or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where are the WMD? Well....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where are the WMD? Well.... - Page 3  

post #81 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
and maybe the real saddam is cryogenically frozen in an orbiting big boy. And maybe the word 'maybe' is just a way for you to convince yourself of your predetermined beliefs. After all, maybe clinton's a serial killer. just ask naples

What a completely unhinged comparison.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #82 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Bullshit. Every major intelligence service in the world except the US and UK said "there is not enough evidence of weapons to invade". They were right. The US was wrong. And the UK played along.


A man can dream. A man can dream...



That's funny, I didn't mention Clinton.

But now that you mention it, I think you forget the fact that Clinton, also, did not invade.

Only the invaders and those that fucked up that invasion are responsible for that invasion. No one else.

Just a favor. When faced with the failures of Bush, try not to knee-jerk and say, "But Clinton..." because not only do your comparisons generally not compare, they make you look like a dumb apologist as well.

Clinton made some mistakes. So did Bush. Worse mistakes, by all accounts. Own up to those mistakes, and stop excusing yourself because "Bill was bad, too!".

Prove your first assertion. IT truly IS bullshit. Intelligence agencies don't make that decision anyway.

As for comparisons:

You don't seem to understand. Are you actually arguing that although Clinton and his party claimed for years Saddam had WMD, and although he ordered military strikes, sanctions, etc BASED UPON those beliefs and statements, that somehow it's different? That's bullshit too. Clinton didn't invade because he was spineless with regard to ground troops. That's the only reason. Who are you shitting with the "there was enough evidence to bomb but not to invade" idea?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #83 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
God what a crock!

SDW all this thing you've posted is with regard to WMD is wishful thinking among rightwing Bush supporters. It has no real substance! But you were softening your tone and that's what I was talking about. As to the rest of it. Meaningless speculation.

The problem here is you seem to be treating it as if it was proof of something.

Look Saddam got rid of his WMD long ago. There was no threat. And yes I do know because it's been the most reasearched item in the middle east ever! Also if after all this searching and we still haven't found anything of substance at all don't you think Mr. Bush should have researched it a bit further before sending men to their deaths, bombing the hell out of Iraq, and putting us in a quagmire that will cost a lot of money and many years?

That's the real question here! And I can speculate with the best of them.


To follow this train of thought further is just silly ( even for you ). Come back when you have something real and save yourself the embarassment.

Pardon me, but HOLY SHIT jimmac!

"Most researched item in the middle east...ever"????

"Look, Saddam got rid of his WMD a long time ago"???

"Mr. Bush should have researched it further..."???
______________________

Can you not see it here, posted before your eyes...in your own words? Totally unsupported statements, vague assertions, rhetoric...the list goes on.

And you're sitting there, telling ME that I don't post anything "real"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #84 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
What a completely unhinged comparison.

Yes, both your approach and that one are indeed 'unhinged'
post #85 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
This is another instance where your ignorance shows. It's not that we went there to have access to more oil or for lower prices of oil. That's the silly argument used by the Bush Fanatics to dismiss the argument from the "War for Oil" crowd.

There was a very powerful reason to invade for oil. The need to control the oil reserves because otherwise, then anyone (sanctions lifted) could negotiate with Iraq and buy from them. Paid for with a stronger currency even: the Euro.

Nice theory. The beautiful thing about theories is that they can remain theories without any real proof.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #86 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
The beautiful thing about theories is that they can remain theories without any real proof.

You're certainly the expert in that!
post #87 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Yes, both your approach and that one are indeed 'unhinged'

You're the one comparing the possiblity of weapons in Syria to possiblity Saddam being cryogencially frozen. Then again, you know everything the government knows, so I guess you're right.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #88 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're the one comparing the possiblity of weapons in Syria to possiblity Saddam being cryogencially frozen.

Don't forget about the possibility that maybe bush planned 9/11.

It's only your political bias that makes you miss the fact that you are just as much a crackpot as those folks.
post #89 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Pardon me, but HOLY SHIT jimmac!

"Most researched item in the middle east...
ever"????

"Look, Saddam got rid of his WMD a long time ago"???

"Mr. Bush should have researched it further..."???
______________________

Can you not see it here, posted before your eyes...in your own words? Totally unsupported statements, vague assertions, rhetoric...the list goes on.

And you're sitting there, telling ME that I don't post anything "real"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


I deleted my original reply as
it was unecessary and rhetorical.

Let me just simply say :

Prove me wrong.
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 #90 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nice theory. The beautiful thing about theories is that they can remain theories without any real proof.

You're whole premise in this thread doesn't have any proof!

Wake 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 #91 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're the one comparing the possiblity of weapons in Syria to possiblity Saddam being cryogencially frozen. Then again, you know everything the government knows, so I guess you're right.

And clearly you know nothing. Except how to make things up and ignore the truth.
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 #92 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

Thanks for your reply SDW2001.

I was not trying to be condescending towards you with my post I just wanted to get your responses to my questions. We have different views of the same topic but I respect you regardless of our differences in view.

I always believe it is ok for people to see things differently. It is only natural after all.

Thanks again for your reply.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #93 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Gilsch, I don't think, even with Iraq ramped all the way up it would reverse the fundamentals of the world commodity market for oil. (a weak reason for drilling in ANWR as well, BTW)


jimmac, once sanctions had ended, SH would have been back to his old tricks, with/without serious amounts of WMD in-country -- you've got to throw that in the pot as well.


You have no real way of knowing that outcome. Just like you have know real way of knowing 10 years from now we won't have someone just as bad. The only thing we do know is that this war was started on a false premise. When an american president does something like this it's a black day in american history.

What's funny is that supporters of this action act like the problem in the middle east is over. We removed a minor player. And the fighting in Iraq goes on.......
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 #94 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nice theory. The beautiful thing about theories is that they can remain theories without any real proof.

(This is the time when I would use a smilie that would laugh so hard for such a long time it would burst into flames.)
You of all people should know. After all you started this whacko thread. Started with a "theory"(being really generous here) based on nothing but a hack whose comments not even Rumsfeld could "validate even slightly". Not even Rumsfeld. Not even slightly..
Of course, the hack was also gonna be "talked to" about his comments by his superiors.
Quote:
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said Shaw was not speaking for the Pentagon and that his views were not those of senior defense officials. DiRita also said that Shaw's superiors were talking to him about his comments.

Emphasis mine.
post #95 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Gilsch, I don't think, even with Iraq ramped all the way up it would reverse the fundamentals of the world commodity market for oil. (a weak reason for drilling in ANWR as well, BTW)

What "fundamentals"?

I wasn't talking about "reversing" anything. I'm surprised anyone would make that comment from what I posted.

Let me put it more clearly. The supply of oil is not unlimited. The demand for oil is going to increase tremendously in the next few years due to emerging giants like China, India and Brazil. (mostly China in the context of a superpower).

Do you think an "industrial" revolution such as China's can be accomplished without adequate access to oil ?

Oil is the planet's most important energy source. Whoever controls the supplies has an advantage. Pretty simple.
post #96 of 190
Thread Starter 
Yes, giant, Gilsch, jimmac: The topic I posted is theoretical. I have never claimed anything else. The comments about invading to secure the oil were presented as facts. That's the difference. There's generally nothing wrong with a theory as long it is labeled as such.

Fellowship:

Talk about backpedaling. All of a sudden you're back to "respecting me"? I don't think I can buy that this time my friend. From your post:

Quote:
Please answer each of these 5 questions.

If you can not answer them please don't bother posting threads like this one.

Have some integrity. Stop just acting as a cheerleader for some dip of a leader you seem to support.

Integrity means you will try to answer the above 5 questions with honesty and reflect over the points I am making by proxy contained within each.

First, you presume to lecture me about starting junk threads. That's a joke in itself, after the aformentioned Evangelizing Fest you went on about two years ago.

Next, you lecture me on integrity. That's even more amusing. Here you are, former Bush supporter, now calling him "some dip of a leader." That's beyond the pale, no matter how much you disagree with someone. A person with, um, integrity would have enough respect for the office of POTUS not to refer to the man that way.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #97 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, giant, Gilsch, jimmac: The topic I posted is theoretical. I have never claimed anything else. The comments about invading to secure the oil were presented as facts. That's the difference. There's generally nothing wrong with a theory as long it is labeled as such.

Fellowship:

Talk about backpedaling. All of a sudden you're back to "respecting me"? I don't think I can buy that this time my friend. From your post:



First, you presume to lecture me about starting junk threads. That's a joke in itself, after the aformentioned Evangelizing Fest you went on about two years ago.

Next, you lecture me on integrity. That's even more amusing. Here you are, former Bush supporter, now calling him "some dip of a leader." That's beyond the pale, no matter how much you disagree with someone. A person with, um, integrity would have enough respect for the office of POTUS not to refer to the man that way.


Back up from this thread I asked you a question.


Prove me wrong.


By the way the president is not above question. If you could just ask Richard Nixon. We used think that before that happened. Not anymore.



Respect must be earned.


He's more than a dip of a leader. He's a hairless ape of a leader. He's proven that many times.

About my statements before SDW prove me wrong.
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 #98 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, giant, Gilsch, jimmac: The topic I posted is theoretical. I have never claimed anything else. The comments about invading to secure the oil were presented as facts. That's the difference. There's generally nothing wrong with a theory as long it is labeled as such.

Fellowship:

Talk about backpedaling. All of a sudden you're back to "respecting me"? I don't think I can buy that this time my friend. From your post:



First, you presume to lecture me about starting junk threads. That's a joke in itself, after the aformentioned Evangelizing Fest you went on about two years ago.

Next, you lecture me on integrity. That's even more amusing. Here you are, former Bush supporter, now calling him "some dip of a leader." That's beyond the pale, no matter how much you disagree with someone. A person with, um, integrity would have enough respect for the office of POTUS not to refer to the man that way.

What's beyond the pale, is someone who two years ago considered to nuke afghanistan.
I am not ready to forgot that one.
post #99 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Back up from this thread I asked you a question.


Prove me wrong.


By the way the president is not above question. If you could just ask Richard Nixon. We used think that before that happened. Not anymore.



Respect must be earned.


He's more than a dip of a leader. He's a hairless ape of a leader. He's proven that many times.

About my statements before SDW prove me wrong.

Well, you're good at your game jimmac, I'll give you that. This is your game: You get to this point in an argument and you then try to make it entirely abstract and rhetorical. You accomplish this with a statement that says "prove me wrong." Then I say, "prove what wrong, exactly?" and you accuse me of dodging the question. It's your M.O. of sorts.
Then the game goes on with your ridiculous asides like "By the way, the president is not above question." Well, no shit, jimmac. If that isn't a straw man, I don't know what one is. Oh, and I forgot "respect must be earned". That's just an asburd side notion. I never asked you to respect Bush. I asked Fellowship in particular to respect the office of the Presidency by not calling the current president a dip. It's amazing you don't understand.

Well it's my turn to play. Here we go, jimmac. Prove what wrong exactly?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #100 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, you're good at your game jimmac, I'll give you that. This is your game: You get to this point in an argument and you then try to make it entirely abstract and rhetorical. You accomplish this with a statement that says "prove me wrong." Then I say, "prove what wrong, exactly?" and you accuse me of dodging the question. It's your M.O. of sorts.
Then the game goes on with your ridiculous asides like "By the way, the president is not above question." Well, no shit, jimmac. If that isn't a straw man, I don't know what one is. Oh, and I forgot "respect must be earned". That's just an asburd side notion. I never asked you to respect Bush. I asked Fellowship in particular to respect the office of the Presidency by not calling the current president a dip. It's amazing you don't understand.

Well it's my turn to play. Here we go, jimmac. Prove what wrong exactly?


On the contrary playing dumb is your game and it's been that way from day one.

I've previously told you I'm not restating or looking things up for you any more. I'm not playing with your evasive tactics any more. Giant's asked you several questions also which you didn't answer either.

I made several statements about our leader and the situation in Iraq. Prove me wrong.

From your answer to Fellowship :

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

" A person with, um, integrity would have enough respect for the office of POTUS not to refer to the man that way. "

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


Come on show he's worthy of my respect after what he's done. I don't have blind respect for the office if the person occupying doesn't deserve it. It's the person not the office SDW.

Once again respect is earned not given freely. Richard Nixon proved that. It doesn't come through political office or appointment. We hired him to to a job through election. Is he doing it to everyone's satisfaction? Well a good half the country doesn't think so. 51 % is a very slim majority and I'll bet it'll be a lot less by the time his term is over.

Yes we always get to the point where I call you on your lack of support for your arguments.

If you can't answer simple questions ( or read the thread for yourself ) or refute a point with good clean logic then I guess you don't really have a point.

End game.
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 #101 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, giant, Gilsch, jimmac: The topic I posted is theoretical. I have never claimed anything else. The comments about invading to secure the oil were presented as facts. That's the difference. There's generally nothing wrong with a theory as long it is labeled as such.

Theoretical? More like science fiction. Your little "theory" was destroyed (and deservedly ridiculed) in no time. You even provided a link from the Times(just to try to seem balanced) which had nothing to do with your little theory. NOTHING. You're now walking backwards faster than you can run forward.
Quote:
Next, you lecture me on integrity. That's even more amusing. Here you are, former Bush supporter, now calling him "some dip of a leader." That's beyond the pale, no matter how much you disagree with someone.

Yeah, how dare he not blindly and fanatically support Bush? How dare he!
Quote:
A person with, um, integrity would have enough respect for the office of POTUS not to refer to the man that way.

Nothing wrong with Fellowship realizing how off he was. Quite honestly it's pretty bloody easy once you stop putting the fanaticism and the love for the party before the country. And please spare us the pathetic fake indignity for the presidency.
post #102 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
On the contrary playing dumb is your game and it's been that way from day one.

I've previously told you I'm not restating or looking things up for you any more. I'm not playing with your evasive tactics any more. Giant's asked you several questions also which you didn't answer either.

I made several statements about our leader and the situation in Iraq. Prove me wrong.

From your answer to Fellowship :

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

" A person with, um, integrity would have enough respect for the office of POTUS not to refer to the man that way. "

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


Come on show he's worthy of my respect after what he's done. I don't have blind respect for the office if the person occupying doesn't deserve it. It's the person not the office SDW.

Once again respect is earned not given freely. Richard Nixon proved that. It doesn't come through political office or appointment. We hired him to to a job through election. Is he doing it to everyone's satisfaction? Well a good half the country doesn't think so. 51 % is a very slim majority and I'll bet it'll be a lot less by the time his term is over.

Yes we always get to the point where I call you on your lack of support for your arguments.

If you can't answer simple questions ( or read the thread for yourself ) or refute a point with good clean logic then I guess you don't really have a point.

End game.

Of course you won't look anything up or repost it. It's YOUR way of dodging the issue.

As for Bush, you're wrong. It IS the office, not the person. You don't have to respect the person, but anyone who doesn't respect the office is classless, IMO. Calling Bush a liar and a cheat and an ape might be constitutional, but it doesn't make it right. And really, can we please drop this "I'm so offended by Bush" line? You disagree with him on a variety of things. That's fine. so do I. You may not even like him personally. But saying that he hasn't done anything good just shows how unreasonable you are. As an example that you love to hate, I'll point to Clinton again. I will only do so because while I disagreed with him on nearly everything, I could point out a few good things he did if I was pressed to do so. And further, with regard to the first point about respect, if he walked into this room right now, I'd stand up and say "Hello, Mr. President." I'd put my personal disagreements aside and show respect for the instituion of the presidency, which is itself an extension of the nation. That's the difference between you and I.

As for logic, your absurdity continues. I don't think I've ever seen you post any evidence or facts backing any of your claims whatsoever. I have posted perhaps hundreds of links and historical facts that support my positions in the past.
When a thread or post is a theory, it is generally labeled as such. This stands in stark contrast your posts. I'd be happy to go back and give you some examples if you'd like.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #103 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Theoretical? More like science fiction. Your little "theory" was destroyed (and deservedly ridiculed) in no time. You even provided a link from the Times(just to try to seem balanced) which had nothing to do with your little theory. NOTHING. You're now walking backwards faster than you can run forward.
Yeah, how dare he not blindly and fanatically support Bush? How dare he! Nothing wrong with Fellowship realizing how off he was. Quite honestly it's pretty bloody easy once you stop putting the fanaticism and the love for the party before the country. And please spare us the pathetic fake indignity for the presidency.

Yes, theoretical. And if you're dismissing the Times link, you obviously didn't read it. It clearly shows that the tons of equipment was systematically removed/looted from Saddam's Iraq. Let me just give you a tidbit from beginning of the article:

Quote:
In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said...

Now that may not mean there were weapons, but it sure as hell doesn't help anyone "destroy" a theory that weapons may have been moved.

As for Bush, your tactic of labeling me a fanatic is predictable, if not plainly obvious. It's a tried and true tactic of the left. In fact, what's more disturbing is it may not even be a tactic at all. I think you might actually believe that anyone who supports Bush is either stupid or fanatical, or is doing so for his own financial interest. You know, come to think of it...that is a good question. Why don't you answer this:

What are the reasons a person might support George W. Bush, other than 1)stupidity, 2) fanaticism or 3) personal gain?

Edit: Just wanted to add that there is nothing disingenuous about my disdain for dispecting the Presidency. This was something instilled in me by a conservative Government teacher I had in high school (a rarity, as you might be aware). She wouldn't allow the class to say things like Fellowhip and jimmac have posted. Oh, and guess who the President was at the time? Hint: It starts with a "C" and ends with an "linton".
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #104 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
that is a good question. Why don't you answer this:

What are the reasons a person might support George W. Bush, other than 1)stupidity, 2) fanaticism or 3) personal gain?

He won't answer it because it's not what the thread is about in any way, shape or form. No sense setting off a pissing contest...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #105 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, theoretical. And if you're dismissing the Times link, you obviously didn't read it. It clearly shows that the tons of equipment was systematically removed/looted from Saddam's Iraq. Let me just give you a tidbit from beginning of the article:

This is becoming farcical. The looting was AFTER the invasion as everyone who lives in the real world knows and as explained in the LA Times article. That you quoted. Your whacko theorists (the Mauro and Shaw tools) claimed the weapons were moved BEFORE the war. Here:
Quote:
"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMDs out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

From one of your links. Emphasis mine.

Your quote from the LA Times article that says they were looted AFTER the invasion. What you're trying to prove besides your state of confusion....I've no idea.
Quote:
From an LA Times article As posted/quoted by a very confused SDW
In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said...

Mods, do we have a "mercy rule" in here? Like in little league games when one team is beating the other team by more than 10 runs and they call the game? SDW needs help. Please have mercy.
Quote:
What are the reasons a person might support George W. Bush, other than 1)stupidity, 2) fanaticism or 3) personal gain?

Don't be so hard on yourself SDW.
post #106 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Of course you won't look anything up or repost it. It's YOUR way of dodging the issue.

As for Bush, you're wrong. It IS the office, not the person. You don't have to respect the person, but anyone who doesn't respect the office is classless, IMO. Calling Bush a liar and a cheat and an ape might be constitutional, but it doesn't make it right. And really, can we please drop this "I'm so offended by Bush" line? You disagree with him on a variety of things. That's fine. so do I. You may not even like him personally. But saying that he hasn't done anything good just shows how unreasonable you are. As an example that you love to hate, I'll point to Clinton again. I will only do so because while I disagreed with him on nearly everything, I could point out a few good things he did if I was pressed to do so. And further, with regard to the first point about respect, if he walked into this room right now, I'd stand up and say "Hello, Mr. President." I'd put my personal disagreements aside and show respect for the instituion of the presidency, which is itself an extension of the nation. That's the difference between you and I.

As for logic, your absurdity continues. I don't think I've ever seen you post any evidence or facts backing any of your claims whatsoever. I have posted perhaps hundreds of links and historical facts that support my positions in the past.
When a thread or post is a theory, it is generally labeled as such. This stands in stark contrast your posts. I'd be happy to go back and give you some examples if you'd like.


That's not an answer and it's you who's dodging. Come on SDW I expected something more than your usual long winded dodge. Also it's not the office. That's just a title. It's the person who makes or breaks it. Get real!


If you look everytime you do post someone tears your " Facts " into little tiny pieces. And not just me SDW. But I guess when it comes down to it you just don't have anything real to throw out there. By the way I used to look up things for you. You remember all those posts from places you didn't like and said were disreputable like CNN.
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 #107 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
He won't answer it because it's not what the thread is about in any way, shape or form. No sense setting off a pissing contest...


Ah! But part of my questions did pertain to the war in Iraq and the weapons which is directly related.
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 #108 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

Fellowship:

Talk about backpedaling. All of a sudden you're back to "respecting me"? I don't think I can buy that this time my friend. From your post:



First, you presume to lecture me about starting junk threads. That's a joke in itself, after the aformentioned Evangelizing Fest you went on about two years ago.

Next, you lecture me on integrity. That's even more amusing. Here you are, former Bush supporter, now calling him "some dip of a leader." That's beyond the pale, no matter how much you disagree with someone. A person with, um, integrity would have enough respect for the office of POTUS not to refer to the man that way.

Greetings SDW2001,

There is no backpedaling here,

I did evangelize as you mention some time back but what that has to do with today and this thread I am not quite sure.

I never have disrespected you within this thread as some others clearly have done rather I pressed you very hard to confront the questions which I posed to you. You did address the questions posed. You did not have to do so but you did regardless to which I thanked you personally.

As far as me being a former Bush supporter now calling him a "dip of a leader" Things simply change.

Sometimes the board of a public company has to replace the CEO. When they replace the CEO it is not due to a lack of integrity if the board once approved of the CEO being replaced. If circumstance changes and the need comes to replace the CEO then by all means this does not in and of itself indicate a lack of integrity of the board. Quite possibly just the opposite is true....

My choice of words may not be the most "respectful" of Mr. Bush but then again he has not earned my respect.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #109 of 190
SDW:

Quote:
We may only suspect it, or may not be able to prove it, especially in light of new criticisms about our intelligence and evidenciary standards for war.

Why would we now be worried about proving something?

Quote:
We don't know if the weapons would be under terrorist control, and we don't know that the government of Syria having them is worse than Saddam having them.

We don't?
Syria is the home of Hamas.
What massive terrorist organization has a home in Iraq?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #110 of 190
Syria is not the home of Hamas.

Hamas is concentrated mainly in the Gaza strip and some of the West Bank and around Jenin. It originally received funding from Israel in its formative stages and was basically an Intel op designed to oppose a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict - a goal certain extremist Arabs and Israelis both agreed on at the time.

It was founded in 1987 as a splinter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The MB is banned in Syria which is a Ba'athist and not Muslim state that is opposed to al forms of Islamism. The penalty for membership is immediate imprisonment, torture and, unofficially, death. The notorious massacre at Hama (Google it if you don't know) was an Asad operation to wipe out the MB - estimates are that 40,000 were killed.

Syria is more than happy to murder Islamists and if MB or Hamas members show their faces there then they will be subject to summary execution by the army.

This is one of the reasons that the US ship suspects there for torture.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #111 of 190
You are going too far in downplaying Syria's role in Hamas.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #112 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
This is becoming farcical. The looting was AFTER the invasion as everyone who lives in the real world knows and as explained in the LA Times article. That you quoted. Your whacko theorists (the Mauro and Shaw tools) claimed the weapons were moved BEFORE the war. Here: From one of your links. Emphasis mine.

Your quote from the LA Times article that says they were looted AFTER the invasion. What you're trying to prove besides your state of confusion....I've no idea. Mods, do we have a "mercy rule" in here? Like in little league games when one team is beating the other team by more than 10 runs and they call the game? SDW needs help. Please have mercy.
Don't be so hard on yourself SDW.


It doesn't matter when the equipment was moved. The point was it existed. Btw, the link was from the NEW YORK times, not LA.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #113 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
He won't answer it because it's not what the thread is about in any way, shape or form. No sense setting off a pissing contest...

Um true...but he is the one who started calling me a fanatic. I think I have a right to call him out on that tactic.

jimmac:

Quote:
That's not an answer and it's you who's dodging. Come on SDW I expected something more than your usual long winded dodge. Also it's not the office. That's just a title. It's the person who makes or breaks it.

If this statement is what you believe, then we disagree. I respect the office. You don't. Fair enough.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #114 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Greetings SDW2001,

There is no backpedaling here,

I did evangelize as you mention some time back but what that has to do with today and this thread I am not quite sure.

I never have disrespected you within this thread as some others clearly have done rather I pressed you very hard to confront the questions which I posed to you. You did address the questions posed. You did not have to do so but you did regardless to which I thanked you personally.

As far as me being a former Bush supporter now calling him a "dip of a leader" Things simply change.

Sometimes the board of a public company has to replace the CEO. When they replace the CEO it is not due to a lack of integrity if the board once approved of the CEO being replaced. If circumstance changes and the need comes to replace the CEO then by all means this does not in and of itself indicate a lack of integrity of the board. Quite possibly just the opposite is true....

My choice of words may not be the most "respectful" of Mr. Bush but then again he has not earned my respect.

Fellowship

OK, fair enough. But we still disagree on the name calling issue. I think it's really inappropriate in most cases. Sure, there is humor in this stuff, and that's fine. but I don't think any of this was meant to be funny. I suppose we'll have to disagree.

goverat:

We would be worried about prvong something in light of the apparent intel failures in Iraq. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Your comment about terror groups doesn't prove in any way that such weapons would be under terrorist control. That's like saying "there are Democrats in FL, therefore the Democrats control FL".
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #115 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Your comment about terror groups doesn't prove in any way that such weapons would be under terrorist control. That's like saying "there are Democrats in FL, therefore the Democrats control FL".

Isn't that the Bush doctrine?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #116 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
It doesn't matter when the equipment was moved. The point was it existed.

Ahh, so now it doesn't matter when the "equipment" was moved? lol
So we've gone from big bad WMDs to "equipment".
We've gone from WMDs moved PRIOR to the invasion, to "equipment" that doesn't really matter when it was moved.

You started a thread to propose that the WMDs were moved out of Iraq by some super duper Russian forces PRIOR to the invasion. When it is shown to you that even Rumsfeld and the Pentagon had shot that "theory" to pieces you change your tune and are now telling us that the point was not WHEN the uhh..."equipment was moved", but that it "existed".

Welcome to the real world where 6 billion people knew that "equipment" we knew( it was inventoried) Saddam had and was secured, was looted thanks to our lack of planning to secure it AFTER the invasion.
Now why don't you come back and start a thread to address that major F up? After all, it IS part of your "theory" now.

This thread is a waste of time. Goodbye.
post #117 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
We would be worried about prvong something in light of the apparent intel failures in Iraq. I thought that was fairly obvious.

The failures that led to the war in Iraq weren't in the intelligence community, they were in the Bush administration. Namely, Bush himself.

You cannot shove that off on the intelligence community. The US intelligence community was conflicted and the International intelligence community was saying the weapons weren't there.

Quote:
Your comment about terror groups doesn't prove in any way that such weapons would be under terrorist control. That's like saying "there are Democrats in FL, therefore the Democrats control FL".

No, it's not like saying that at all.
It's like saying, "There are oranges in Florida, there are Democrats in Florida, so Democrats could get a lot of oranges."

The fact that terrorists are in Syria doesn't prove they have Iraq's moved WMD, you're right, and I never said it did.

Here was my question:
If they are in Syria, wouldn't they then be within reach of terrorists? Wouldn't the war, then, have achieved the goal we were most afraid of?

Syria is home to many international terrorists.
Iraq was home to no international terrorists (it is now, of course).

If the WMD were moved from Iraq to Syria, they moved from a no-terrorist area to a lots-of-terrorists area. Am I wrong in saying that?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #118 of 190
Ok
post #119 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Ok

I recently met an individual that has close ties to the so-called intel community. Former spec-ops.

I asked him about the war in Iraq and specifically if he thought that we were justified. He immediately said "yes"

He then said that the intel was very shaky and anyone could have made of the intel what they wanted. He conveyed that Bush knew what needed to be done with SH, saw the opportunity and took it.

I asked him if he thought bush lied. He said no.

He said he had err on the side of the president. Plain and simple.
post #120 of 190
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I recently met an individual that has close ties to the so-called intel community. Former spec-ops.

I asked him about the war in Iraq and specifically if he thought that we were justified. He immediately said "yes"

He then said that the intel was very shaky and anyone could have made of the intel what they wanted. He conveyed that Bush knew what needed to be done with SH, saw the opportunity and took it.

I asked him if he thought bush lied. He said no.

He said he had err on the side of the president. Plain and simple.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Bush (and the rest of the NeoCons in the administration) needed/wanted/wished to/desired/had a boner for doing something about SH and with Iraq. For a variety for reasons. The problem is that they needed an excuse.

And that's what the WMD argument was.

I can't believe you guys are still discussing this.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where are the WMD? Well....