to reference. I don't think there is a better example. After all, it is only your side...(the Left side by the way) that owns the concepts of equality, compassion, freedom of speech and press. Conservatives are simply not allowed to have opinions contrary to yours, and if they do, they are idiots, simpletons, jingoists, war mongers and racists.

A college degree can be a useful tool and mind-opening experience. But a few classes at a prestigous Ivy-league school or small *liberal* arts (ha) college won't change the the principles I hold dear. And that's really the issue here, isn't it? True elitist liberals like yourself have the rather convenient and feel-good notion that if only the conservative position was just a little more educated and diversified, than perhaps...just perhaps it would agree with you. That's called a self-reinforcing delusion.

Your argument is that Iraq doesn't and didn't have WMD. I say that's unbelieveably wrong, given all that we know about Saddam Hussein's Iraq. You say there was no threat. I say that's pretty naive in a post 9/11 world where even a small vial of a chemical agent given to a group like Al-Qadea could make the aformentioned world-altering day look small by comparison. You say that George W. Bush lied or was incompetent, when there is no evidence of either possibility. You say the hunt for WMD is over, as if you would know. You say all this and more, and then loudly trumpet your assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Unbelievably though, it is your side that has (as I said) been wrong on nearly every national security issue in the 20th century, from Soviet Expansionism to the first Gulf War, the Left has been on the wrong side of history every time.

Your little condescending rant aside, you have become a parody of yourself. Happy Posting.


SDW

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I say that's pretty naive in a post 9/11 world where even a small vial of a chemical agent given to a group like Al-Qadea could make the aformentioned world-altering day look small by comparison.
Let's bomb all US based educational facilities that don't have the tighest security surrounding their chemical labs. Remember all that anthrax in the mail? American origins, dorkhole.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
Let's bomb all US based educational facilities that don't have the tighest security surrounding their chemical labs. Remember all that anthrax in the mail? American origins, dorkhole.

Two Words:

Saddam Hussein

[giant]

Originally posted by shetline

There are plenty of intelligent, well-educated people out there in the world who can convey what they know without condescension
And apparently you aren't one of them. The very fact that you 'scold' me for my posting demonstrates that you think you are in a superior position.
I've both disagreed and agreed with sammi jo. I've occasionally found her frustrating, but I've also found her informative and have learned a thing or two from her. She is a better communicator than you, and doesn't even come close to your arrogance. You show very little inclination to explain and discuss, and a great inclination to assert, bicker, condescend, and pose.

Good job at completely missing the point and only reinforcing the point I was making. And you wonder why I question some posters' abilities...

How comforting to know that after years of education and study that you haven't lost touch with your fifth grade sense of humor.

Interesting. You seem to think that education comes at a detriment to other areas of life. Hell, the assumptions you've made are amazing. Education is a result of interest in a topic and a desire to see it clearly.

And sorry my sense of humor isn't up to your standards. Wasn't it you that got on SJO's case for talking about maturity? Your condensation just came full circle and bit you in the ass.

Nice doing business with you. Come back when you stop complaining about your own behavior.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
. The kind of information we are talking about here is stuff that is NOT YET available to the general public.

Isn't this the same thing you said when I posted all of the intel the bush admin had on Iraq? It's even been revealed 1000 times over that it was all they had. Anyone even remotely connected with Intelligence knows that in todays world everything significant is out in the open. It is the age of Open Intelligence. This is the huge shift in global intel that anyone who has spent even 10 minutes studying it knows.

You talking about closed intelligence is like a luddite saying os x is sold for intel. Not only do you have no clue what you are talking about, but you are completely wrong.

Unfortunately, you are actually more like a luddite who has seen numerous times that os x is not sold for intel, yet you ignorantly still believe it.

FACT: the idea that there is crucial info not available to the 'general public' is Hollywood rinky-dink. The real control of information in today's world lies squarely in marketing. Hence why a year ago I presented you with the info that we are now seeing such a big deal about.

Hell, it wasn't even a secret that the info being used in the buildup to the Iraq war was OPEN. The expressed purpose of the Office of Special Plans was to take accessable information and make a case for war.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I say that's pretty naive in a post 9/11 world where even a small vial of a chemical agent given to a group like Al-Qadea could make the aformentioned world-altering day look small by comparison.

Which chemical is that, SDW? You seem to know a lot about effectiveness of chemical weapons to make such a bold statement. So what are you referring to? Sarin? Mustard Gas? What?

I challenge you to point out one chemical agent that one vial of which could cause anything remotely like the toll on Sept. 11.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by giant
Which chemical is that, SDW? You seem to know a lot about effectiveness of chemical weapons to make such a bold statement. So what are you referring to? Sarin? Mustard Gas? What?

I challenge you to point out one chemical agent that one vial of which could cause anything remotely like the toll on Sept. 11.

Hope you don't mind my butting in.

Three actually, Nerve V-X agent, Cyclosarin & Sarin.
The latter two involved in the horrific attack on the people of Halabji in Iraq, march 17th 1988.

This one attack chemical attack killed over 5000 civilians.. mostly women and babies. It also left over 7000 permanently injured, blinded, birth deformities and other conditions directly related to the attack.
So consider your question / challenge answered.

You may be bright Giant, no one doubts that, but aside from that, your choice of comparatives is tasteless in the extreme. With your academic background..you should know better.

[giant]

Originally posted by aquafire
Hope you don't mind my butting in.

Three actually, Nerve V-X agent, Cyclosarin & Sarin.
The latter two involved in the horrific attack on the people of Halabji in Iraq, march 17th 1988.

This one attack chemical attack killed over 5000 civilians.. mostly women and babies. It also left over 7000 permanently injured, blinded, birth deformities and other conditions directly related to the attack.
So consider your question / challenge answered.

You may be bright Giant, no one doubts that, but aside from that, your choice of comparatives is tasteless in the extreme. With your academic background..you should know better.

Actually, no. You are factually wrong on may counts, and in the process actually prove my point.

First the factual problems:

Halabja, not halabji

Secondly, you are lying about what was used. The only known chemical used was Mustard Gas. Beyond that the likely chemical used was cyanide or *possibly* *unknown* nerve agent(s). There are conflicting studies on this and you naming random chemicals is either pure fabrication or aquisition of information solely from secondary sources.

Furthewrmore, tons of these chemicals were dropped on Halabja(h) in multiple runs, so the fact that tons of the agents caused the deaths of 5000 means that one small vial will do immensely less.

As such, my challenge has been far from met and you have only succeeded in proving my point for me. Thank you.

As for the 'academic' label that has recently been pinned to me, maybe you should think twice about stereotyping. Especially right after you've been demonstrated to be so dead wrong.

[giant]

Check out Josh Marshall pointing out that Fleischer flat out lied in the recent exchange:

It's usually a bad sign when a criminal defendant has half a dozen defenses against the same charge. You know the drill: I couldn't have been there. I have an alibi. But if I was there I didn't have my glasses. And if I did have my glasses, then I saw someone else do it. And if I did it, well, let me tell you what happened to me when I was three ...

Needless to say, this brings us to Mr. Ari Fleischer.

An alert reader just brought Richard Stevenson's article in the Times' today to my attention -- and in particular this quote ...
But Mr. Fleischer said Mr. Wilson's report was vague and did not specifically address the main problem with the intelligence, that documents purporting to document Iraq's efforts were almost certainly forged.

"He spent eight days in Niger and concluded that Niger denied the allegation," Mr. Fleischer said. "Well, typically nations don't admit to going around nuclear nonproliferation."
Let's take this one step at a time.

First of all, Fleischer is lying. Wilson didn't conclude that Niger "denied the allegation." He concluded, after investigating the allegations from a number of vantage points, that the purported sale was close to impossible, or at least quite unlikely. The reasoning turned on the structure of Niger's uranium consortium, how the uranium is accounted for, and how much Iraq was alleged to have purchased. (Why Stevenson didn't note this, shall we say, 'discrepancy' I have no idea.)

Fleischer is lying -- there's no other way to describe it -- about what Wilson's report said to make it seem less significant than it was. (If Fleischer had said Wilson's reasoning was flawed or his investigation incomplete, then you could say he was spinning or distorting. But saying he said something completely different from what he said means he's lying.) He's making it seem less significant than it was to make it appear less culpable that the White House ignored his findings. But the White House's story is that it never heard about his findings. So why the need to discredit his report?

The answer is obvious. They're trying to set up multiple lines of defense.

We didn't hear about it. But if we did hear about it, it didn't amount to much so we ignored it.

Let's have one defense and stick with it, okay?

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by giant


( A ) Halabja, not halabji

( B ) Secondly, you are lying about what was used. The only known chemical used was Mustard Gas. Beyond that the likely chemical used was cyanide or *possibly* *unknown* nerve agent(s). There are conflicting studies on this and you naming random chemicals is either pure fabrication or aquisition of information solely from secondary sources.

( C ) Furthewrmore, tons of these chemicals were dropped on Halabja(h) in multiple runs, so the fact that tons of the agents caused the deaths of 5000 means that one small vial will do immensely less.



( D ) As for the 'academic' label that has recently been pinned to me, maybe you should think twice about stereotyping. Especially right after you've been demonstrated to be so dead wrong.

REPLY

( A ) I mis-spelt it ..wow..not bad for a 2 AM stint.

( B )
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm

( C ) I responded in relation to "effect " not dispersal method. A vial of any of those would kill the same number if not more than 9/11. If you had dropped any one of those vials ( with appropriate atomizing carrier vapour / gases) into the airconditioning units of the WTC towers it would have caused more deaths.since there would have been no warning until people started dropping like flies all around you..

So your point is mute..you don't have an argument unless you can arrange for two seperate but matching buildings to be attacked..one with sarin etc & the other with a fully laden jet..
Same number of people in each building..no warnings no protective suits nothing...

Gas would win hands down....like I said, even if you managed to fully evacuate, the gas / toxin would have already commenced its insidious work..

( D ) If my memory serves me correct, your the one who started throwing your alleged academic mantle around..telling everyone how hard you worked & how much your education cost..blah blah..Sounds like you wasted your money...

As regards calling me a liar, all I can say is you must have graduated frm the Adolf Eichmann school of diplomacy...

So Giant, :lol:

It really wouldn't hurt you to have a little humility..who knows...you might learn something..

Good luck with that janitor's job of yours..hope you keep it...
Aquafire.:p

[shetline]

Originally posted by aquafire
( A ) I mis-spelt it ..wow..not bad for a 2 AM stint.
Quite kind of you to not point out giant's wonderful spellings like "Furthewrmore". Of course, that's merely a typo of an English word, and not nearly so important for demonstrating one's erudition as the spelling of "Halabja".

It really wouldn't hurt you to have a little humility..who knows...you might learn something..

I wonder if he'll pay any attention if a diverse enough group of people keep noticing this.

[giant]

Originally posted by shetline
Quite kind of you to not point out giant's wonderful spellings like "Furthewrmore". Of course, that's merely a typo of an English word, and not nearly so important for demonstrating one's erudition as the spelling of "Halabja".


Of course, the obvious difference is that he didn't accidentally hit the key typing.

But then again, who are you to talk sh*line. This is another case of you criticizing people for things you did first. You are the biggest hypocrite on these boards. Get a life.

[giant]

Originally posted by aquafire

[quote]
( B )
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm

So I point out that there are conflicting reports (which a little research would reveal to you, and you link to a press release (not even one of the 4 or 5 actual studies) and consider it case closed. Good job at flat out additmitting you are willing to ignore evidence and only superficialy research in a feeble attempt to prove a point.

( C ) I responded in relation to "effect " not dispersal method. A vial of any of those would kill the same number if not more than 9/11.
No it wouldn't. That's simply false.

( D ) If my memory serves me correct, your the one who started throwing your alleged academic mantle around

Your memory does not serve you correctly. I just advocate actually studying something at least a little before actually forming an opinion. Go back and look, then shut the **** up.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by giant
Of course, the obvious difference is that he didn't accidentally hit the key typing.
Hey Giant..read thread..didn't say anything about accidently hitting, I just simply mis-spelt it ..there ya go Giant. does it make you feel better ?

Another lesson in real intellectualism as opposed to your psuedo intelectualism..

You get to admit your mistakes..that's what grown ups do....:p

[giant]

Originally posted by aquafire
Another lesson in real intellectualism as opposed to your psuedo intelectualism..


Look at this. I advocate that people should at least study a little before forming an opinion and all of a sudden words like academic and intellectualism get thrown around as an insult

So basically you think that informing your view is not important. In other words, you admit to being knowingly ignorant.

Your only defense after being demonstrated wrong is, 'only assholes inform their opinions!' Get a clue.

[giant]

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=402037&#post402037

there ya go, aquafire. I got on sh*tline's case for making an opinon on something without reading it (which he admited he did) and other posters started calling it 'academic elitism.' The only mention of my work was in direct refence to 'sea of information,' which quite frankly I'm in the middle of. What, is trumptman now an asshole for mentioning his real estate investments when the discussion turns to real estate?

Regardless, it was others that brought it up, so don't throw around baseless accusations.

[shetline]

Originally posted by giant
Look at this. I advocate that people should at least study a little before forming an opinion and all of a sudden words like academic and intellectualism get thrown around as an insult

So basically you think that informing your view is not important. In other words, you admit to being knowingly ignorant.

Your only defense after being demonstrated wrong is, 'only assholes inform their opinions!' Get a clue.
Time and time again, people have explained what it is that they find so obnoxious about your approach and attitude, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we think it's good to study and have well-informed opinions, it has nothing to do with advocating ignorance over true academic and intellectual virtues.

Given how little you're getting out of what's being said to you in the small, easily-digested confines of this one thread, I'm certainly not inclined to believe, no matter how much and how widely you've read, that your understanding of what you've read is particularly profound or particularly free from bias.

When someone points, look at where they're pointing, rather than staring at the end of their finger.

[giant]

Originally posted by shetline
Time and time again, people have explained what it is that they find so obnoxious about your approach and attitude, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we think it's good to study and have well-informed opinions, it has nothing to do with advocating ignorance over true academic and intellectual virtues.

No, time and time again, just go a couple posts back, people have thrown around words like 'acedemic' in an attempt to insult, especially when just proven wrong about something.

Of course, they wouldn't be forming unrealitic views if they took a moment to actually look up what they are talking about.

Given how little you're getting out of what's being said to you in the small, easily-digested confines of this one thread, I'm certainly not inclined to believe, no matter how much and how widely you've read, that your understanding of what you've read is particularly profound or particularly free from bias.

Intesting. Note what your citicism of me in the thread cited above:
You're also being evasive if you don't come out and state your opinion on this matter...Or do you wish to cop out and leave it at "Well, there's something funny going on, anyone who bothers can see it, and I'm not saying any more."?

Here's a news flash: did you ever stop and thing that maybe *gasp* I realize that it is premature to settle on an theory. Sure, there are very clear broader directions that the evidence points, but the situation is far too complex for anyone (probably even including the people involved) to claim they know exactly what happened.

So in one place you attack me for not prematurely forming an opinion, but in other places you consider it a bad thing. At least have some consistancy.

Hell, just in the post above you can see my exchange with aguefire where I point out that he is coming to a premature conclusion based on insuficient evidence (regarding chemicals used).

Sorry, but that accusation of yours also falls flat.

When someone points, look at where they're pointing, rather than staring at the end of their finger.

Um, every thing you pointed at has been exactly what you yourlself do, right down to exact words. Maybe you need to stop all your pointing and look at yourself.

[pfflam]

What's your point shetline? Maybe it's you who are showing off?! reaming your your elloquence down our throats? and your ability to be 'non-biased' by continually, and to my mind pointlessly, attacking Giant.

Maybe he feels that his position allows him more exposure to a 'sea of info' than most people and he lets us know. So what?!?!

Its better than having groundless fixated opinions and party politics that have virtually nothing but radio-talk show logic as a basis for political ideas . . . . especially when the stakes are America's standing on the world's stage and the lives of young American men and women . . . not to speak of Iraqis . . . .

So giant lords it over SD... etc, so what? maybe he needs to know that a sea of facts is better than rabidly clung-to positions without foundation.

you're an intelligent guy, why are you posing? There are real issues in this and similar threads let's not derail them without reason . . .

[shetline]

Originally posted by giant
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=402037&#post402037

there ya go, aquafire. I got on sh*tline's case for making an opinon on something without reading it (which he admited he did) and other posters started calling it 'academic elitism.'
I'll "admit" something else about skimming: I skimmed a lot of material in college too, while others were carefully plodding through every word of their texts, marking key phrases with yellow highlighter. My classroom notes were a sparse scrawl. Yet somehow I managed to graduate Summa Cum Laude, with a 3.96 GPA, at the top of my class in the College of Computer Science division of the university I attended.

(Oh, I can see it already... rather than seeing what I've just said in the context of this conversation, you'll be ready to jump on my case for hypocritically flaunting my own academic credentials. And you really won't see a difference.)

I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.

There. Maybe that will sink in.

What I dismiss is your automatic dismissal of any opinion formed by any other method.

What I dismiss is your approach of saying essentially, "Here's the stack of books and articles that I've read. Come back in a few years when your stack is just as high, and then maybe you'll be worthy of breathing the air I exhaled when stating my opinion."

[giant]

Originally posted by shetline
My classroom notes were a sparse scrawl. Yet somehow I managed to graduate Summa Cum Laude, with a 3.96 GPA, at the top of my class in the College of Computer Science division of the university I attended.


I can't ****ing believe you. Never have I bragged about my academic standing, gpa or anything here. The closest I've come is in discussions of access to info, where I point out I have great access to info.

Basically all you are saying is 'look how smart I am! I graduated colledge without trying!' Talk about trying to act superior and using academics to prop up your standing.

Here's a hint: college is designed to help you graduate. The hardest part is paying for it.

Hell, what you got mad at me about was directing SDW to specific publication about intelligence when he was talking about intelligence.

You are such a damn hypocrite.

(Oh, I can see it already... rather than seeing what I've just said in the context of this conversation, you'll be ready to jump on my case for hypocritically flaunting my own academic credentials. And you really won't see a difference.)

I have never tried to use academic 'rank' to validate a point; I use info specific to the issue. Whenever I have discussed education it has been in relation to a particular subject.

The fact that you think the above matters at all just demonstrates the elitist attitude you harbor. It doesn't matter what credentials you have, what matters is whether or not you have bother to inform your view.

I don't care if you never finished the eigth grade. What's important is taking the effort to learn about things before forming views.

I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.

But apparently you think that graduating college by skimming somehow exempts you from actually informing yourself on any particular subject.



"Here's the stack of books and articles that I've read. Come back in a few years when your stack is just as high, and then maybe you'll be worthy of breathing the air I exhaled when stating my opinion."

What I listed was in reference to a particular subject that SDW was commenting on and obviously knew nothing about. If he was saying that OS X was unix based and that humans have 6 legs, I would have sent him towards info on that.

That is very different from acting like you and thinking that your GPA is at all relevant.

[shetline]

Originally posted by pfflam
What's your point shetline? Maybe it's you who are showing off?! reaming your your elloquence down our throats? and your ability to be 'non-biased' by continually, and to my mind pointlessly, attacking Giant.
Perhaps I've just let my emotions get the better of me, but damn it, I've really found giant to have been particularly insufferable of late.

Perhaps it's because underneath all the smoke and flames, my opinions are certainly a lot closer to giant than to SDW on most things. That's what's annoying. Given giant's recent "prove your academic balls are as big as mine before you speak, you ignorant peon" approach to things, I'd rather not have him on my side in a debate.

Showing off? Maybe a little... but don't most people post on message boards because they like to hear themselves type? :D

Maybe he feels that his position allows him more exposure to a 'sea of info' than most people and he lets us know. So what?!?!

Merely grandstanding in-and-of-itself wouldn't be so bad. If he's worked hard, maybe he's earned a little puffery. But giant does not use his knowledge very well to elucidate or inform, to explain why he believes as he believes. He seems more interested in strutting about and playing catch-me-if-you-can than anything else. I find that objectionable.

Its better than having groundless fixated opinions and party politics that have virtually nothing but radio-talk show logic as a basis for political ideas . . . . especially when the stakes are America's standing on the world's stage and the lives of young American men and women . . . not to speak of Iraqis . . . .

So giant lords it over SD... etc, so what? maybe he needs to know that a sea of facts is better than rabidly clung-to positions without foundation.

I don't know that it really is better. Someone like giant is only going to help make the positions he advocates even more unpalatable to the radio talk show crowd, or to anyone else for that matter. If what he's ultimately after is encouraging a proper skepticism about what the government says and does, he's more likely to harm that cause than help it with his approach.

you're an intelligent guy, why are you posing? There are real issues in this and similar threads let's not derail them without reason . . .

I'm just trying to be consistent about what I expect from anyone when they express a viewpoint and attempt to advocate that viewpoint to someone else. If this has come off as mere "posing", I apologize.

As for derailing the thread... yes, maybe by not letting go of my frustration I'm contributing to that problem, but in my own weak defense I think it fair to say that the derailment was well under way without me, and perhaps a meta-thread about how people discuss things in a thread has some value of its own.

[giant]

Originally posted by shetline
Given giant's recent "prove your academic balls are as big as mine before you speak

Nope. When someone posts patently incorrect info I will tell them to do real research. When someone like you forms an opinion from skimming, I will tell them to do real research. What I really am saying is maybe you people won't be so wrong if you actually objectively research before forming your view.

You are just pissed because you invested in an uninformed theory and I called you on it.

And you still seem to be ignoring that everything you accuse me of you do yourself.

Note also that it is you on the attack.

[bunge]

When the argument fails, attack the person. That's what I see here.

[Powerdoc]

Attack the arguments but not the person. i think it should be written in the posting guidelines especially for AO.

AO is not a public trial where people judge the level or the intelligence of others. This is just a place to discuss things outside Apple. BTW it will be silly to consider that any post or thread here, will change the world. People should relax, and take this forum for what it was : lightheart, fun, a drop of culture and brain stimulation. Nothing more nothing less.

Last word : we should be all aware, that it's possible that the infamous asshole living next door, may vote or have the same opinions than ours. :D

[shetline]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Attack the arguments but not the person. i think it should be written in the posting guidelines especially for AO.

I don't think I'm assuming too much to guess that this comment is directed at my current spat with giant. :D

I would hope that I myself have been careful to attack arguments, and also approaches to making arguments, but haven't gone too far astray into attacking any person directly. Obviously, however, it's going to start looking personal when there's a whole lot of heated back-and-forth with one person.

Where I've gone astray, I'll endeavor to control myself.

On the other hand, I'm not one who can't be bothered with making distinctions between comments like "skimming is pathetic" and "you are pathetic". Nor am I playing childish derogatory games with the spelling of anyone's name.

[SDW2001]

giant, can you be serious with this? Are you actually arogant enought to claim that you know "everything" the Bush administration knows? Open Intelligence. My God, what world do you live in?

Do you honesty think the government tells the New Yorker everthing? Do you honestly think that you can get get any information you want on any program or secret intercept or what not through the Freedom of Information Act? In 1995, a secret project named "Verona" was revealed by Senator Moyinhan. The program was WWII and Cold War era one in which the US broke the Soviet cable-code. This program was unknown to even Roosevelt and Truman. Let me say that again: Two US presidents didn't know. No public figure knew for 50 years. But maybe YOU knew.

You live in dream world. How can you possibly think that you have somehow gotten "all" the intel Bush had access to. It's as if you are writing a speculative novel. As if every secret piece of intelligence is just sitting on the web for you to download. Shit.

[BR]

Originally posted by SDW2001
giant, can you be serious with this? Are you actually arogant enought to claim that you know "everything" the Bush administration knows? Open Intelligence. My God, what world do you live in?

Do you honesty think the government tells the New Yorker everthing? Do you honestly think that you can get get any information you want on any program or secret intercept or what not through the Freedom of Information Act? In 1995, a secret project named "Verona" was revealed by Senator Moyinhan. The program was WWII and Cold War era one in which the US broke the Soviet cable-code. This program was unknown to even Roosevelt and Truman. Let me say that again: Two US presidents didn't know. No public figure knew for 50 years. But maybe YOU knew.

You live in dream world. How can you possibly think that you have somehow gotten "all" the intel Bush had access to. It's as if you are writing a speculative novel. As if every secret piece of intelligence is just sitting on the web for you to download. Shit.

We don't have to have all the intel. The intel that Bush tried to sell the war to us on turns out to be a flat out lie and he knew it.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BR
We don't have to have all the intel. The intel that Bush tried to sell the war to us on turns out to be a flat out lie and he knew it.

Ooohh...where did you learn your excellent "card stacking"? Seriously, it's as if you guys are following 'Slimy Debate Tactics for Dummies" page by page.

"The intel Bush tried to sell...". ALL of it? Because of one document?