We may have Iraq's WMDs

[southside grabowski]

Allah pundit continues to update this interesting story. 500 Chemical Shells!?!




http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/21/santorum-military-has-found-500-chemical-munitions-shells-in-iraq/

[segovius]

Mummy, make the funny man go away.....

[shetline]

Originally posted by segovius
Mummy, make the funny man go away.....
You mean, like, vanish from the pages of AppleInsider or something? :D

[segovius]

Originally posted by shetline
You mean, like, vanish from the pages of AppleInsider or something? :D

:D

[segovius]

Actually, we should treat his with respect.

If they have possibly found WMDs then it behooves each and every one of us to stand up and take notice in a solemn and respectful fashion.....

No, I can't, sorry - it's just a tad too lame and pathetic - the dignified and sensible thing for Mr Pundit to do would be just to ignore it and hope it goes away - but no.....

You see, the extreme wing-nut capacity for not being able to recognize something is true even if it falls on your head with the combined force of a grand piano with a 400 lb gorilla hammering at the keys, is a double-edged sword.

It's handy when it is necessary to ignore facts that are inconvenient but when faced with a truth that is already accepted by the huddled masses - especially when they are brainwashed sheep who are already well past the point of being fully conditioned - it just makes you look like a gibbering lunatic who having survived a full-frontal lobotomy is now subsisting purely on a diet of crystal-meth and Fox News.

[thuh Freak]

the top two stories i see on google news when searching for santorum are: "DOD Disavows Santorum's WMD Claims" and "Santorum Recycles Bogus Iraq WMD Claims". As far as I'm concerned, Santorum doesn't have any respect left; not that I had all that much for 'im b'fore.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by shetline
You mean, like, vanish from the pages of AppleInsider or something? :D


Moe's already done that if you'll recall.;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Allah pundit continues to update this interesting story. 500 Chemical Shells!?!




http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/21/santorum-military-has-found-500-chemical-munitions-shells-in-iraq/


Hmmmm? I just don't seem to find this on any real news sites. Funny as this would be big news.

But then again look at the name of the site.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by segovius
Mummy, make the funny man go away.....


Wasn't Moe 16 or something? Of course with him who can tell what's true?

[Gene Clean]

Did the pundit ever consider the idea that they may have been planted there in order to scew public opinion about the war?

[Northgate]

They're PRE-1991 shells.

F*cktards!

[Gilsch]

What's the limit for laughing faces??? :lol: I tried too many I guess. This is absurdly pathetic.

[sammi jo]

The mustard gas and sarin shells were pre-1991 without a doubt. They had decayed to the point of being completely useless as a weapon .... ie..

"no more dangerous than the chemicals found under most household sinks".

The Iraqi insurgents had no idea where these materials were anyway... and even if they did, they were of no use to anyone.

It would be interesting to see the lot numbers on these old shells. I wonder which company sold them to Saddam Hussein's military in the first place? Wanna bet it was one of Donald Rumsfeld's buddies' defense contractors?

What a farce.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The mustard gas and sarin shells were pre-1991 without a doubt. They had decayed to the point of being completely useless as a weapon .... ie..



The Iraqi insurgents had no idea where these materials were anyway... and even if they did, they were of no use to anyone.

It would be interesting to see the lot numbers on these old shells. I wonder which company sold them to Saddam Hussein's military in the first place? Wanna bet it was one of Donald Rumsfeld's buddies' defense contractors?

What a farce.

No WMD.

No delivery system.

The inspectors said they weren't there.

No real threat.

" What a farce. "

Kind of like the whole invasion huh?
;)

[Flounder]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
the top two stories i see on google news when searching for santorum are: "DOD Disavows Santorum's WMD Claims" and "Santorum Recycles Bogus Iraq WMD Claims". As far as I'm concerned, Santorum doesn't have any respect left; not that I had all that much for 'im b'fore.

I'm begging you, do another google search, and this time just search for "santorum" and go to the top hit.

Sadly it hasn't been updated in a very long time, but it still entertains me.

[SDW2001]

I just heard about this yesterday.

In any case,The DOD has confirmed that 500 shells have been found with traces of mustard gas, possibly other agents. They have said the agents were degraded and some reports suggest the shells were in poor condition and could not be used in March of 2003. According to what I've read, the US believes more shells will be found.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said: Saddam was required to verifiably destroy and account for all of his chemical weapons under multiple UN resolutions. It is clear he did not do that.

Now that said, it's still clear the intelligence was wrong on the immediate threat that Saddam posed with these weapons, seeing as these weapons were apparently not in condition to be launched.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
[B]I just heard about this yesterday.

In any case,The DOD has confirmed that 500 shells have been found with traces of mustard gas, possibly other agents. They have said the agents were degraded and some reports suggest the shells were in poor condition and could not be used in March of 2003. According to what I've read, the US believes more shells will be found.

Of course it is likely that more old shells will be found. They are scattered all over Iraq, but as (a) they are useless and (b) the records of their whereabouts have been missing since 1991, even to the pro-Saddam Baathist contingent of the insurgency, and (c) nobody is actively searching for them, these chance discoveries will crop up from time to time when coalition forces stumble upon them during unrelated activities.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said: Saddam was required to verifiably destroy and account for all of his chemical weapons under multiple UN resolutions. It is clear he did not do that.

As far as Saddam Hussein was concerned, he ordered all chemical and bio weapons to be destroyed in 1991 after Gulf War 1. That country was in total chaos after that war and for awhile it wasn't certain who would take the reins of power, until Bush Sr. sided with Saddam to brutally squash the postwar Shiite uprising. The custody, security, records and known whereabouts of any residual chemical weapons were largely unknown quantities, hence these occasional discoveries.

Now that said, it's still clear the intelligence was wrong on the immediate threat that Saddam posed with these weapons, seeing as these weapons were apparently not in condition to be launched.

That is only partially true: The intelligence was bad on the remaining highly degraded shells that are showing up on a random basis since the invasion. The intelligence was very good regarding the fact that Saddam destroyed Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stocks in 1991, but unfortunately, that particular intelligence was inconvenient to the parties who had been aching to go to war, so the "intelligence" they eventually went along with was manufactured, bogus, and fiction. Recall Saddam's pilotless drones about to spray US cities with Sarin pushed relentlessly by Fox etc., causing that run on plastic sheeting and duct tape? Or the endless statements repeated ad nauseam by our weasel-media such as:
* "Iraq has mobile biological weapons labs" or
* "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program", or
* "Iraq can launch chemical weapons 45 minutes from the order being given", or
* "Iraq is using highly pure aluminum tubes to use in its Uranium enrichment program", or
* "Iraq has been acquiring uranium ore from Niger for its nuclear weapons program" or
* Saddam Hussein/Iraq was linked with Al Qaida
etc.

This crap was being presented to the US people as if gospel truth, and it scared those people who were unaware of what was going on over there (ie the majority of the US public), to the point of supporting the war when the invasion was finally launched. It is understandable. Most people, if they werent aware of the reality, woul;d be justifiably scared by such statements; I recall 70%+ of the US population were conned into believing the war was conducted to protect our national security. Now if a genuinely dodgy situation comes about in the future and some truly dangerous ideolog took a run at power, would we still have trust in the powers-that-be, after their appalling track record of serial lies?

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.

That is probably true also. There are still some folks around who still believe the war was fought because of WMDs, no matter what the evidence, or lack of it.

[shetline]

Originally posted by sammi jo
There are still some folks around who still believe the war was fought because of WMDs, no matter what the evidence, or lack of it.
Heck, there's probably a good 30% who still think Saddam was behind 9/11 (never having recovered any sense of reality after the very dedicated effort by the Republican noise machine to plant the idea, while never actually saying it).

Who knows how many of that 30% even know there's a difference between Saddam, bin Laden, and any other "ay-rab"?

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I just heard about this yesterday.

In any case,The DOD has confirmed that 500 shells have been found with traces of mustard gas, possibly other agents. They have said the agents were degraded and some reports suggest the shells were in poor condition and could not be used in March of 2003. According to what I've read, the US believes more shells will be found.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said: Saddam was required to verifiably destroy and account for all of his chemical weapons under multiple UN resolutions. It is clear he did not do that.

Now that said, it's still clear the intelligence was wrong on the immediate threat that Saddam posed with these weapons, seeing as these weapons were apparently not in condition to be launched.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.

I know this guy in Montana who tells me that he got drunk with Saddam once and that Saddam told him that he had reconstituted his nuclear program and had drones that could deliver nerve gas to Chicago.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said, Saddam obviously would have loved to be able to deliver nerve gas in drones to Chicago and we should never forget that.

Now, that said, it's clear that the intelligence that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program and had drones was wrong, seeing as he wasn't and didn't.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by shetline
Heck, there's probably a good 30% who still think Saddam was behind 9/11 (never having recovered any sense of reality after the very dedicated effort by the Republican noise machine to plant the idea, while never actually saying it).

Who knows how many of that 30% even know there's a difference between Saddam, bin Laden, and any other "ay-rab"?

In a poll taken earlier this year (!!!)... http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075 some 90% of US troops stationed in Iraq are under the impression that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind the 9-11 attacks. (!!!!!!!!!) If they knew the truth, I think we would see much more discontent within the ranks, as they would then be aware there is no valid reason why they are risking their lives, apart from making certain corporate entities close to this adminsitration extremely wealthy, extremely quickly.

2517 US soldiers have died for the corporate welfare crooks, so far.

:mad:

EDITED for link, and corrected percentage

[jamac]

These weapons are so old they belong in a museum:
Declassified report (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/14879521.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_iraq)

Strangely before elections terror activity and "success" stories seem to increase in frequency.
Turn on that spin machine.

Latest news from the white house, saddam is married to a man!!! Must kill him!!!!!

[THT]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The mustard gas and sarin shells were pre-1991 without a doubt. They had decayed to the point of being completely useless as a weapon

This sort of artillery weren't very useful as weapons pre-1991 in the first place. So, one can say they were useless pre-1991 too. ;) Chemical munitions aren't really good weapons (offensive or defensive), otherwise we'd have them in the arsenal.

The so called Weapons of Mass Destruction was in of itself just convenient and powerful political and media rhetoric absent any realism in the days leading up to the war and continues to this day.

What a farce.

Yeah. For some, believing in the myth is easier than accepting the truth.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Hey, Moe! This is your thread. Are you going to respond at all to any of the other posts?

:)

[Bergermeister]

There was a special news program in Japan earlier this year wherein they had traced various shells (chemical and not) that Iraq had purchased from, wow, the US during the Iran-Iraq war (can't remember what sources they had, but they did have various documents). I'll bet the CIA was supporting Iraq over Iran, just like they supported the Taliban against the Soviets (remember the Taliban even visited the US?). It's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend until I have no more need for him or people find out how crappy he really is" dance.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I just heard about this yesterday.

In any case,The DOD has confirmed that 500 shells have been found with traces of mustard gas, possibly other agents. They have said the agents were degraded and some reports suggest the shells were in poor condition and could not be used in March of 2003. According to what I've read, the US believes more shells will be found.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said: Saddam was required to verifiably destroy and account for all of his chemical weapons under multiple UN resolutions. It is clear he did not do that.

Now that said, it's still clear the intelligence was wrong on the immediate threat that Saddam posed with these weapons, seeing as these weapons were apparently not in condition to be launched.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.


Oh I think there's a real story here. That being that there was no real reason for this war. Quit trying to play this down as it kind of underscores the fact that this war was started under false pretenses.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
I know this guy in Montana who tells me that he got drunk with Saddam once and that Saddam told him that he had reconstituted his nuclear program and had drones that could deliver nerve gas to Chicago.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said, Saddam obviously would have loved to be able to deliver nerve gas in drones to Chicago and we should never forget that.

Now, that said, it's clear that the intelligence that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program and had drones was wrong, seeing as he wasn't and didn't.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.

Stop being an ass. Tell me what is unreasonable about my post.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Stop being an ass. Tell me what is unreasonable about my post.


Stop calling people names and post something real.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by jimmac
Oh I think there's a real story here. That being that there was no real reason for this war.

That may have been a "story" three years ago, but now? Everyone knows this already. Some just don't like to face it.

(Of course, there arguably never is "a real reason for a war".)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chucker
That may have been a "story" three years ago, but now? Everyone knows this already. Some just don't like to face it.

(Of course, there arguably never is "a real reason for a war".)

Yes but some ( no names please ) stupidly continue to talk like it is still viable and justifiable. They also still think that we'll still find those WMD just over the next sand dune. This war was sold on the idea that there was a threat. It never would have gotten off the ground without that element. As for changing the reason after the fact well it's logic doesn't hold up either and is just as silly. Now that we know the original reason ( excuse ) didn't exist we should get out as soon as possible.

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Stop being an ass. Tell me what is unreasonable about my post.

It's predicated on the notion that there is a "debate" over WMD in Iraq and that shells scattered here and there from the Iran-Iraq war speak to Saddam's compliance with UN mandates, but that you're magnanimously choosing to be "balanced" by finding that this report is not a "slam dunk" for "either side" and actually a "non-story" (but again, only after making a completely false statement about what the "non-story" means).

In the real world there is no debate, and these shells have nothing to do with Saddam's compliance or lack thereof.

Saying this is not a slam dunk for either side is like saying that finding evidence that there was confusion in the chain of command is not a "slam dunk" for "either side' of the "who bombed Pearl Harbor" "debate", and declaring same a "non-story" while insisting that we take due note of certain irregularities in Allied radio communications that day.

In other words, true as far as it goes but bizarrely, pointedly disingenuous.

[Relic]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Allah pundit continues to update this interesting story. 500 Chemical Shells!?!

Are you some sort of propaganda plant that spreads his retarded stories of Right Wing glory across the more liberal sites? Because dude even the most retarded of us can see that this administration has seized power and is vastly becoming the 4th Reich. Just stop it, leave some boards as free zones, PLEASE!

[Gon]

Originally posted by sammi jo
In a poll taken earlier this year (!!!)... http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075 some 90% of US troops stationed in Iraq are under the impression that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind the 9-11 attacks. (!!!!!!!!!) The most believable explanation at this point would be that there was something wrong with the poll.

If the poll were accurate, those 90% would be the worst kind of morons: ones who do not even *care* to know. This stuff has been all over media, there is no excuse for not knowing.

[Gon]

Originally posted by THT
Chemical munitions aren't really good weapons (offensive or defensive), otherwise we'd have them in the arsenal.:wow:

I had some chemical weapon training just weeks ago and I left with the impression they are very good weapons.

It says something that nerve gas development slowed down after VX was invented in the 50's because it was deemed so lethal that any more potent substance would be functionally equivalent. The early-1900's mustard gas is very good, too. Even if these things never got through to your skin, it would still drop your fighting efficiency for at least 20% just because you have to wear the protective gear. This figure is for well-trained and motivated troops. If you have less than stellar troops and they get partial to full exposure, there is no way they can fight.

Anyway, I thought you were from the US who do have a chemical weapon arsenal.
http://www.cma.army.mil/home.aspx

[Relic]

Originally posted by Gon
The most believable explanation at this point would be that there was something wrong with the poll.

If the poll were accurate, those 90% would be the worst kind of morons: ones who do not even *care* to know. This stuff has been all over media, there is no excuse for not knowing.

Not only is the poll inaccurate but it is appalling that these lies are even spewed. It should have been obvious, the poll was conducted by John Zogby an administration cheerleader. Remember all those skewed public opinion polls in 2000 whither or not there should be judicial intervention in the Gore vs. Bush dilemma, Zogby lead that the pack with it's obvious Bush won so let's get on with our lives crap (look the polls show it).

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Relic
Because dude even the most retarded of us can see that this administration has seized power and is vastly becoming the 4th Reich.

I think that's pushing it.

Enjoy this quiz, though. (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html)

[Relic]

Originally posted by Chucker
I think that's pushing it.

Enjoy this quiz, though. (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html)

Yes I've seen that pretty strange/funny. I know it's pushing it with the Hitler innuendo but you have to wonder what Bush's ultimate goal is. Whatever it is it's definitely not in our best interests, this administration has done NULL/NADA/ZERO for the good of his people.

[jimmac]

A little icing for your cake : http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/25/iraq.wmd.reut/index.html :lol:

[rufusswan]

Enjoyed the 'test'. I missed two answers by attributing them to Ann Coulter. Not sure that this means anything of importance other than I might understand Hilter's motivations better than AC's, but I have only heard her rant for a couple of minutes on TV.

I wonder how the "Bush is a Nazi crowd" will score?

Round 1 scores at 11:00!

Paz

[Outsider]

I only got 3 wrong.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
It\\\'s predicated on the notion that there is a \\\"debate\\\" over WMD in Iraq and that shells scattered here and there from the Iran-Iraq war speak to Saddam\\\'s compliance with UN mandates, but that you\\\'re magnanimously choosing to be \\\"balanced\\\" by finding that this report is not a \\\"slam dunk\\\" for \\\"either side\\\" and actually a \\\"non-story\\\" (but again, only after making a completely false statement about what the \\\"non-story\\\" means).

In the real world there is no debate, and these shells have nothing to do with Saddam\\\'s compliance or lack thereof.

Saying this is not a slam dunk for either side is like saying that finding evidence that there was confusion in the chain of command is not a \\\"slam dunk\\\" for \\\"either side\\\' of the \\\"who bombed Pearl Harbor\\\" \\\"debate\\\", and declaring same a \\\"non-story\\\" while insisting that we take due note of certain irregularities in Allied radio communications that day.

In other words, true as far as it goes but bizarrely, pointedly disingenuous.


The debate has always been who would you rather be cheering for. I wont be surprised to find out that – in the fullness of time – Iran has been hiding OBL, that Saddam inspired the World Trade Center hit. That France, Russia, and China have been playing a no-limit double-game has obvious from the start. Again, any semi intelligent person that sees the behavior of the left has little to wonder about who really controls the minions of useful idiots. What\\\'s harder to discern is who really are the idiots and who are just pretending.

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
The debate has always been who would you rather be cheering for. I wont be surprised to find out that – in the fullness of time – Iran has been hiding OBL, that Saddam inspired the World Trade Center hit. That France, Russia, and China have been playing a no-limit double-game has obvious from the start. Again, any semi intelligent person that sees the behavior of the left has little to wonder about who really controls the minions of useful idiots. What\\\'s harder to discern is who really are the idiots and who are just pretending.

You don't generally post much outside of bat shit crazy winger sites , do you?

And yes, it's always interesting to figure out who's an idiot and who's pretending. Maybe you and Moe could have a staring contest.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
You don\'t generally post much outside of bat shit crazy winger sites , do you?

And yes, it\'s always interesting to figure out who\'s an idiot and who\'s pretending. Maybe you and Moe could have a staring contest.

I take it you\'re no longer pretending.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I take it you\'re no longer pretending.

Is it easier for you to recognize pretense, with experience?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Is it easier for you to recognize pretense, with experience?

Not sure what you mean by that. But anyone who thinks it\'s possible to engage in a staring contest on an internet chat forum is a certifiable idiot. Since you haven\'t figured that out, I guess that would have to include you as well.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Not sure what you mean by that. But anyone who thinks it\'s possible to engage in a staring contest on an internet chat forum is a certifiable idiot. Since you haven\'t figured that out, I guess that would have to include you as well.

Obviously, as a literalist, you'll understand the posting guidelines when you take the time to read them. I'd suggest you do that now. I don't think we included any hyperbole, metaphors, or allusions when we wrote them. As such, they won't fly over your head.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Obviously, as a literalist, you\'ll understand the posting guidelines when you take the time to read them. I\'d suggest you do that now. I don\'t think we included any hyperbole, metaphors, or allusions when we wrote them. As such, they won\'t fly over your head.


There\'s nothing in what I said as reply that wasn\'t already said or implied towards my person prior. If you have any doubts you should reread the posts, including yours, mr mod. Unless attacking the leftist cult is forbodden in this forum, there\'s nothing I said that wasn\'t already said and implied by the other side.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Unless attacking the leftist cult is forbodden in this forum

:lol:

A scream.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
There\'s nothing in what I said as reply that wasn\'t already said or implied towards my person prior. If you have any doubts you should reread the posts, including yours, mr mod. Unless attacking the leftist cult is forbodden in this forum, there\'s nothing I said that wasn\'t already said and implied by the other side.

I think you'll recognize, quite easily, that you were the poster who originally wondered who were the idiots and who were pretending. Didn't you like your words being turned around? Exaggeration isn't your sole domain.

If you want to engage in any kind of reasonable debate, you have to expect that your tactics will be copied by your opponent (or anyone who finds your approach laughable). Cogent, fair statements will be reciprocated. You can't hold up a response to your original, over-the-top, post in this thread as beyond the pale.

Any "semi-intelligent" person could see that.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I think you\'ll recognize, quite easily, that you were the poster who originally wondered who were the idiots and who were pretending.


And you mean to tell me this isn\'t a legitimate concern? Cause some other poster just might diagnose you as deranged.

[addabox]

You know, baiting the mods is generally.....

Never mind. Carry on.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
And you mean to tell me this isn\'t a legitimate concern? Cause some other poster just might diagnose you as deranged.

I'm not worried about the other posters attempting to diagnose me.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
You know, baiting the mods is generally.....

Never mind. Carry on.


Right. Well, if your prior post can escape the mod\'s scrutiny, so can my post above.


Originally posted by addabox
Otherwise you appear to be deranged. Of course, even with context you will still appear to be deranged, but at least we\'ll know what flavor.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I\'m not worried about the other posters attempting to diagnose me.

So what was your \"posting guidelines\" post all about? You didn\'t interpret my diagnosis as an ad hominem attack on you, did you? Cause that would really reinforce that position.

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Right. Well, if your prior post can escape the mod\'s scrutiny, so can my post above.

Ah, but you see here I'm talking about appearances. No one's calling anyone "deranged" per se, but about how certain tones and strategies can leave others with certain impressions.

Really, offered in the generous sprit of helpfulness for which I am known round these parts.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
Ah, but you see here I\\\'m talking about appearances. No one\\\'s calling anyone \\\"deranged\\\" per se, but about how certain tones and strategies can leave others with certain impressions.

Really, offered in the generous sprit of helpfulness for which I am known round these parts.


And to me you appear as a smelly ogor. And this I offer in the most generous sprit of helpfulness to which I try to aspire.

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
And to me you appear as a smelly ogor. And this I offer in the most generous sprit of helpfulness to which I try to aspire.

A smelly ogor. I knew there was a reason to stay up late on line!

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
A smelly ogor. I knew there was a reason to stay up late on line!


Didn\'t you say you would bow out from this battle of wit? Good for you!

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
So what was your \"posting guidelines\" post all about? You didn\'t interpret my diagnosis as an ad hominem attack on you, did you? Cause that would really reinforce that position.

No, no. You've got me all wrong. I relish being trolled. One of the few moments of happiness in my joyless life is being able to put up with it for just long enough to make the eventual 'goodbye' even more satisfying. Of course, the "other posters" enjoy this, too. I guess idiots love a spectacle, huh?

Your talk of the "no-limit double-game", which China, France and Russian are engaging in, just makes me think of Texas Hold'em. What is it about those pesky Texans? Can't turn a channel without seeing their gambling propaganda.

They MUST be up to something! Well, a couple of them, at least.

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Didn\'t you say you would bow out from this battle of wit? Good for you!

Absolutely. Now I'm just taunting you until my tea is ready.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Your talk of the \"no-limit double-game\", which China, France and Russian are engaging in, just makes me think of Texas Hold\'em. What is it about those pesky Texans? Can\'t turn a channel without seeing their gambling propaganda.

They MUST be up to something! Well, a couple of them, at least.


Speaking of propaganda, I didn\'t mention the BBC, our Saudi ally, and all the other jihadi theifdoms washing their laundry on this shore. It\'s interesting how all share the same talking points.

[addabox]

At any rate, it should be noted that the post to which I was earlier responding to appeared to be demented.

"Demented", as in "irrational, not partaking of consensual reality, predicated on absurd beliefs, arising out of extremely idiosyncratic perceptions".

Honest, go back and read it if you've forgotten. Some manner of hallucination involving tailpipes and buses that seemed to be under the impression that this was a language of coded allusion which we all spoke-- which is why I suggested context might help your readers grasp your point, even if that point also turned out to be demented.

See? Isn't this fun? Now, you say "Addabox, I find your observations to be pompous, overbearing and hypocritical, a mere rhetorical flourish designed to conceal the bankruptcy of your impoverished ideology".

That, or "to me you appear as a smelly ogor", either one is good.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
Absolutely. Now I\'m just taunting you until my tea is ready.

;)

Spell muhmud.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
OMG. That's ridiculous.

The existence of shells has everything to do with compliance. Much of the problem here is that you have not a fucking clue what disarmanment looks like. Saddam was required to account for and destroy ALL of his WMD. Not some. Not most. Not a few. ALL. What did he do instead? He played games witht he inspectors. He made it impossible for them to do their job. He toyed with the international community. He made half-assed efforts at compliance.

Those of us that live..ahem..in the real world knew and know that Saddam was delibrately delaying and deceiving the world. He failed to account for his weapons. He was in material breach of 1441 and each of the 16 prior resolutions. 500 chemical shells makes every difference, whether they were degraded or not. The only thing them being degraded changes is the "immediate threat" argument.


None of your argument has any credibility.

Saddam's government had no clue where those old shells were. They were useless militarily anyway, so what would he have to lose by declaring them? The answer is ZERO. Bush was going to war regardless, and those WMDs were not the reason for the war. "WMDs'" was the only reason that the Bush cabinet could come to a consensus about.. presumably because it was an easier sell than the actual reasons for the war (oil and Israel's security). C'mon SDW, if you want to argue a case for Bush, the WMD/1441 line was dead and buried shortly after the invasion started.

Anyway, they were asking Iraq to do something that was absurd, namely "prove to the world that you have no weapons of mass destruction". That request, ie demanding proof of a negative, was an impossible demand, as ridiculous as asking them to braid fog, then build a castle out of it, and as logically untenable as a "divide by zero" instruction.

[FormerLurker]

:lol:

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
And to me you appear as a smelly ogor.

This thread is pure comedy gold :lol:

Just like the old days.....who said things were degenerating?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
There\'s nothing in what I said as reply that wasn\'t already said or implied towards my person prior. If you have any doubts you should reread the posts, including yours, mr mod. Unless attacking the leftist cult is forbodden in this forum, there\'s nothing I said that wasn\'t already said and implied by the other side.


Oh look! Another one of those guys.

I wonder if it's someone we already know?;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
It's predicated on the notion that there is a "debate" over WMD in Iraq and that shells scattered here and there from the Iran-Iraq war speak to Saddam's compliance with UN mandates, but that you're magnanimously choosing to be "balanced" by finding that this report is not a "slam dunk" for "either side" and actually a "non-story" (but again, only after making a completely false statement about what the "non-story" means).

In the real world there is no debate, and these shells have nothing to do with Saddam's compliance or lack thereof.

Saying this is not a slam dunk for either side is like saying that finding evidence that there was confusion in the chain of command is not a "slam dunk" for "either side' of the "who bombed Pearl Harbor" "debate", and declaring same a "non-story" while insisting that we take due note of certain irregularities in Allied radio communications that day.

In other words, true as far as it goes but bizarrely, pointedly disingenuous.

OMG. That's ridiculous.

The existence of shells has everything to do with compliance. Much of the problem here is that you have not a fucking clue what disarmanment looks like. Saddam was required to account for and destroy ALL of his WMD. Not some. Not most. Not a few. ALL. What did he do instead? He played games witht he inspectors. He made it impossible for them to do their job. He toyed with the international community. He made half-assed efforts at compliance.

Those of us that live..ahem..in the real world knew and know that Saddam was delibrately delaying and deceiving the world. He failed to account for his weapons. He was in material breach of 1441 and each of the 16 prior resolutions. 500 chemical shells makes every difference, whether they were degraded or not. The only thing them being degraded changes is the "immediate threat" argument.

Edit:

I find it hilarious that when I post something fairly neutral, you attack me for "choosing to be balanced." Hysterical. :lol:

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
OMG. That's ridiculous.

The existence of shells has everything to do with compliance. Much of the problem here is that you have not a fucking clue what disarmanment looks like. Saddam was required to account for and destroy ALL of his WMD. Not some. Not most. Not a few. ALL. What did he do instead? He played games witht he inspectors. He made it impossible for them to do their job. He toyed with the international community. He made half-assed efforts at compliance.

Those of us that live..ahem..in the real world knew and know that Saddam was delibrately delaying and deceiving the world. He failed to account for his weapons. He was in material breach of 1441 and each of the 16 prior resolutions. 500 chemical shells makes every difference, whether they were degraded or not. The only thing them being degraded changes is the "immediate threat" argument.

Edit:

I find it hilarious that when I post something fairly neutral, you attack me for "choosing to be balanced." Hysterical. :lol:

Huh? So in your original post you figured it for a "non-story", but now that it's time to start ranting at some goddamn ignorant liberal the shells make "all the difference in the world"?

You should really have that knee checked-- Bush could anally rape the Pope in the rose garden and the second someone you dislike on these boards came out against it, you would be angrily defending anal Pope rape as standard presidential behavior and belittling the rank partisanship and crazy conspiracy theories that fueled our objections. Jerk goes the knee, sense or evidence be damned.

By the way-- the "debate", such as it was, is over. Ya'll were wrong. No WMD. Nobody thinks so. Wrong. Over. Deal with it.

[rufusswan]

It appears that wit, and even perhaps wisdom, are not lost on these boards. You are a daily dose of jocularity.

I also find it amusing that 'Occam' feels that staring across the internet is "idiotic" but the sense of smell is not!

[Northgate]

Originally posted by rufusswan
I also find it amusing that 'Occam' feels that staring across the internet is "idiotic" but the sense of smell is not!

ZING!!!! :lol:

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by rufusswan
It appears that wit, and even perhaps wisdom, are not lost on these boards. You are a daily dose of jocularity.

I also find it amusing that \'Occam\' feels that staring across the internet is \"idiotic\" but the sense of smell is not!


LOL. It appears my argument is again completely lost on some of the brains here. Let me spell it out so that even a total moron can understand. Comparing A to B when you don\'t know what A is, is just as idiotic as comparing C to D when you don\'t know what C is. Both comparisons are just as invalid and illogical. I could have chosen any other ridiculous example, but it seems I did well in choosing the example I did, since even you managed to pick up on that part of my argument.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Northgate
ZING!!!! :lol:

Right back at you. :lol:

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
This thread is pure comedy gold :lol:

Just like the old days.....who said things were degenerating?


So was your reply in my \"little privacy\" thread. I would even call it a classic. :lol:

[addabox]

Holy moly.

Not since the days of Naples X....

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
By the way-- the \"debate\", such as it was, is over. Ya\'ll were wrong. No WMD. Nobody thinks so. Wrong. Over. Deal with it.

Touché. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Students of Goebbels have learned to practice that lesson well.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Touché. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Students of Goebbels have learned to practice that lesson well.

Wait a sec! So now you're anti-Republican?

I think I need to create a new sub-forum just for you. Y'know how those idiots love a spectacle. You'll be a star. On the internet. Arguing politics on an Apple rumor site. Madly.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Wait a sec! So now you\'re anti-Republican?

I think I need to create a new sub-forum just for you. Y\'know how those idiots love a spectacle. You\'ll be a star. On the internet. Arguing politics on an Apple rumor site. Madly.


You mean a sub sub-forum. There\'s really no need. I\'ll leave you boys to smirk smartly amongst yourself. Self image is important to self esteem. Don\'t forget Salat on friday. It\'s compulsory fard for every Muslim.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
You mean a sub sub-forum. There\'s really no need. I\'ll leave you boys to smirk smartly amongst yourself. Self image is important to self esteem. Don\'t forget Salat on friday. It\'s compulsory fard for every Muslim.

No. Like that special place in hell reserved for meter maids, you deserve a special place on the forums.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by occam whisker
You mean a sub sub-forum. There\'s really no need. I\'ll leave you boys to smirk smartly amongst yourself. That should be yourselves. :D

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gilsch
That should be yourselves. :D


You\'re just too easy. It\'s not even a challenge. LOL.

m\'Sahalam.

[Aquatic]

Sorry, it's over. This thread should potentially be locked even, as it's a non-topic.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230005

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008

I really dig mediamatters. GREAT site.

All they do is record and re-broadcast. Fox News and the neocons take care of the rest, making themselves look like the greedy, transparent dunces they are.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
Huh? So in your original post you figured it for a "non-story", but now that it's time to start ranting at some goddamn ignorant liberal the shells make "all the difference in the world"?

You should really have that knee checked-- Bush could anally rape the Pope in the rose garden and the second someone you dislike on these boards came out against it, you would be angrily defending anal Pope rape as standard presidential behavior and belittling the rank partisanship and crazy conspiracy theories that fueled our objections. Jerk goes the knee, sense or evidence be damned.

By the way-- the "debate", such as it was, is over. Ya'll were wrong. No WMD. Nobody thinks so. Wrong. Over. Deal with it.

I still think it's a non-story because of the condition of the shells. I do think it shows Saddam was not in compliance as we claimed. IF these were active post 1991 shells, then it would be a story.

[Aquatic]

Wow it appears we have some real experts on this board in logic. Why don't you guys get off your ass, stop wasting time here, take an LSAT, and go to law school?!? :lol:

Those logic games make my head hurt. I'm jealous of moe/chris/occam's superior reasoning abilities.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I still think it's a non-story because of the condition of the shells. I do think it shows Saddam was not in compliance as we claimed. IF these were active post 1991 shells, then it would be a story.


Geez SDW!

This is a nonstory where justifying the war is concerned.

Saddam was in compliance. These were old shells that everybody forgot about. That's pretty obvious. They couldn't be used and weren't a threat.

So still no " imminent threat ".

Clinging to noncompliance isn't going to make the first and only reason that got this war off the ground real.

:no:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Geez SDW!

This is a nonstory where justifying the war is concerned.

Saddam was in compliance. These were old shells that everybody forgot about. That's pretty obvious. They couldn't be used and weren't a threat.

So still no " imminent threat ".

Clinging to noncompliance isn't going to make the first and only reason that got this war off the ground real.

:no:

One again your ability to make words mean nothing is demonstrated.

Saddam was not in compliance. The "imminent threat" argument is a wholly separate issue. In other words, Saddam did not have to pose an immediate threat to be out of compliance.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
One again your ability to make words mean nothing is demonstrated.

Saddam was not in compliance. The "imminent threat" argument is a wholly separate issue. In other words, Saddam did not have to pose an immediate threat to be out of compliance.

It wasn't a seperate issue at all. It was at the heart of the issue SDW!

Your trying to twist reality won't chage a thing.:no:


If Saddam was not in compliance ( but he was of course ) then he might of been a threat in some impossible way because he had no way to deliver them to us in the U.S. in numbers. Which is what the Bush administration implied as a way to gain support for this war. Please it wasn't all that long ago.:rolleyes:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
It wasn't a seperate issue at all. It was at the heart of the issue SDW!

Your trying to twist reality won't chage a thing.:no:


If Saddam was not in compliance ( but he was of course ) then he might of been a threat in some impossible way because he had no way to deliver them to us in the U.S. in numbers. Which is what the Bush administration implied as a way to gain support for this war. Please it wasn't all that long ago.:rolleyes:

No, it was not and is not. Saddam was not an imminent threat. Saddam was also out of compliance. If you cannot accept that, you're showing how intectually dishonest you are.

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
No, it was not and is not. Saddam was not an imminent threat. Saddam was also out of compliance. If you cannot accept that, you're showing how intectually dishonest you are.

"Out of Compliance" or not "out of compliance" - what sane person gives a fuck?

Fact is that this is just a device the wingers - ie you - use to justify what they already plan to do. in this case slaughter Iraqis.

You can see the same thing with Iran now - first the phoney 'resolutions' then the justification of slaughter to all the other hapless morons who don't have a brain cell between them.

And you can see the same thing in your posts: justification. When are you just going to say: we did it because we wanted to do it?

Fact is you can't - you inwardly know you are wrong - inwardly know you are betraying everything your country ever stood for. So you frantically justify years after the fact even with laughable attempts like this.

That is why you will lose your 'war'. You believe inside that the way you act is wrong.

In a way that's a good thing and your possible salvation - because it is wrong. Everybody knows that - even you - it's just that some have a psychological need to keep finding 'reasons' why it is right.

There are none. Give it up. Come over to the light.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by segovius
[B]"Out of Compliance" or not "out of compliance" - what sane person gives a fuck?

Fact is that this is just a device the wingers - ie you - use to justify what they already plan to do. in this case slaughter Iraqis.

You can see the same thing with Iran now - first the phoney 'resolutions' then the justification of slaughter to all the other hapless morons who don't have a brain cell between them.

And you can see the same thing in your posts: justification. When are you just going to say: we did it because we wanted to do it?

It didn't matter that Saddam was out of compliance? Really? I guess it doesn't matter if you fail to comply with the law fully as well?

As for me acting wrongly, I frankly don't know what you're talking about. I've made a simple statement that any thinking person who wasn't utterly polarized against everything the Bush administration does would have no problem agreeing with. Saddam was not in compliance with multiple UN resolutions. If you want to disuss what consequences that should have had, that's fine.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
No, it was not and is not. Saddam was not an imminent threat. Saddam was also out of compliance. If you cannot accept that, you're showing how intectually dishonest you are.


Hey Bucko!

This war was started because of the implication that Saddam was threat. Stop lying!

I remember what was said and I remember how parinoid people were at the time. Bush used this situation to gain support. There was no way Saddam could have attacked us in the way that was implied ( one poster on AI : " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start blooming in your backyard " ).

What a load!

That and the fact that Bush mentioned 911 and Saddam in the same sentence so many times people started to think that way.


If it was a just a matter of compliance this war wouldn't have got off the ground and you know it. The " Threat " was the only real reason we're there at all. While your at it quit making excuses for Bush as well.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It didn't matter that Saddam was out of compliance?

No, it didn't, because the US isn't the World Police.

The UN security council is, to an extent, but the UN security council did not see an immediate threat. And that should have been the end of the story. But the US —_despite having been the creator of the UN and its predecessor, originally —_decided to ignore matters.

And yes, Saddam misbehaved. France and Germany and all sorts of other war opponents agreed with that. But what they didn't agree with is that it was any of the US's fucking business what Iraq does or doesn't do.

Really? I guess it doesn't matter if you fail to comply with the law fully as well?

That's what the police is for. The world doesn't have a police. The world doesn't have law enforcement.

And war isn't law enforcement. War is also not a replacement for law enforcement.

[jimmac]

The threat item was added to padd Bush's argument.

The UN at the time said invasion wasn't necessary. But Bush took the law ( to use SDW's idea ) into his own hands and went ahead anyway. The last report before the war from the inspectors said Saddam was in compliance. But Bush went ahead anyway. And what did we find afterward? No WMD!

Bush got some support ( for fear that he might be right ) from a phoney report that turned out to be nothing.

So after the fact the Bush supporters changed their reason for the attack to " We freed the Iraqi people ". Which is just as stupid because how many countries in world need freeing from a dictator?

Very convenient, very stupid, very untruthful, very deceptive, and very costly.

That's it in a nutshell.

SDW. Please don't try to tell me these dead shells ( that couldn't be used by anyone and had obviously been forgotten since the early 90's ) is the excuse now for this stupid war?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Hey Bucko!

This war was started because of the implication that Saddam was threat. Stop lying!

I remember what was said and I remember how parinoid people were at the time. Bush used this situation to gain support. There was no way Saddam could have attacked us in the way that was implied ( one poster on AI : " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start blooming in your backyard " ).

What a load!

That and the fact that Bush mentioned 911 and Saddam in the same sentence so many times people started to think that way.


If it was a just a matter of compliance this war wouldn't have got off the ground and you know it. The " Threat " was the only real reason we're there at all. While your at it quit making excuses for Bush as well.

Jesus Christ! Are you really this dense?

Even if your argument about a lack of imminent threat and Bush lying and what not is a GIVEN, there are still TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

There was nothing in the UN resolution about an imminent threat. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm and account for his WMD materials. He did not do that. Period.

As I said, if you want to argue about what consequences disobeying the UN should have had, that's fine. But please try and ccomprehend rather than screaming "Bush lied...we've been over this already!"

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Chucker
No, it didn't, because the US isn't the World Police.

The UN security council is, to an extent, but the UN security council did not see an immediate threat. And that should have been the end of the story. But the US —_despite having been the creator of the UN and its predecessor, originally —_decided to ignore matters.

And yes, Saddam misbehaved. France and Germany and all sorts of other war opponents agreed with that. But what they didn't agree with is that it was any of the US's fucking business what Iraq does or doesn't do.



That's what the police is for. The world doesn't have a police. The world doesn't have law enforcement.

And war isn't law enforcement. War is also not a replacement for law enforcement.

Uh, news flash. We are the World Police because no one else has the resources to be. Who do you think militarily enforces UN resolutions? France? Belgium? Spain?

The UN resolutions, once again, had nothing to do with any imminent threat. They were about Saddam cerifiably disarming. Resolution 1441 recognized Saddam's previous non-compliance and offered him "one final opportunity" to comply, lest he face "serious consequences."

You can't rewrite history. If you want to attack Bush for portraying an imminent threat when there wasn't one. go ahead. But you can't change what the UN resolutions were about.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
The threat item was added to padd Bush's argument.

The UN at the time said invasion wasn't necessary. But Bush took the law ( to use SDW's idea ) into his own hands and went ahead anyway. The last report before the war from the inspectors said Saddam was in compliance. But Bush went ahead anyway. And what did we find afterward? No WMD!

Bush got some support ( for fear that he might be right ) from a phoney report that turned out to be nothing.

So after the fact the Bush supporters changed their reason for the attack to " We freed the Iraqi people ". Which is just as stupid because how many countries in world need freeing from a dictator?

Very convenient, very stupid, very untruthful, very deceptive, and very costly.

That's it in a nutshell.

SDW. Please don't try to tell me these dead shells ( that couldn't be used by anyone and had obviously been forgotten since the early 90's ) is the excuse now for this stupid war?

First, I have clearly stated that these shells really don't change anything about the lack of imminent threat. I said that clearly in my opening post.

Secondly, if Bush was "using an imminent threat to pad his argument," I guess that means that the crux of the argument was in fact UN 1441? ;)

Third, the UN did not say an invasion wasn't neccessary. They offered Saddam one final chance. He did NOT comply. The UN then refused to back it's own resolutions. More specifically, France and Germany refused to. None of that changes what the UN said and didn't say.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Jesus Christ! Are you really this dense?

Even if your argument about a lack of imminent threat and Bush lying and what not is a GIVEN, there are still TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

There was nothing in the UN resolution about an imminent threat. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm and account for his WMD materials. He did not do that. Period.

As I said, if you want to argue about what consequences disobeying the UN should have had, that's fine. But please try and ccomprehend rather than screaming "Bush lied...we've been over this already!"

Yes we have and I almost said that myself.

Well if you're going to deny reality and history then you really must be insincere or crazy. But the threat, the phoney uranium report, and the implied connection to 911 is the only reason Bush got any support for this war. Without it we wouldn't be there right now.

It's as simple as that.

Bush lied.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
First, I have clearly stated that these shells really don't change anything about the lack of imminent threat. I said that clearly in my opening post.

Secondly, if Bush was "using an imminent threat to pad his argument," I guess that means that the crux of the argument was in fact UN 1441? ;)

Third, the UN did not say an invasion wasn't neccessary. They offered Saddam one final chance. He did NOT comply. The UN then refused to back it's own resolutions. More specifically, France and Germany refused to. None of that changes what the UN said and didn't say.

Go read Feb 14 and then go sit in the corner with a pointed hat. :rolleyes:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=military+force+not+ne cessary&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Here's a sample :

-----------------------------------------------------------

" United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei present an update to the UN Security Council on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq. The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. [United Nations, 2/14/2003; Financial Times, 2/14/2003]
UNMOVIC report by Hans Blix -
After conducting some 400 inspections at over 300 Iraqi sites since December 2002, the inspection teams still have not found any evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or that Iraq has programs to develop such weapons. [United Nations, 2/14/2003; Financial Times, 2/14/2003; Guardian, 2/14/2003; Inter Press Service, 2/15/2003]
The inspectors are unaware of any reliable evidence that the Iraqis have had advanced knowledge of the timing and locations of weapons inspections. “In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming,” Blix says. [United Nations, 2/14/2003; Guardian, 2/14/2003; Guardian, 2/15/2003; Financial Times, 2/14/2003; Associated Press "

-----------------------------------------------------------

So your saying ( now ) that Bush attacked because Saddam didn't show compliance for something that he really had already complied?

At least the U.N. had some common sense ( and maturity ) and wanted to show restraint!

Look at all the lives and money this cost for a situation that didn't exist!

There were no WMD to be found ( or complied with )!

There was no threat!

Get over it!

All there ever was : A greedy little man with an agenda that had little or nothing to do with his stated reasons.

He didn't care how much grief and trouble he caused to carry out this agenda.

The proof's in the pudding SDW!

God you are something else!

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Uh, news flash. We are the World Police because no one else has the resources to be.

The world's Gestapo Brownshirts maybe - police, no.

That would take integrity, lack of corruption and a love of justice. Sense of justice even.

[Bergermeister]

Originally posted by segovius
The world's Gestapo Brownshirts maybe - police, no.

That would take integrity, lack of corruption and a love of justice. Sense of justice even.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well said. Sometimes it's more like the World Bully.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Uh, news flash. We are the World Police because no one else has the resources to be.

Have you heard of NATO? You might have, seeing as you are a member.

And no, you aren't "the World Police". You would like to be, but in reality, you are just a comedic repeat of the Middle Ages, with a TERRAH spin.

Who do you think militarily enforces UN resolutions? France? Belgium? Spain?

Why do you think any particular country should do this? How about, um, y'know, a group of countries? Which is all the UN is about?

The UN resolutions, once again, had nothing to do with any imminent threat. They were about Saddam cerifiably disarming. Resolution 1441 recognized Saddam's previous non-compliance and offered him "one final opportunity" to comply, lest he face "serious consequences."

You can't rewrite history. If you want to attack Bush for portraying an imminent threat when there wasn't one. go ahead. But you can't change what the UN resolutions were about.

Blah blah blah let's divert this thread to a completely different issue and ignore everything that's been said.

Hmm, sounds like a PR person to me.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chucker
Have you heard of NATO? You might have, seeing as you are a member.

And no, you aren't "the World Police". You would like to be, but in reality, you are just a comedic repeat of the Middle Ages, with a TERRAH spin.



Why do you think any particular country should do this? How about, um, y'know, a group of countries? Which is all the UN is about?



Blah blah blah let's divert this thread to a completely different issue and ignore everything that's been side.

Hmm, sounds like a PR person to me.


This one was pretty good also! :)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yes we have and I almost said that myself.

Well if you're going to deny reality and history then you really must be insincere or crazy. But the threat, the phoney uranium report, and the implied connection to 911 is the only reason Bush got any support for this war. Without it we wouldn't be there right now.

It's as simple as that.

Bush lied.



Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security

Guess what document that is from.

[SDW2001]

PS: Hans blix does not speak and did not speak for security council. Nice try.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Guess what document that is from.

Who else in that region does not comply with UNSC Resolutions?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Chucker
Have you heard of NATO? You might have, seeing as you are a member.

And no, you aren't "the World Police". You would like to be, but in reality, you are just a comedic repeat of the Middle Ages, with a TERRAH spin.



Why do you think any particular country should do this? How about, um, y'know, a group of countries? Which is all the UN is about?



Blah blah blah let's divert this thread to a completely different issue and ignore everything that's been said.

Hmm, sounds like a PR person to me.


Uh, duh. What nation do you think provides 90% plus of the UN's military resources? Hmmm?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Uh, duh. What nation do you think provides 90% plus of the UN's military resources? Hmmm?

The one that doesn't pay its dues to the UN? :lol:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
The one that doesn't pay its dues to the UN? :lol:

I was talking about dues.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Guess what document that is from.





" United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei present an update to the UN Security Council on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq. The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "

Guess which one that's from?

Bold print doesn't impress me.

Notice this part : " After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "

It's not just Blix talking!



Or this part : " The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. "


Yet another example of SDW's selective reading retention.

I knew I'd have to highlight it for you as you only see what you want to see.

You got caught with your pants down on this one.

You haven't an argumetative leg to stand on SDW!

Give up now while you still have a shread of integrity!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
PS: Hans blix does not speak and did not speak for security council. Nice try.


Ah! But there it is in black and white.

Sorry ( not! ).

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Guess what document that is from.

Noncompliance when there's nothing to comply with isn't enough reason for dubbya to take matters into his own hands and start a useless war!

Hey SDW! Where's the WMD?:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I was talking about dues.

In other words it's ok for the U.S. to leave these matters to the UN except when we don't want to?:lol:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
" United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei present an update to the UN Security Council on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq. The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "

Guess which one that's from?

Bold print doesn't impress me.

Notice this part : " After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "

It's not just Blix talking!



Or this part : " The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. "


Yet another example of SDW's selective reading retention.

I knew I'd have to highlight it for you as you only see what you want to see.

You got caught with your pants down on this one.

You haven't an argumetative leg to stand on SDW!

Give up now while you still have a shread of integrity!

That's incredibly weak. It's not an offical statement. It's a recounting of an informal reaction after Blix's presentation. Get real.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Noncompliance when there's nothing to comply with isn't enough reason for dubbya to take matters into his own hands and start a useless war!

Hey SDW! Where's the WMD?:lol:

Nothing to comply with? You don't really believe that, do you?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Nothing to comply with? You don't really believe that, do you?


I repeat! Where's the WMD????????

;)

No WMD. Nothing really ( worth starting a war over ) to comply with.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That's incredibly weak. It's not an offical statement. It's a recounting of an informal reaction after Blix's presentation. Get real.


" The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "


Sounds pretty official and straight forward to me.


Read this part again : " the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "

How much more definite can you get?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
" The content of their presentation includes no evidence to substantiate US and British claims that Iraq poses a serious threat to the US or Europe. After the report is presented, the majority of the UN Security Council members feel that the use of military force will not be needed to effectively disarm Iraq. "


Sounds pretty official and straight forward to me.

HAHAHAHAHA. That's my new sig. At this rate I can write a book of jimmacisms by the end of a year. I'll donate the profits to the Republican Party just to piss you off.

It's not a security council declaration, which is all that matters. It's like talking about which way a Senator might vote...things he told you over coffee. It's meaningless. Show me a security council statement explicity stating that war was not necessary.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
I repeat! Where's the WMD????????

;)

No WMD. Nothing really ( worth starting a war over ) to comply with.

I agree these weren't the weapons we were looking for. I do think it shows Saddam wasn't fully and verafiably disarmed, which was required.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I agree these weren't the weapons we were looking for. I do think it shows Saddam wasn't fully and verafiably disarmed, which was required. I agree. He carried a gun all the time. The bastard!! :D

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
HAHAHAHAHA. That's my new sig. At this rate I can write a book of jimmacisms by the end of a year. I'll donate the profits to the Republican Party just to piss you off.

It's not a security council declaration, which is all that matters. It's like talking about which way a Senator might vote...things he told you over coffee. It's meaningless. Show me a security council statement explicity stating that war was not necessary.


As far as signatures go you really don't want me to really start on you do you? Besides wasn't there a recent new rule listed by site to not have intimidating signatures?

As far as the rest well that's easy for you to say ( that's all that matters ) but the fact is it's their position and a matter of record.;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I agree these weren't the weapons we were looking for. I do think it shows Saddam wasn't fully and verafiably disarmed, which was required.

What you think or feel isn't a real issue outside of this forum. ;) To say this shows anything but further confmation that there was nothing to find is a huge stretch of the facts.