I'm not going to convince anyone of anything, but I'm having fun beating people over the head with the Cluestick for now. When it ceases to amuse me I'll stop.
You're only beating yourself up over this! This was supposed to be a big threat to the united states when we started talking about this many months ago. This is why many conservatives said we should go. This is why the Bush administration said we should go. This is why Tony Blair said we should go. Give it up groverat. No one believes your spin doctoring anymore.
This coming from the guy who claimed that Bush didn't use WMD as the justification for war.
That coming from the guy who claimed that babies tasted good.
It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision. You have this stupid belief that "not anti-war" = "OMG TERRAR WMD BUSH SI TEH BESTEST!" and it really hurts your ability to actually read the things that are written because you want to fit it in your little categories that you're comfortable with.
I never said Bush didn't use the WMD threat to advocate war. I never said that Saddam *had* WMD. I never said that Iraq was a "big threat" to the US. Never. Never did I say any of that, but since your collective arguments rely on those beliefs so heavily you'll just plow ignorantly forward as if I had.
6 months...no WMD's....which were supposedly 45minutes away from being deployed.....
I have a feeling they did have WoMDs. They were much more powerful than the RDF. And they actually used it on selective part of the european and american population. Funny enough that helped Bush and Blair convince their united population without them noticing them being used.
I have a feeling they did have WoMDs. They were much more powerful than the RDF. And they actually used it on selective part of the european and american population. Funny enough that helped Bush and Blair convince their united population without them noticing them being used.
That coming from the guy who claimed that babies tasted good.
It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision. You have this stupid belief that "not anti-war" = "OMG TERRAR WMD BUSH SI TEH BESTEST!" and it really hurts your ability to actually read the things that are written because you want to fit it in your little categories that you're comfortable with.
I never said Bush didn't use the WMD threat to advocate war. I never said that Saddam *had* WMD. I never said that Iraq was a "big threat" to the US. Never. Never did I say any of that, but since your collective arguments rely on those beliefs so heavily you'll just plow ignorantly forward as if I had.
Don´t you know Grovy: You are either with us or you are GWBs genetically grow love child
yes you did. Your second post in this thread. Look:
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.
So you claim that Iraq is armed with these weapons and war is the only way to change that.
Quote:
And past that, how does one deduce what the UN thinks?
Then stop citing it.
But you can't. Why not? Because all of the valid info on Iraq's CBN weapons programs come from there. However, if you actually studied that valid info, you would realize Iraq was not a threat. It doesn't matter if there are unanswered questions. Loose ends do not justify all out war. Legitimate threats justify war. This is why the UN did not vote for it.* 95% of the world's population (probably more) was able to acknowledge that Iraq was not a threat. I bring up the concept of the lemming because you bought into the idea that Iraq was a threat, and that idea was introduced by the Bush Admin. The Bush Admin at least tried to convince us with 'evidence,' which was necessary since the evidence that does exist does not make the case for a threat, something you would know if you actually studied it.
And there is nothing 'partisan' about condemning the action of the Bush regime. I'm not advocating that the Dems or the Greens are better or worse. I'm pointing out the facts as they are.
*Note that even if you think there was a conspiracy driving france and russia, the governments who would have voted against were backed by their citizens. On the other hand, prominant countries that supported it did so against the will of their citizens, notable SPAIN and britain.
That coming from the guy who claimed that babies tasted good.
It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision. You have this stupid belief that "not anti-war" = "OMG TERRAR WMD BUSH SI TEH BESTEST!" and it really hurts your ability to actually read the things that are written because you want to fit it in your little categories that you're comfortable with.
I never said Bush didn't use the WMD threat to advocate war. I never said that Saddam *had* WMD. I never said that Iraq was a "big threat" to the US. Never. Never did I say any of that, but since your collective arguments rely on those beliefs so heavily you'll just plow ignorantly forward as if I had.
So, I have tunnel-vision because you say patently absurd things and I merely point them out. Uh-huh. Keep trying.
You know, I wouldn't be surprised at all if something is planted. The Bush admin has no problem lying and misrepresenting intelligence. But more importantly, at this point they wouldn't have to find very much. Some barrels of mustard gas would allow them to say 'WMD!' and make it seem somewhat legit. Right now they are being criticized for not finding anything, but if just one small amount of chemical weapons are found, they would have a little something to rest on. All of the lemmings would feel vindicated, even though it still doesn't come close to presenting a threat or justifying war.
I say this because we already know that there was no big renewed weapons program as was claimed. Period. We also know that ALL of the US's intel was bad. Period. Look at each instance.
And if you don't think international conflicts can involved shady or planted evidence, well, then you live in la la land.
[edit]here's an article on the lowering of the standard of proof:
Unless you *do* have access to it, you can't claim that it wasn't bad, either. That argument cuts both ways.
Cheers
Scott
OH BOLOGNA!!!!!
......are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?
.....besides, from those silly punters at the Financial Times:
"The new report by Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, revealed that Baghdad supplied information on its illicit weapons programmes up to the eve of military hostilities. But, even at the end, Iraq failed to alleviate fundamental suspicions that it had something to hide."
Whatever. There is something whose veracity/reliablity/truthfulness is by its very nature secret and unknown by either of us.
My point is that, given that condition, you CANNOT say that your ideas about it are any more valid/accurate/right than someone else's.
Were you meaning to be ironic when you asked "are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?" and then pointed us to a link about intelligence from a news source?
Interestingly, though, I'm curious what the difference is between an "illicit" weapons program and a WMD program. And what's the difference between a WMD and a Weapon of not quite Mass Destruction? Is there a line somewhere that the UN draws? I've never seen a definition.
Whatever. There is something whose veracity/reliablity/truthfulness is by its very nature secret and unknown by either of us.
My point is that, given that condition, you CANNOT say that your ideas about it are any more valid/accurate/right than someone else's.
Were you meaning to be ironic when you asked "are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?" and then pointed us to a link about intelligence from a news source?
Interestingly, though, I'm curious what the difference is between an "illicit" weapons program and a WMD program. And what's the difference between a WMD and a Weapon of not quite Mass Destruction? Is there a line somewhere that the UN draws? I've never seen a definition.
And I don't plan on biting you any time soon.
Cheers
Scott
....those are good points, especially the irony part---It does get a bit circular.
You have access to the same infromation as the CIA and NSA?
It's called the Open Source Intelligence shift. Intelligence is out in the open. It's a fact of the modern world that is widely discussed in intel circles. But since you are so unaware of such a high-profile global shift, it's really strange that you somehow think you are qualified to comment.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I read somewhere that 95% of their intelligence comes from the free press.
You read correctly. That's why companies like stratfor exist these days.
The strength of intel services is their ability to interpret information, almost all of which is freely available.
But here's the big one: anyone that has looked at the UN reports and looks at the Bush claims knows that the Bush admin has never really citing anything beyond what the UN states. If you want a good run-down look here:
All they have done is take the UN info, turn it into sound bytes, blow it out of proportion and ignore everything that discredits it. They know most folks aren't going to really look into it and will just buy into what they say.
And maybe you didn't notice the HUGE number of intel analysts and policy makers speaking out right now.
As for everything else, Hersh wrote a good article:
Basically, ena, until you have some knowledge of the state of information retrieval and appraisal, do yourself a favor and refrain from commenting. Leave that to those of us that are not only trained in it but actually make a living doing it.
Of course, when talking about Iraq's WMD, all you really need to do is inform yourself, which you don't need any sort of information specialist training to do.
If uninformed arguments was to be removed from AO then we would have less posts than the suggestion forum. Look at the "Hassan hates Blair" thread for reference.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
I'm not going to convince anyone of anything, but I'm having fun beating people over the head with the Cluestick for now.
This coming from the guy who claimed that Bush didn't use WMD as the justification for war.
Originally posted by BRussell
This coming from the guy who claimed that Bush didn't use WMD as the justification for war.
My sentiments exactly.
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
What *does* the UN think about it, giant. Please inform me.
And past that, how does one deduce what the UN thinks?
--
bunge:
click
click "cluster document"
click "available here"
I'm not going to convince anyone of anything, but I'm having fun beating people over the head with the Cluestick for now. When it ceases to amuse me I'll stop.
You're only beating yourself up over this! This was supposed to be a big threat to the united states when we started talking about this many months ago. This is why many conservatives said we should go. This is why the Bush administration said we should go. This is why Tony Blair said we should go. Give it up groverat. No one believes your spin doctoring anymore.
This coming from the guy who claimed that Bush didn't use WMD as the justification for war.
That coming from the guy who claimed that babies tasted good.
It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision. You have this stupid belief that "not anti-war" = "OMG TERRAR WMD BUSH SI TEH BESTEST!" and it really hurts your ability to actually read the things that are written because you want to fit it in your little categories that you're comfortable with.
I never said Bush didn't use the WMD threat to advocate war. I never said that Saddam *had* WMD. I never said that Iraq was a "big threat" to the US. Never. Never did I say any of that, but since your collective arguments rely on those beliefs so heavily you'll just plow ignorantly forward as if I had.
Originally posted by Sondjata
6 months...no WMD's....which were supposedly 45minutes away from being deployed.....
I have a feeling they did have WoMDs. They were much more powerful than the RDF. And they actually used it on selective part of the european and american population. Funny enough that helped Bush and Blair convince their united population without them noticing them being used.
Weapons of Mental Distortion
Originally posted by Anders the White
I have a feeling they did have WoMDs. They were much more powerful than the RDF. And they actually used it on selective part of the european and american population. Funny enough that helped Bush and Blair convince their united population without them noticing them being used.
Weapons of Mental Distortion
lol
Originally posted by groverat
BRussell:
That coming from the guy who claimed that babies tasted good.
It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision. You have this stupid belief that "not anti-war" = "OMG TERRAR WMD BUSH SI TEH BESTEST!" and it really hurts your ability to actually read the things that are written because you want to fit it in your little categories that you're comfortable with.
I never said Bush didn't use the WMD threat to advocate war. I never said that Saddam *had* WMD. I never said that Iraq was a "big threat" to the US. Never. Never did I say any of that, but since your collective arguments rely on those beliefs so heavily you'll just plow ignorantly forward as if I had.
Don´t you know Grovy: You are either with us or you are GWBs genetically grow love child
Originally posted by groverat
It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision.
When in doubt, go on the attack.
You said the world needed war to 'cleanse' Iraq of WMD. Rumsfeld disagrees with you.
Are you going to admit you were wrong?
Originally posted by groverat
I never said that Saddam *had* WMD.
yes you did. Your second post in this thread. Look:
Originally posted by groverat
[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.
So you claim that Iraq is armed with these weapons and war is the only way to change that.
And past that, how does one deduce what the UN thinks?
Then stop citing it.
But you can't. Why not? Because all of the valid info on Iraq's CBN weapons programs come from there. However, if you actually studied that valid info, you would realize Iraq was not a threat. It doesn't matter if there are unanswered questions. Loose ends do not justify all out war. Legitimate threats justify war. This is why the UN did not vote for it.* 95% of the world's population (probably more) was able to acknowledge that Iraq was not a threat. I bring up the concept of the lemming because you bought into the idea that Iraq was a threat, and that idea was introduced by the Bush Admin. The Bush Admin at least tried to convince us with 'evidence,' which was necessary since the evidence that does exist does not make the case for a threat, something you would know if you actually studied it.
And there is nothing 'partisan' about condemning the action of the Bush regime. I'm not advocating that the Dems or the Greens are better or worse. I'm pointing out the facts as they are.
*Note that even if you think there was a conspiracy driving france and russia, the governments who would have voted against were backed by their citizens. On the other hand, prominant countries that supported it did so against the will of their citizens, notable SPAIN and britain.
Originally posted by groverat
BRussell:
That coming from the guy who claimed that babies tasted good.
It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision. You have this stupid belief that "not anti-war" = "OMG TERRAR WMD BUSH SI TEH BESTEST!" and it really hurts your ability to actually read the things that are written because you want to fit it in your little categories that you're comfortable with.
I never said Bush didn't use the WMD threat to advocate war. I never said that Saddam *had* WMD. I never said that Iraq was a "big threat" to the US. Never. Never did I say any of that, but since your collective arguments rely on those beliefs so heavily you'll just plow ignorantly forward as if I had.
So, I have tunnel-vision because you say patently absurd things and I merely point them out. Uh-huh. Keep trying.
I say this because we already know that there was no big renewed weapons program as was claimed. Period. We also know that ALL of the US's intel was bad. Period. Look at each instance.
And if you don't think international conflicts can involved shady or planted evidence, well, then you live in la la land.
[edit]here's an article on the lowering of the standard of proof:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...406134772.html
Originally posted by giant
We also know that ALL of the US's intel was bad. Period.
You have access to the same infromation as the CIA and NSA?
Really, giant---you know what what it is intended for you to know, and nothing more.
Originally posted by ena
You have access to the same infromation as the CIA and NSA?
Unless you *do* have access to it, you can't claim that it wasn't bad, either. That argument cuts both ways.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Unless you *do* have access to it, you can't claim that it wasn't bad, either. That argument cuts both ways.
Cheers
Scott
OH BOLOGNA!!!!!
......are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?
.....besides, from those silly punters at the Financial Times:
"The new report by Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, revealed that Baghdad supplied information on its illicit weapons programmes up to the eve of military hostilities. But, even at the end, Iraq failed to alleviate fundamental suspicions that it had something to hide."
the punters
I respectfully ask all of you TO BITE ME.
Originally posted by ena
OH BOLOGNA!!!!!
Whatever. There is something whose veracity/reliablity/truthfulness is by its very nature secret and unknown by either of us.
My point is that, given that condition, you CANNOT say that your ideas about it are any more valid/accurate/right than someone else's.
Were you meaning to be ironic when you asked "are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?" and then pointed us to a link about intelligence from a news source?
Interestingly, though, I'm curious what the difference is between an "illicit" weapons program and a WMD program. And what's the difference between a WMD and a Weapon of not quite Mass Destruction? Is there a line somewhere that the UN draws? I've never seen a definition.
And I don't plan on biting you any time soon.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Whatever. There is something whose veracity/reliablity/truthfulness is by its very nature secret and unknown by either of us.
My point is that, given that condition, you CANNOT say that your ideas about it are any more valid/accurate/right than someone else's.
Were you meaning to be ironic when you asked "are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?" and then pointed us to a link about intelligence from a news source?
Interestingly, though, I'm curious what the difference is between an "illicit" weapons program and a WMD program. And what's the difference between a WMD and a Weapon of not quite Mass Destruction? Is there a line somewhere that the UN draws? I've never seen a definition.
And I don't plan on biting you any time soon.
Cheers
Scott
....those are good points, especially the irony part---It does get a bit circular.
Originally posted by ena
......are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?
I read somewhere that 95% of their intelligence comes from the free press. So in that case, use, it's pretty transparent.
Originally posted by bunge
I read somewhere that 95% of their intelligence comes from the free press. So in that case, use, it's pretty transparent.
I would imagine that there's an awful lot of really pretty pictures taken from space, too.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by ena
You have access to the same infromation as the CIA and NSA?
It's called the Open Source Intelligence shift. Intelligence is out in the open. It's a fact of the modern world that is widely discussed in intel circles. But since you are so unaware of such a high-profile global shift, it's really strange that you somehow think you are qualified to comment.
Originally posted by bunge
I read somewhere that 95% of their intelligence comes from the free press.
You read correctly. That's why companies like stratfor exist these days.
The strength of intel services is their ability to interpret information, almost all of which is freely available.
But here's the big one: anyone that has looked at the UN reports and looks at the Bush claims knows that the Bush admin has never really citing anything beyond what the UN states. If you want a good run-down look here:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
All they have done is take the UN info, turn it into sound bytes, blow it out of proportion and ignore everything that discredits it. They know most folks aren't going to really look into it and will just buy into what they say.
And maybe you didn't notice the HUGE number of intel analysts and policy makers speaking out right now.
As for everything else, Hersh wrote a good article:
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact
Basically, ena, until you have some knowledge of the state of information retrieval and appraisal, do yourself a favor and refrain from commenting. Leave that to those of us that are not only trained in it but actually make a living doing it.
Of course, when talking about Iraq's WMD, all you really need to do is inform yourself, which you don't need any sort of information specialist training to do.