AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lies and the Presidency - Page 14  

post #521 of 561
6/20/03 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
giant:



A point I have to repeat since you guys don't seem to understand. Iraq wasn't disarmed. The ambiguity in that can be a threat.

Do I consider it a threat? Not really, I don't consider NK a real threat. Then again I am not responsible for anyone's security. If I were POTUS I might feel differently.

---
While Iraq=not disarmed;
run (sanctions & occassional bombing)

if Iraq=disarmed;
kill (sanctions & occassional bombing)

Written in Logic++
---



Actually it ended it all rather succinctly.
No more sanctions, no more books, no more Hans Blix dirty looks.

It ended inspections, sanctions, voided all complaints against Saddam (re:disarmament). All in one fell swoop. Go Army!



War did disarm Iraq.



How was it going to happen otherwise?
Was Hussein going to answer every single question?


Doesn't matter now. The war was based on a lie!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #522 of 561
6/20/03 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Iraq wasn't disarmed. The ambiguity in that can be a threat.

Except that it was clear Iraq was not a threat. So while the 'ambiguity' could be, it wasn't.

Quote:
While Iraq=not disarmed;
run (sanctions & occassional bombing)

if Iraq=disarmed;
kill (sanctions & occassional bombing)

Nope. sanctions should be changed to serve specific purposes. Sanctions restricting military buildup would never have been lifted.

Quote:
Actually it ended it all rather succinctly.

Only if you ignore not only the fact that it has not yet ended, but also the major global changes that have worked to make the US position a very nasty one.

There is a WHOLE lot more to the effects of this war than the removal of Saddam. In fact, that is actually one of the minor ones. People 100 years from now aren't going to care about Saddam's removal, they are going to care about the massive geo-political changes resulting from this war that will still be affecting them.

Quote:
War did disarm Iraq.

But that's not what you said. You are like a ****ing child.

Quote:
How was it going to happen otherwise?
Was Hussein going to answer every single question?

Ah, here's where you have proven that it was not necessary by citing the Tabun. Iraq wasn't hiding Tabun. It would be worthless at this point, so if Iraq could account for it they would have. You have only demonstrated how discrepancies can't be interpreted solely as lack of cooperation.

It is very likely that this issue would have been resolved through peaceful means. The only thing that would have prevented that was an Iraq of the kind dreamed up by the Bush admin, which was not the reality of the situation.
post #523 of 561
6/20/03 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Doesn't matter now. The war was based on a lie!

Then the UN was lying too. They said Iraq had not disarmed---if you call GWB a liar (not just a hard sell---but a liar) then you make the UN culpable, for, as it has been put forward here, letting the US strongarm it into starving babies to death--for lies!

This will inevitably be followed by a list of the faulty/bad/nafarious intel that GWB "knowingly lied about." But in the end Iraq was dirty enough to have the whole world's hand up it's ass.

You guys wont touch that with a ten-foot pole.

Oh, and don't forget John Kerry he's in on it too. And Koffi, he's dirty---and in cahoots with Elmo and Miss Piggy. The only question left is "What did Fozzy know and when did he know it?"
post #524 of 561
6/20/03 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Then the UN was lying too. They said Iraq had not disarmed---if you call GWB a liar (not just a hard sell---but a liar) then you make the UN culpable, for, as it has been put forward here, letting the US strongarm it into starving babies to death--for lies!

Nope. Bush said Iraq was a 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.' That's why we went to war. And that's why he is a liar.

try a little harder to be right sometime, Askolodotna.
post #525 of 561
6/20/03 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Bush said Iraq was a 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.'

So did John Kerry---and Clinton--were they lying too? How far does the conspiracy go? The UN said Iraq had not disarmed---which of the "undisarmed" weapons couldn't be used by a terrorist? Or an intelligence apparatus?

I read something by Bill Gertz(?) about Silkworm missiles launched off of containerized freight ships. Could you stick bioagents in a Silkworm warhead---who knows?


Urgent threat is part of the sell---it's not outside the realm of the possible.


And I wouldn't put anything past Miss Piggy.
post #526 of 561
6/20/03 at 11:20am
giant:

Quote:
Except that it was clear Iraq was not a threat. So while the 'ambiguity' could be, it wasn't.

Clear to you, yes.
Clear on an objective level? Perhaps not.

Quote:
Nope. sanctions should be changed to serve specific purposes. Sanctions restricting military buildup would never have been lifted.

Should've would've could've.
All a load of crap because they weren't going anywhere with Hussein in power.

Quote:
Only if you ignore not only the fact that it has not yet ended, but also the major global changes that have worked to make the US position a very nasty one.

What hasn't yet ended? Iraq's disarmament. Yes, it rather has.

Quote:
There is a WHOLE lot more to the effects of this war than the removal of Saddam. In fact, that is actually one of the minor ones. People 100 years from now aren't going to care about Saddam's removal, they are going to care about the massive geo-political changes resulting from this war that will still be affecting them.

You have yet again managed to respond with something that had nothing at all to do with what I said. You are the master of beating strawmen to death! A black belt!

Quote:
But that's not what you said. You are like a ****ing child.

I said war was the only way and I believe that still. No way to prove me wrong.

Quote:
Ah, here's where you have proven that it was not necessary by citing the Tabun. Iraq wasn't hiding Tabun. It would be worthless at this point, so if Iraq could account for it they would have. You have only demonstrated how discrepancies can't be interpreted solely as lack of cooperation.

I cite the Cluster document. Which is 173 pages. Get to work.

Quote:
It is very likely that this issue would have been resolved through peaceful means. The only thing that would have prevented that was an Iraq of the kind dreamed up by the Bush admin, which was not the reality of the situation.

Very likely given what history?
The Bush admin dreamed up the Iraq of the previous 12 years?

The reality situation is that Iraq's disarmament was a bitchpickle in the UN-SC for 10 goddam years before Dubya even took office.

Everything was going so smoothly if you just disregard history!
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #527 of 561
6/20/03 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Clear to you, yes.
Clear on an objective level? Perhaps not.

I have yet to see anything in the UN reports that could be a threat to the US. can you cite anything from them that demonstrates Iraq was a threat to the US?

Quote:
Should've would've could've.
All a load of crap because they weren't going anywhere with Hussein in power.

- (Should've would've could've)
Quote:
What hasn't yet ended? Iraq's disarmament. Yes, it rather has.

Since nothing has changed on the weapons front, apparently to you the only thing Iraq was armed with was Saddam. The UN was talking about weapons. If saddam didn't have these weapons then he wasn't armed. As such, your defintion is not the one discussed by UNMOVIC, so you can stop citing them.
Quote:
You have yet again managed to respond with something that had nothing at all to do with what I said. You are the master of beating strawmen to death! A black belt!

Wrong yet again. You said it ended 'succinctly,' and it didn't. You can't disregard the other effects. Especially when they refute your statement.
Quote:
I said war was the only way and I believe that still. No way to prove me wrong.

Even though all evidence points to Iraq not having any viable weapons. Hmmm, so you admit you believe in things even when you have no reason to. good for you.
Quote:
I cite the Cluster document. Which is 173 pages. Get to work.

No, you ignore everything that refutes your claims, which is just about everything in it.

Following this pattern, if it said Iraq was 'disarmed,' you would ignore the 'dis' and say 'see, the UN says Iraq is 'armed'!'

This is not vaild citing.

Quote:
Very likely given what history?

very likely given the fact that the UN info shows Iraq to have discontinued its weapons programs, and very likely given the fact that the finding of the US occupation fully support this.
post #528 of 561
6/20/03 at 12:25pm
One more thing--how many dirty bombs could be made from the material at Iraq's nuke site?

IIRC the al Queda link was firmly established after the first month of fighting. Right?

If the later is true that should scare the hell out of all of us. He had no qualms about supporting suicide bombers.

But then maybe we should just wait for al Queda to make the first move again.
post #529 of 561
6/20/03 at 12:41pm
giant:

Quote:
I have yet to see anything in the UN reports that could be a threat to the US. can you cite anything from them that demonstrates Iraq was a threat to the US?

Of course you don't consider any of it a threat.

Even not knowing can be considered threatening by someone else.
"We don't know where it is and they won't tell us. That scares me!"

Quote:
Since nothing has changed on the weapons front, apparently to you the only thing Iraq was armed with was Saddam. The UN was talking about weapons. If saddam didn't have these weapons then he wasn't armed. As such, your defintion is not the one discussed by UNMOVIC, so you can stop citing them.

Well the government the sanctions/resolutions were against no longer exists. Iraq has no representative in the UN. So yeah, that part is over.

The whole disarmament thing was 100% contingent on Saddam, to the UN and most especially the US.

Iraq as a nation of people wasn't ever considered the danger.

Quote:
Wrong yet again. You said it ended 'succinctly,' and it didn't. You can't disregard the other effects. Especially when they refute your statement.

What sanctions and resolutions still hold against Iraq? It's over, deal with it.

Quote:
Even though all evidence points to Iraq not having any viable weapons. Hmmm, so you admit you believe in things even when you have no reason to. good for you.

Hussein's regime was never going to answer the questions, so they would never be disarmed. War has brought out the truth (or will in time). Et voila! Disarmed!

Quote:
No, you ignore everything that refutes your claims, which is just about everything in it.

The Cluster document refutes my claim that that Cluster document outlines unresolved disaramement issues.

CRAZY!

What claims does the Cluster document dispute? You tried to fabricate something specific above, got called on it now you're trying an ambiguous lie hoping that will pass?

Quote:
Following this pattern, if it said Iraq was 'disarmed,' you would ignore the 'dis' and say 'see, the UN says Iraq is 'armed'!'

If the UN said Iraq was disarmed I would say "look at this document, the UN says Iraq is disarmed".

Quote:
very likely given the fact that the UN info shows Iraq to have discontinued its weapons programs, and very likely given the fact that the finding of the US occupation fully support this.

So where do the questions in the Cluster document come from?
Was the lack of weapons going to speak up and answer the questions; prove their own lack of existence?

Why didn't SaddamCo just prove they weren't there? Why didn't the people who destroyed them talk? What was war-monger Blix not satisfied with?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #530 of 561
6/20/03 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
One more thing

one more thing? What, one more thing that demonstrates how backwards your thinking is, Askolodotna?
Quote:
how many dirty bombs could be made from the material at Iraq's nuke site?

none, until the US broke the seals.
post #531 of 561
6/20/03 at 12:59pm
Quote:
none, until the US broke the seals.

They had magic "only the US can break these" seals? Harry Potter worked for UNSCOM?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #532 of 561
6/20/03 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Of course you don't consider any of it a threat.

no, sorry, I don't consider useless chemicals a threat, just like I don't consider an earthworm a threat. But that's just me.

Quote:
What sanctions and resolutions still hold against Iraq? It's over, deal with it.

nothing in this can be isolated, the war is not over and the effects will only become stronger.

Quote:
Hussein's regime was never going to answer the questions, so they would never be disarmed. War has brought out the truth (or will in time). Et voila! Disarmed!

You have already demonstrated that you ignore important information that refutes your ideas about Iraq coopertation or lack thereof, so you really aren't equipt to give a opinion worth anything.

Quote:
The Cluster document refutes my claim that that Cluster document outlines unresolved disaramement issues.

No, the cluster doc refutes claims that Iraq is a threat that needs to be neutralized by war.

War is unjustified without a threat.

Quote:
What claims does the Cluster document dispute? You tried to fabricate something specific above, got called on it now you're trying an ambiguous lie hoping that will pass?

That Iraq is armed with weapons that are a threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors
Quote:
If the UN said Iraq was disarmed I would say "look at this document, the UN says Iraq is disarmed".

That's not what you did when the document said that Iraq likely did not have Tabun or the ability to make it.

Quote:
Why didn't SaddamCo just prove they weren't there?

No one knows for sure yet, but many have proposed theories.
Quote:
Why didn't the people who destroyed them talk?

They have and are. Iguess you haven't noticed that that is what every Iraqi involved has said, including those in charge of the programs, consider key by the US and UN and demonstrated to be credible:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

But being informed would be too much to ask of you, wouldn't it?

Quote:
What was war-monger Blix not satisfied with?

I fail to see how someone completely opposed to the war can be considered a war-monger, and I have yet to see anyone claim that Blix is one.

Your sentence prompts me to throw one of your favorite catch-phrases right back at you: strawman.
post #533 of 561
6/20/03 at 1:03pm
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
They had magic "only the US can break these" seals? Harry Potter worked for UNSCOM?

'Can' doesn't matter. Only the US did.
post #534 of 561
6/20/03 at 1:04pm
Wasn't he supposed to denounce terrorism after 1991? Then he's giving payments to suicide bombers' families? What part of that regime were we supposed to have faith in?
post #535 of 561
6/20/03 at 1:14pm
....and the suicide vests---are those the same ones that are blowing up in Tel Aviv, or were the Fedayeen saving them for a special occasion?
post #536 of 561
6/20/03 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
....and the suicide vests---are those the same ones that are blowing up in Tel Aviv, or were the Fedayeen saving them for a special occasion?

they were apparently for use against the US, since that is what they were used for, and we did not go to war over some suicide belts, Askolodotna.

Stop looking for excuses
post #537 of 561
6/20/03 at 1:34pm
There's no excuses to look for---the UN had him as not disarmed, at the same time he was diddling the Israelies by supporting terrorism, and was "involved" with al Queda. Did Atta meet with the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey? Yes? No?

What's not to like with this picture?
post #538 of 561
6/20/03 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
There's no excuses to look for---the UN had him as not disarmed

We went to war regardless of the UN. The decision was made long before. The US went so far as to say we would invade even if saddam left the country.

We went to war because saddam was portrayed as a threat. An unavoidable threat would have been the only valid justification for an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

While the UN said Iraq was not 'disarmed,' nothing coming out of the UN demonstrated or even claimed to demonstrate any threat to the US.

Quote:
Did Atta meet with the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey? Yes? No?

no, and I've never heard anyone claim that he did.

If you are refering to the alleged meeting with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ahani, it was fabricated. see below
Quote:
What's not to like with this picture?

that it is simply not true

about atta:
Quote:
(1) The allegation proved to be based on the statements of a single informant. [New York Times 10/21/02]

(2) According to official records, Mohammed Atta was in Virginia Beach at the time. [Los Angeles Times 8/2/02; New York Times 10/21/02]

(3) Reports appearing in Newsweek, New York Times, and UPI reported that FBI and CIA officials had officially concluded that no such meeting ever occurred based on reports from Czech intelligence which had quietly acknowledged that they may have been mistaken about the whole thing. [Newsweek 4/28/02] One senior U.S. law enforcement official told Newsweek, We looked at this real hard because, obviously, if it were true, it would be huge. But nothing has matched up. [Newsweek 4/28/02] In October the New York Times reported that the Czech president, Vaclav Havel, discreetly called Washington sometime in 2002 to tell senior Bush administration officials that an initial report from the Czech domestic intelligence agency that Mr. Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001 could not be substantiated. [New York Times 10/21/02; New York Times 10/21/02b] UPI quoted a a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence who explained, Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems. [UPI 10/21/02]

(4) President Bush himself admitted there was no such evidence. During a January 31, 2003 joint press conference with British Prime Minister Blair at the White House, the two leaders were asked by a reporter, One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th? Bush answered succinctly, I can't make that claim. [U.S. President, 1/31/2003]

(5) On September 26, 2002, Ari Fleischer confirmed that there was no evidence that Iraq had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. [White House, 9/26/03 at the very bottom]

from CCR
post #539 of 561
6/20/03 at 1:59pm
kinda-sorta iffy on Atta, but I think that clears it up a bit.

I'm not real certain the evidence connecting SH to al Queda, found after the invasion, has been poo-pooed as well. I don't think so.

At any gaint, the NYT thinks SH (or as my 6-year-old calls him, Dom Jose) is still kicking---I'm hanging up till we know for sure.

Can you imagine what a dog-and-pony show that would be?
post #540 of 561
6/20/03 at 2:35pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
kinda-sorta iffy on Atta, but I think that clears it up a bit.

By your measure, the existance of gravity is "kinda-sorta iffy"


Quote:
I'm not real certain the evidence connecting SH to al Queda, found after the invasion, has been poo-pooed as well. I don't think so.

there is not 'evidence'
post #541 of 561
6/20/03 at 2:39pm
say goodnight, giant---I'm wiating for the real Dom Jose to step forward.
post #542 of 561
6/20/03 at 2:46pm
giant:

Quote:
no, sorry, I don't consider useless chemicals a threat, just like I don't consider an earthworm a threat. But that's just me.

Again, when did I say that Tabun was a threat? Or even could be considered a threat?

Quote:
nothing in this can be isolated, the war is not over and the effects will only become stronger.

I said the war was over? Who said the war was over?
The sanctions are over. The whole disarmament question is done, the only thing remaining is political bitching.

Quote:
You have already demonstrated that you ignore important information that refutes your ideas about Iraq coopertation or lack thereof, so you really aren't equipt to give a opinion worth anything.

My ideas about Iraq's cooperation come from UNMOVIC most recently and UNSCOM's history. I am just as equipped as anyone who is not Hans Blix or otherwise working directly on it.

Read his 3/7/03 report to the SC.
"Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's declaration of the 7th of December did not bring new documentary evidence."

Quote:
No, the cluster doc refutes claims that Iraq is a threat that needs to be neutralized by war.

It outlines unresolved issues, it says nothing about war.

Quote:
War is unjustified without a threat.

Threats are ambiguous. And I disagree with the premise.

Quote:
That Iraq is armed with weapons that are a threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors

So the US lied, what does that have to do with disarmament?
What claims of MINE, giant, does the cluster document dispute?

Quote:
That's not what you did when the document said that Iraq likely did not have Tabun or the ability to make it.

The document says 70 tons were destroyed and "a certain quantity" 210 tons produced were used. Non-specific.
Hundreds of tons of un-accounted for pre-cursors, two of which "could still be viable today".

Likely my ass, **** likely. The process does not stop until "no". Blix understood that, you do not.

Quote:
No one knows for sure yet, but many have proposed theories.

That's fantastic.

Quote:
They have and are. Iguess you haven't noticed that that is what every Iraqi involved has said, including those in charge of the programs, consider key by the US and UN and demonstrated to be credible:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

But being informed would be too much to ask of you, wouldn't it?

Ooh, Kamel again!

Quote:
I fail to see how someone completely opposed to the war can be considered a war-monger, and I have yet to see anyone claim that Blix is one.

I fail to see how that NW education failed to give you a sense of sarcasm.

Blix is openly anti-war now and undoubtedly held such a position (albet secretly because he was professional). Knowing his bias now, why was he unable to sort these issues out in a way suitable to the anti-war argument?

Why wasn't he able to give Iraq a clean bill of health, if things are as you would like to portray them?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #543 of 561
6/20/03 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

The document says 70 tons were destroyed and "a certain quantity" 210 tons produced were used. Non-specific.
Hundreds of tons of un-accounted for pre-cursors, two of which "could still be viable today".

Likely my ass, **** likely.

What part of the following do you not understand?
Quote:
posted by giant
---------------------------
"documentary evidence suggests that Tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product.

One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl, but there is no evidence that any POCl3 remains unaccounted for....

Another bottleneck for Tabun production would be the limited availability of some key equipment needed for processing and storage of corrosive intermediates.

Iraqs assertion that it decided in 1986 to stop production of Tabun and concentrate on the production of Sarin is plausible and appears to be supported by UNSCOMs findings."
----------------------------

from page 68 of the document you so frequently erroneously cite: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/doc...200
3.pdf

Iraq was never able to make Tabun that was viable enough to make is desireable today. While Iraq has some unaccounted for precurssors, this is not the case with all precurssors needed for Tabun, so Iraq can't make it.

All evidence points to a program to develop Tabun being stopped, which would be the best course of action in Iraq's point of view.

This is far from evidence of a threat, and is not treated as such in the document. It is the tying up of loose ends on an obviously discontinued program.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I fail to see how that NW education failed to give you a sense of sarcasm.

Earth to groverat! read it again.

Quote:
Why wasn't he able to give Iraq a clean bill of health, if things are as you would like to portray them?

The UN inspection process was working on verifying the elimination of these weapons. That is very different than saying that 'Iraq is an urgent and immediate threat to the US.'
post #544 of 561
6/20/03 at 6:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Hussein has outstanding WMD issues.
Bush says "I consider you a threat, Saddam, resolve them or I will shoot you with the big gun!" and calls for new resolutions and inspections.
Iraq's big declaration answers damn near ZERO questions.
The inspections process produces very few results in answering the question.
Bush says "Do it or I will shoot you with the big gun I discussed earlier."
Saddam does not.
Bush shoots him with the big gun.

That's not the way it happened.

This is the way it happened:

UN says, "If you don't cooperate fully with the inspectors there will be serious consequences."
Iraq says, "We have no WMD, but we can't prove the ones we had were destroyed. There's no documentation."
UN says, "You're not complying."
Bush says, "If you don't comply we'll kick your ass."
UN says, "Settle down, George, no one was talking about war."
Bush asks the UN, "Can I go to war against them?"
UN says, "No. We should continue inspections."
Bush ignores the UN and says to Iraq "Prove you destroyed the weapons within a month or we'll blow you up."
Iraq says, "We don't have any WMD but we can't prove they were destroyed."
UN says, "Keep your gun in your pants, George."
People (not governments) around the world unequivocably say "No war."
Bush blows up Iraq.
post #545 of 561
6/20/03 at 6:54pm
disarm
v 1: remove offensive capability from [syn: {demilitarize}, {demilitarise}]
[ant: {arm}]
2: make less hostile; win over; "Her charm disarmed the
prosecution lawyer completely"
3: take away the weapons from; render harmless [syn: {unarm}]

If Saddam has zero weapons, then he has no offensive capability.
So assuming all weapons were destroyed before the war, how the hell did we "remove" Saddam's "offensive capability"?

If there were no weapons, how did we take them away?

Make less hostile? No, unless he's dead, we've made him more hostile than ever.

We did not disarm Iraq. Assuming all weapons were destroyed before the war, Iraq had been disarmed before the war started.
post #546 of 561
6/20/03 at 7:09pm
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Again, when did I say that Tabun was a threat? Or even could be considered a threat?

\\

You used it as an example of the "hundreds of tons" of chemical weapons left unaccounted for.
post #547 of 561
6/21/03 at 10:32pm
giant:

Quote:
The UN inspection process was working on verifying the elimination of these weapons. That is very different than saying that 'Iraq is an urgent and immediate threat to the US.'

What progress was this process making? Feel free to quote Blix on the matter.

Also, it's not UNMOVIC's job to determine what is and what is not a threat to the US.

--

tonton:

3 posts in a row, nice work.

Quote:
If Saddam has zero weapons, then he has no offensive capability.
So assuming all weapons were destroyed before the war, how the hell did we "remove" Saddam's "offensive capability"?

"If".
We removed the question, which was the basis for the status of "disarmed".

Quote:
If there were no weapons, how did we take them away?

You think about things far too literally, obvious from quoting the dictionary that you have little clue about the international law and political aspects. Like a child who remains stubbornly wrong.

Quote:
We did not disarm Iraq. Assuming all weapons were destroyed before the war, Iraq had been disarmed before the war started.

Disarmed legally? Not without verification.

Quote:
You used it as an example of the "hundreds of tons" of chemical weapons left unaccounted for.

And I was wrong?

Let giant argue, he obviously knows more about this than you. You've taken enough of a beating, haven't you palooka?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #548 of 561
6/22/03 at 11:23am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
giant:



What progress was this process making? Feel free to quote Blix on the matter.

Also, it's not UNMOVIC's job to determine what is and what is not a threat to the US.

--

tonton:

3 posts in a row, nice work.



"If".
We removed the question, which was the basis for the status of "disarmed".



You think about things far too literally, obvious from quoting the dictionary that you have little clue about the international law and political aspects. Like a child who remains stubbornly wrong.



Disarmed legally? Not without verification.



And I was wrong?

Let giant argue, he obviously knows more about this than you. You've taken enough of a beating, haven't you palooka?

None of this matters now. The premise of the attack to disarm was a lie!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #549 of 561
6/22/03 at 11:28am
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
None of this matters now. The premise of the attack to disarm was a lie!

groverat,

Your posts are starting to not make much sense. The thing is you don't really have to make this complex. It's really very simple. Bush said there was WOMD and a threat. Now it's apparent there was no such thing shortly before the attack to provoke the attack. Give it up groverat. Focusing on other little points that don't have a direct conection to the original idea that Bush lied and the american people were duped won't change things.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #550 of 561
6/22/03 at 11:51am
  • Anders
  • Feared and Biased Moderator
"German, it's basically like English. English, you know, spoken by a monster, underwater, into a walkie-talkie." - Tycho Bra

Something wrong here since this is a picture of the man
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #551 of 561
6/22/03 at 9:15pm
jimmac:

If you don't like the specific facet of the issue I'm discussing, don't read it.

Go scream into your pillow.

-

Anders:

click
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #552 of 561
6/23/03 at 12:12am
Bush does it yet one more time, now via his repeated claims that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked. This article on a still-classified intelligence report spills the beans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

What a freaking liar this man is. George W. Bush makes Bill Clinton look like the epitome of honesty.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #553 of 561
6/23/03 at 6:12am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

If you don't like the specific facet of the issue I'm discussing, don't read it.

How can he know he doesn't like it until he reads it?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #554 of 561
6/23/03 at 6:27am
bunge:

Quote:
How can he know he doesn't like it until he reads it?

Because he knows generally what my posts are going to say in this thread.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #555 of 561
6/23/03 at 8:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Because he knows generally what my posts are going to say in this thread.

It sounds like you're asking him (everyone?) to let you post what you want without criticism, especially when they disagree.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #556 of 561
6/24/03 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:

If you don't like the specific facet of the issue I'm discussing, don't read it.

Go scream into your pillow.

-

Anders:

click

That was pathetic. I can always tell when you've run out of ideas. Three words groverat : Give it up!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #557 of 561
6/24/03 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:



Because he knows generally what my posts are going to say in this thread.

That's because you keep saying the same thing. It's just in a different way each time.

They all lead to the wrong conclusion.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #558 of 561
6/24/03 at 11:51am
This is just stupid.

Can we get a lock here?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #559 of 561
6/24/03 at 12:15pm
This thread has became circular, it's closed.

PS : Safari final version rocks ; it's the first time i use it. Adios IE
post #560 of 561
6/24/03 at 12:20pm
  • Anders
  • Feared and Biased Moderator
No it isn´t

Taking orders from the rat now Powerdoc? ***teasing***
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency