Yet you regurgitated everything put out by them. Don't try to change your story.
Change my story?
From this?
02-24-03:
I get none of my opinions on this matter from things that the administration says.
And then 3-14-03:
Finding holes in the arguments of politicians is not a challenge.
How does one change their story by keeping it exactly the same?
Oh and haven't we been here before!?
03-14-03:
I'm also curious, giant, how your mental process brings you to say that I take everything the administration says as gospel after I say that proving politicians to be liars isn't hard.
Not only are you not clever, you're not original.
Quote:
The justifications you gave in this thread all centered around the idea that war was necessary to 'disarm iraq,' a phrase you got from the bushies.
"Disarm Iraq" is a phrase I've been hearing since 1991. UN disarmament crews have been around since 1991, what the hell are you talking about?
I guess Scott Ritter just made taffy in Iraq all those years before Bush took office. Were inspections not meant to "disarm Iraq"?
All of my arguments re:disarmament came from the UN. Sorry.
Your argument was that we need to go to war to disarm a country of WMD. That is the Bush Admin's argument. Blix has been attacked repeatedly (stratfor mentioned that we was drifting into 'well-deserved obscurity') because he doesn't support war.
You argument was the Bush admin argument. Period. Iraq has some chemicals, but obviously nothing other than a very small scale weapons program at the absolute most. Anything at the level of a threat would have had to have been found now. You can't hide large chemical plants. The intel the Bushies claimed to have was very specific, and none of them have turned out to be valid.
While we were pointing out the holes in the Bush Admin claims, you regurgitated them, then tried to cover your ass by saying that politicians can't be trusted. Never mind that your ENTIRE argument came from them and them alone.
Be a man about it.
Don't humiliate yourself by pretending the UN supported this war.
No I'm saying that by the UN definition Hans Blix is the "serious consequences". It's funny You know like "Disarm or France Germany and Russia will help you undermine the UN"
Oh no. What a mess. Now I am about to do just what I said people shouldn´t do
Well screw that 8). See what one member said in the beginning of this thread:
Quote:
Hey, I'm all for seeing "the evidence", but I have a feeling that even if the most damning evidence imaginable is presented in the end, the anti-war people will simply move to another reason to not go to war. Basically, it doesn't matter what is on the table, they don't want war, period
Your argument was that we need to go to war to disarm a country of WMD. That is the Bush Admin's argument. Blix has been attacked repeatedly (stratfor mentioned that we was drifting into 'well-deserved obscurity') because he doesn't support war.
1) I said that Iraq couldn't be fully disarmed without war. Yes. It's a factual statement.
2) What Bush said is irrelevant to anything I advocated as my own opinion.
3) Blix != the UN. Blix's approval isn't necessary (obviously).
Quote:
You argument was the Bush admin argument. Period.
Maybe they were similar, maybe not. I don't really care and I never paid much attention to what they said on it, I had my stance on Hussein before Bush even took office.
Quote:
While we were pointing out the holes in the Bush Admin claims, you regurgitated them, then tried to cover your ass by saying that politicians can't be trusted. Never mind that your ENTIRE argument came from them and them alone.
Can you post anything to back that claim up? Show me ONE claim that I've made whose origin is the Bush administration. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Quote:
Don't humiliate yourself by pretending the UN supported this war.
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. Admit it, you all think that you've shown the other side to be wrong, that their position is immoral and that they have sacrificed the Iraqi people in the process. Now then, admit that you are all better than those who hold an opposing view. Then acknowledge that you have won the war over those who disagree with you. Then retire.
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. Admit it, you all think that you've shown the other side to be wrong, that their position is immoral and that they have sacrificed the Iraqi people in the process. Now then, admit that you are all better than those who hold an opposing view. Then acknowledge that you have won the war over those who disagree with you. Then retire.
The reason is that the guy in office is the one that caused this to happen. He's still in office that means he could cause more trouble ( I don't think he will soon though it's getting too close to election time ). When he's gone then we can stop.
1) I said that Iraq couldn't be fully disarmed without war. Yes. It's a factual statement.
2) What Bush said is irrelevant to anything I advocated as my own opinion.
3) Blix != the UN. Blix's approval isn't necessary (obviously).
Maybe they were similar, maybe not. I don't really care and I never paid much attention to what they said on it, I had my stance on Hussein before Bush even took office.
Can you post anything to back that claim up? Show me ONE claim that I've made whose origin is the Bush administration. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Never said they did.
I think everyone should copy this for future reference!
Ah but haven't you read? They say now it doesn't matter ( now that the pro war advocates got their way ). Their arguments change with the situation ( what ever fit's best ) and they don't remember the past. I might add that groverat in another thread ( the impeachment thread that he locked ) has indicated that every president has lied and people have died as a result. See all presidents do it so it's ok. Right?
The media have raised the possibility that the US might ?plant? weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that this may be another reason to keep UN inspectors out. This is a charge of such seriousness that we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have been conducting an informal colloquium on the issue. As one might expect, there is no unanimity among us on the likelihood of such planting, but most believe that Washington would consider it far too risky. Those holding this view add that recent polls suggest most Americans will not be very critical of the Bush administration even if no weapons of mass destruction are found.
Others, taken aback by the in the in-your-face attitude with which Secretary of State Colin Powell reacted both to the exposure of the Niger forgery and to the requiem for the argument from aluminum rods, see in that attitude a sign that the Bush administration would not necessarily let the risk of disclosure deter it from planting weapons. They also point to the predicament facing the Blair government in Great Britain and other coalition partners, if no such weapons are found in Iraq. They note that the press in the UK has been more independent and vigilant than its US counterpart, and thus the British people are generally better informed and more skeptical of their government than US citizens tend to be.
While the odds of such planting seem less than even, speculation on the possibility drove us down memory lane. Likely or not in present circumstances, there is ample precedent for such covert action operations. VIPS member David MacMichael authored this short case-study paper to throw light on this little known subject. What leaps out of his review is a reminder that, were the Bush administration to decide in favor of a planting or similar operation, it would not have to start from scratch as far as experience is concerned. Moreover, many of the historical examples that follow bear an uncanny resemblance to factors and circumstances in play today.
It then goes on to list and describe many of the major incidents of the past.
Another interesting document is the "Northwoods" document:
CCR explains some of the proposals to start a war with cuba:
Quote:
ii The document suggested several possible incidents that could be staged to justify U.S. intervention.
(A) ?A series of well- coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces?.Land friendly Cubans in uniform ?over-the-fence? to stage attack on base, Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base, start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans)?? Lob mortar shells from the outside of the base into the base. Some damage to installation?Sink ship in harbor entrance. Construct funerals for mock-victims. ? United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base. ? commence large scale United States military operations.? [Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1963 pg.7-8]
(B) ?A ?Remember the Maine? incident could be arranged in several forms. ? We could blow up a US ship and blame Cuba. ?. We could develop a communist terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized?..It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.? The document then went on to discuss in detail how such an operation might be conducted. [Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1963 pg.8-11]
As such, the possibility of planted materials can not be ruled out. While I can't decide whether I think the US would actually plant anything at this point, I do think another country might.
As some people have pointed out, including a NYT editorial, much of America probably already believes that WMD have been located since the 'false positives' have been so widely reported (very dramatically in numerous headlines) as if they were actual finds.
Many other Americans don't seem to care anymore whether they are found (short attention spans, you know), so it might not be politically necessary.
If someone does plant anything, it will be interesting to see how they will do something that looks valid, since, as has been pointed out continuously, we know the extent of the programs and know what is unaccounted for. For example, if large amounts (or any amount, really) of stabilized g-agents are 'discovered,' there would have to be a massive infrastructure as well, something that would have been impossible to hide.
What I could see is the discovery (with or without quotes) of a few tons of mustard gas, though this would not have been justification for war, much less even close to being a threat to the US. A conventional weapon would be much a more practical and deadly weapon to use against US citizens.
Comments
Yet you regurgitated everything put out by them. Don't try to change your story.
Change my story?
From this?
02-24-03:
I get none of my opinions on this matter from things that the administration says.
And then 3-14-03:
Finding holes in the arguments of politicians is not a challenge.
How does one change their story by keeping it exactly the same?
Oh and haven't we been here before!?
03-14-03:
I'm also curious, giant, how your mental process brings you to say that I take everything the administration says as gospel after I say that proving politicians to be liars isn't hard.
Not only are you not clever, you're not original.
The justifications you gave in this thread all centered around the idea that war was necessary to 'disarm iraq,' a phrase you got from the bushies.
"Disarm Iraq" is a phrase I've been hearing since 1991. UN disarmament crews have been around since 1991, what the hell are you talking about?
I guess Scott Ritter just made taffy in Iraq all those years before Bush took office. Were inspections not meant to "disarm Iraq"?
All of my arguments re:disarmament came from the UN. Sorry.
You argument was the Bush admin argument. Period. Iraq has some chemicals, but obviously nothing other than a very small scale weapons program at the absolute most. Anything at the level of a threat would have had to have been found now. You can't hide large chemical plants. The intel the Bushies claimed to have was very specific, and none of them have turned out to be valid.
While we were pointing out the holes in the Bush Admin claims, you regurgitated them, then tried to cover your ass by saying that politicians can't be trusted. Never mind that your ENTIRE argument came from them and them alone.
Be a man about it.
Don't humiliate yourself by pretending the UN supported this war.
-- 86 --
Originally posted by Scott
Serious consequences == elderly diplomat from Sweden.
Hans Blix was justifying a war? I never saw that.
For me the important thing is that everybody who participated in this war said before it started that WoMD was the reason.
Originally posted by bunge
Hans Blix was justifying a war? I never saw that.
No I'm saying that by the UN definition Hans Blix is the "serious consequences". It's funny
Well screw that 8). See what one member said in the beginning of this thread:
Hey, I'm all for seeing "the evidence", but I have a feeling that even if the most damning evidence imaginable is presented in the end, the anti-war people will simply move to another reason to not go to war. Basically, it doesn't matter what is on the table, they don't want war, period
Looks like its a two way street.
Your argument was that we need to go to war to disarm a country of WMD. That is the Bush Admin's argument. Blix has been attacked repeatedly (stratfor mentioned that we was drifting into 'well-deserved obscurity') because he doesn't support war.
1) I said that Iraq couldn't be fully disarmed without war. Yes. It's a factual statement.
2) What Bush said is irrelevant to anything I advocated as my own opinion.
3) Blix != the UN. Blix's approval isn't necessary (obviously).
You argument was the Bush admin argument. Period.
Maybe they were similar, maybe not. I don't really care and I never paid much attention to what they said on it, I had my stance on Hussein before Bush even took office.
While we were pointing out the holes in the Bush Admin claims, you regurgitated them, then tried to cover your ass by saying that politicians can't be trusted. Never mind that your ENTIRE argument came from them and them alone.
Can you post anything to back that claim up? Show me ONE claim that I've made whose origin is the Bush administration. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Don't humiliate yourself by pretending the UN supported this war.
Never said they did.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. Admit it, you all think that you've shown the other side to be wrong, that their position is immoral and that they have sacrificed the Iraqi people in the process. Now then, admit that you are all better than those who hold an opposing view. Then acknowledge that you have won the war over those who disagree with you. Then retire.
The reason is that the guy in office is the one that caused this to happen. He's still in office that means he could cause more trouble ( I don't think he will soon though it's getting too close to election time ). When he's gone then we can stop.
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
1) I said that Iraq couldn't be fully disarmed without war. Yes. It's a factual statement.
2) What Bush said is irrelevant to anything I advocated as my own opinion.
3) Blix != the UN. Blix's approval isn't necessary (obviously).
Maybe they were similar, maybe not. I don't really care and I never paid much attention to what they said on it, I had my stance on Hussein before Bush even took office.
Can you post anything to back that claim up? Show me ONE claim that I've made whose origin is the Bush administration. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Never said they did.
I think everyone should copy this for future reference!
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this.
I can't believe that there are people that wouldn't still argue about this. Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Or something like that.
And..they are still lying to us. WMD!!!! sheeeesh.
Full article here
Oil, oil, oil. Operation Iraqi Liberation!
Originally posted by sammi jo
Yes we're still arguing about it. It's going to cost us $75 billion this year (thats just the start of it).
And..they are still lying to us. WMD!!!! sheeeesh.
Full article here
Oil, oil, oil. Operation Iraqi Liberation!
Ah but haven't you read? They say now it doesn't matter ( now that the pro war advocates got their way ). Their arguments change with the situation ( what ever fit's best ) and they don't remember the past. I might add that groverat in another thread ( the impeachment thread that he locked ) has indicated that every president has lied and people have died as a result. See all presidents do it so it's ok. Right?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Oil, oil, oil.
Sick, sick, sick.
memo from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
An excerpt:
The media have raised the possibility that the US might ?plant? weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that this may be another reason to keep UN inspectors out. This is a charge of such seriousness that we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have been conducting an informal colloquium on the issue. As one might expect, there is no unanimity among us on the likelihood of such planting, but most believe that Washington would consider it far too risky. Those holding this view add that recent polls suggest most Americans will not be very critical of the Bush administration even if no weapons of mass destruction are found.
Others, taken aback by the in the in-your-face attitude with which Secretary of State Colin Powell reacted both to the exposure of the Niger forgery and to the requiem for the argument from aluminum rods, see in that attitude a sign that the Bush administration would not necessarily let the risk of disclosure deter it from planting weapons. They also point to the predicament facing the Blair government in Great Britain and other coalition partners, if no such weapons are found in Iraq. They note that the press in the UK has been more independent and vigilant than its US counterpart, and thus the British people are generally better informed and more skeptical of their government than US citizens tend to be.
While the odds of such planting seem less than even, speculation on the possibility drove us down memory lane. Likely or not in present circumstances, there is ample precedent for such covert action operations. VIPS member David MacMichael authored this short case-study paper to throw light on this little known subject. What leaps out of his review is a reminder that, were the Bush administration to decide in favor of a planting or similar operation, it would not have to start from scratch as far as experience is concerned. Moreover, many of the historical examples that follow bear an uncanny resemblance to factors and circumstances in play today.
It then goes on to list and describe many of the major incidents of the past.
Another interesting document is the "Northwoods" document:
http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-1.htm
CCR explains some of the proposals to start a war with cuba:
ii The document suggested several possible incidents that could be staged to justify U.S. intervention.
(A) ?A series of well- coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces?.Land friendly Cubans in uniform ?over-the-fence? to stage attack on base, Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base, start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans)?? Lob mortar shells from the outside of the base into the base. Some damage to installation?Sink ship in harbor entrance. Construct funerals for mock-victims. ? United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base. ? commence large scale United States military operations.? [Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1963 pg.7-8]
(B) ?A ?Remember the Maine? incident could be arranged in several forms. ? We could blow up a US ship and blame Cuba. ?. We could develop a communist terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized?..It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.? The document then went on to discuss in detail how such an operation might be conducted. [Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1963 pg.8-11]
As such, the possibility of planted materials can not be ruled out. While I can't decide whether I think the US would actually plant anything at this point, I do think another country might.
As some people have pointed out, including a NYT editorial, much of America probably already believes that WMD have been located since the 'false positives' have been so widely reported (very dramatically in numerous headlines) as if they were actual finds.
Many other Americans don't seem to care anymore whether they are found (short attention spans, you know), so it might not be politically necessary.
If someone does plant anything, it will be interesting to see how they will do something that looks valid, since, as has been pointed out continuously, we know the extent of the programs and know what is unaccounted for. For example, if large amounts (or any amount, really) of stabilized g-agents are 'discovered,' there would have to be a massive infrastructure as well, something that would have been impossible to hide.
What I could see is the discovery (with or without quotes) of a few tons of mustard gas, though this would not have been justification for war, much less even close to being a threat to the US. A conventional weapon would be much a more practical and deadly weapon to use against US citizens.
Originally posted by DIB
When will the liberal Bush- haters let it go? He won, you lost. The American people love him, they despise you.
So these so-called liberal Bush-haters aren't part of the American People?