Gee... I remember millions of people; who didn't believe Bush's reasons for going to war; protesting it.
There were alot of people who didn't "trust" their reasoning, evidence or motives.
Remember the forged paper Powell waved at the UN before the war...
he was being told it was fake BEFORE the war.
The administration was going in no matter what... whichever scare tactic was the most effective and getting public support, they were going to use.
And then there's the whole 9/11 changed everything argument... if that's true... why were they planning on the war before 9/11?
We had world support to go into Afghanistan. And virtually none for Iraq... why? Because Afghanistan had a direct link to the attackers... and Iraq's connection to 9/11? None.
That was your best guess. Remember giant I told you once, everything is false until proven true.
Right. And, as we've seen, the claims of a big Iraqi WMD threat (contrary to what the evidence indicated) are still false.
Hell, I'm still even open to finding some left-over mustard or anthrax, but the evidence shows, and has always shown, that it's really not likely (not to mention that both are nothing for americans to worry about).
.........so would somebody tell me if Bill Clinton and Kofi Annon are in on the WMD conspiracy?
I seem to remember......something about SHRIKE missiles, no-fly zones.......Inspectors.........They seemed to have mentioned something about that in the last century...........
........maybe I just imagined all that. Nevermind.
.........so would somebody tell me if Bill Clinton and Kofi Annon are in on the WMD conspiracy?
As far as the UN side, no one can argue that the inspection were not absolutely necessary.
As for Clinton, see my post above:
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Desert Fox was in many ways a mistake that ultimately was a good thing in terms of the inspection process.
Regardless, last winter's inspection process taught us quite a bit about Iraq and Iraqi WMD, so much so that we finally had a pretty complete picture. In other words, in spring 2003 we had much, much more evidence that Iraq no longer had large stocks or production facilities.
Wow that is perhaps the most dishonest quoting I have ever seen done here. Perhaps I have to write a book about you.
First it is in a thread where the topic of discussion is, CNN hold back news of atrocities so they could continue getting information from sources in Iraq.
Next you have to show that I was replying to Powerdoc.
Quote:
Unfortunately, The Iraq war, was not presented in the early stages, like a war for freedoom, but a war against a threat : forbidden WOMD in iraq. The official reason for this war, was the resolution 1441, a resolution speaking of WOMD but not of dictatorship. At this time, like any others europeans people, i use to think that war was not necessary at this time to make respect the UN resolutions. The coalition decided otherwise and the war started. This war was a military sucess until today.
The problem is that i don't see many WOMD for the moment. In fact i am surprised, i was thinking that more WOMD will be discovered (biological and chemical). There is still time to check, but for the moment the results are not big. If this war had for only goal WOMD it's a failure.
In an other way, something good result of this war, the liberation of the Iraqi people, something that is more important for me, than some crappy french oil contract or debt with a dictator. And yes, the war (if the post war is well managed) is a good thing for that.
In short i vote yes for a war for freedoom, and no for a war against WOMD. Presenting this war, for a war against WOMD was wrong at the eye of the public opinion, at least for my self. I am happy for the Iraqi people, i expect that the coalition will suceed the management of the post war, something that may be more difficult than the war itself.
To which I replied in this manner, the whole post, not some selective quoting with WORDS and the emphasis on those worsd added by you.
Quote:
I am sure in the end that these will be found as well. If they couldn't report information or intelligence relating to the murdering of brothers-in-law and torturing of camera operators (see how PC I am ) then it is obvious they could not have gotten information out or even asked about regarding Anthrax, dirty nukes, various gases and things of that nature.
It is quite obvious that I was relating to the fact that CNN wouldn't be asking probing questions about WOMD when they allowed their own camera operator to be tortured and avoided reporting OTHER ATROCITIES in Iraq in order to keep lines of communication open.
You have sunk to new lows of credibility. If you can't compete on ideas, that is fine, but don't resort to outright lies and distortions of my own words because I happen to know that topic(me) pretty well.
To which I replied in this manner, the whole post, not some selective quoting with WORDS and the emphasis on those worsd added by you.
That's the whole post? Really? Let's look at what it really says and put your dishonesty out in the open:
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I am sure in the end that these will be found as well. If they couldn't report information or intelligence relating to the murdering of brothers-in-law and torturing of camera operators (see how PC I am ) then it is obvious they could not have gotten information out or even asked about regarding Anthrax, dirty nukes, various gases and things of that nature.
Now that the threat is gone, I have no doubt they will be lead to and find these items.
The freedom of the Iraqi people is just the gravy.
You said you are "sure in the end that these will be found as well" and that you "have no doubt they will be lead to and find these items" followed by "The freedom of the Iraqi people is just the gravy."
You said you are "sure in the end that these will be found as well" and that you "have no doubt they will be lead to and find these items" followed by "The freedom of the Iraqi people is just the gravy."
That's what you said so deal with it.
Exactly so deal with it. As well means that I was discussing issues IN ADDITION to WOMD and meant that they would be found IN ADDITION to the numerous other atrocities.
The thread was about CNN not mentioning these other atrocities. If you can't read the thread and understand it, then it is no skin off my nose. In fact for you, it is pretty much par for the course. If you presume to claim to know what I typed better than I, the person who typed it, then again no skin off my nose because you have already proven your dishonesty, and shown a total inability to handle the truth.
Here's a hint giant, when you have to argue with people about the meaning of their own words, you've already lost because you can't go around claiming to be a better authority than me on ME. This appeal to authority is a common fallacy you practice though and so it is nothing new. The only delusion is believing yourself the authority and that anyone would admire you as such. It is a subtle form of personal attack and it gets tiring.
The president can't make that decision. He can however go into Iraq without the approval of congress.
Yes except you neglect to mention that he got the approval of Congress. Likewise do you honestly wish to declare it would be easier for Bush to get authorization to go to war in Iraq than it would be to get authorization to drill in Alaska or get defensive spending bills passed for military spending after 9/11?
Like I said, the hate has moved into claims that sound insane.
Kerry and Edwards would rather vote to give Bush permission to get over 500 U.S. soldiers killed instead of drilling for some oil in Alaska. Likewise the political cost of a war in Iraq and the effect of it on electability is LOWER than for drilling in Alaska.
Understand that you are saying this is true for Bush, the Congress that voted for the measure and of course the people in the upcoming election, who would, we can assume apparently reelect Bush because he took the "easy" way out by spending a couple hundred billion in Iraq.
No, what we apparently know now is exactly what all of the evidence was pointing to. The only things pointing to Iraq having weapons were speculation, disinformation and ignorance of the facts.
From an oil drilling standpoint alone, where's the greater payoff and by how much, Alaska or the Middle East?
Oh Iraq has more oil. However obviously the world is watching to insure that Iraq gets control of it's oil back. Would they ever be doing that in Alaska?
Again how could what we've done in Iraq even been considered a gain that someone would actually choose over any other choice. (Assuming of course they had one) In Alaska, the oil is ours. There are no disputes about the gains from it. No world watching what is done with it, etc.
I was talking about the 'payout', not quantity. If Iraq's oil is re-pegged to the USD, we'll get more economic benefit than all the oil in Alaska.
That might be cause for another thread because I think the decline of the dollar has been intentional and allowed for trade purposes. The EU is currently looking at solutions to prop up the dollar because the decline hurts their profits so. Japan has constantly done this in the past.
The biggest potential oil output alaska could produce is so small it would not make much of a difference.
If we want to rely less on middle east oil... we need alternatives... there will never be enough oil off our coasts or in our national parks to change that.
The reason we make a big deal about the statements made by powell and kay regarding apparently lack of Iraqi WMD is because the 'Attack Iraq' cult clings to whatever they say without regard to substance, detail and context.
Kay's statements have always and will always be worthless, except to throw your own idols back at you.
In this case, while what he says may be true, there is no detail provided, so we have no idea at this point what would have been shipped across. As he noted, we aren't talking about tanker trucks full of VX (which would be physcially impossible), we are talking about possible "components," whatever that means.
Certain policy makers in our government also would like to take this war to syria. How convenient that a CIA operative says that "components" seem to have been shipped over there.
I have no doubt that there could be some validity to his statement, but this is just another example of you latching onto statements without interest in the full detailed story, just like how you didn't know where the Iraq/WTC93 story originated and, therefore, didn't even know the details of the theory before buying into it.
Comments
There were alot of people who didn't "trust" their reasoning, evidence or motives.
Remember the forged paper Powell waved at the UN before the war...
he was being told it was fake BEFORE the war.
The administration was going in no matter what... whichever scare tactic was the most effective and getting public support, they were going to use.
And then there's the whole 9/11 changed everything argument... if that's true... why were they planning on the war before 9/11?
We had world support to go into Afghanistan. And virtually none for Iraq... why? Because Afghanistan had a direct link to the attackers... and Iraq's connection to 9/11? None.
Originally posted by trumptman
First I doubt I ever listed it as the main or exclusive reason for supporting this war.
From a 30 second search:
April 11
Originally posted by trumptman
I am sure in the end that these [WMD] will be found as well...
Now that the threat is gone, I have no doubt they will be lead to and find these items.
The freedom of the Iraqi people is just the gravy.
It's just yet another example.
Originally posted by Scott
That was your best guess. Remember giant I told you once, everything is false until proven true.
Right. And, as we've seen, the claims of a big Iraqi WMD threat (contrary to what the evidence indicated) are still false.
Hell, I'm still even open to finding some left-over mustard or anthrax, but the evidence shows, and has always shown, that it's really not likely (not to mention that both are nothing for americans to worry about).
I seem to remember......something about SHRIKE missiles, no-fly zones.......Inspectors.........They seemed to have mentioned something about that in the last century...........
........maybe I just imagined all that. Nevermind.
Originally posted by dmz
.........so would somebody tell me if Bill Clinton and Kofi Annon are in on the WMD conspiracy?
As far as the UN side, no one can argue that the inspection were not absolutely necessary.
As for Clinton, see my post above:
Originally posted by giant
Desert Fox was in many ways a mistake that ultimately was a good thing in terms of the inspection process.
Regardless, last winter's inspection process taught us quite a bit about Iraq and Iraqi WMD, so much so that we finally had a pretty complete picture. In other words, in spring 2003 we had much, much more evidence that Iraq no longer had large stocks or production facilities.
Originally posted by giant
From a 30 second search:
April 11
Wow that is perhaps the most dishonest quoting I have ever seen done here. Perhaps I have to write a book about you.
First it is in a thread where the topic of discussion is, CNN hold back news of atrocities so they could continue getting information from sources in Iraq.
Next you have to show that I was replying to Powerdoc.
Unfortunately, The Iraq war, was not presented in the early stages, like a war for freedoom, but a war against a threat : forbidden WOMD in iraq. The official reason for this war, was the resolution 1441, a resolution speaking of WOMD but not of dictatorship. At this time, like any others europeans people, i use to think that war was not necessary at this time to make respect the UN resolutions. The coalition decided otherwise and the war started. This war was a military sucess until today.
The problem is that i don't see many WOMD for the moment. In fact i am surprised, i was thinking that more WOMD will be discovered (biological and chemical). There is still time to check, but for the moment the results are not big. If this war had for only goal WOMD it's a failure.
In an other way, something good result of this war, the liberation of the Iraqi people, something that is more important for me, than some crappy french oil contract or debt with a dictator. And yes, the war (if the post war is well managed) is a good thing for that.
In short i vote yes for a war for freedoom, and no for a war against WOMD. Presenting this war, for a war against WOMD was wrong at the eye of the public opinion, at least for my self. I am happy for the Iraqi people, i expect that the coalition will suceed the management of the post war, something that may be more difficult than the war itself.
To which I replied in this manner, the whole post, not some selective quoting with WORDS and the emphasis on those worsd added by you.
I am sure in the end that these will be found as well. If they couldn't report information or intelligence relating to the murdering of brothers-in-law and torturing of camera operators (see how PC I am ) then it is obvious they could not have gotten information out or even asked about regarding Anthrax, dirty nukes, various gases and things of that nature.
It is quite obvious that I was relating to the fact that CNN wouldn't be asking probing questions about WOMD when they allowed their own camera operator to be tortured and avoided reporting OTHER ATROCITIES in Iraq in order to keep lines of communication open.
You have sunk to new lows of credibility. If you can't compete on ideas, that is fine, but don't resort to outright lies and distortions of my own words because I happen to know that topic(me) pretty well.
Nick
And that the US was backing UN resolutions and maintaining the containment strategy established after the Gulf War.
Originally posted by trumptman
To which I replied in this manner, the whole post, not some selective quoting with WORDS and the emphasis on those worsd added by you.
That's the whole post? Really? Let's look at what it really says and put your dishonesty out in the open:
Originally posted by trumptman
I am sure in the end that these will be found as well. If they couldn't report information or intelligence relating to the murdering of brothers-in-law and torturing of camera operators (see how PC I am
Now that the threat is gone, I have no doubt they will be lead to and find these items.
The freedom of the Iraqi people is just the gravy.
Nick
(betting on a middle-east dominos game)
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...avy#post332171
You said you are "sure in the end that these will be found as well" and that you "have no doubt they will be lead to and find these items" followed by "The freedom of the Iraqi people is just the gravy."
That's what you said so deal with it.
Thank you,
Fellows
Originally posted by giant
That's the whole post? Really? Let's look at what it really says and put your dishonesty out in the open:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...avy#post332171
You said you are "sure in the end that these will be found as well" and that you "have no doubt they will be lead to and find these items" followed by "The freedom of the Iraqi people is just the gravy."
That's what you said so deal with it.
Exactly so deal with it. As well means that I was discussing issues IN ADDITION to WOMD and meant that they would be found IN ADDITION to the numerous other atrocities.
The thread was about CNN not mentioning these other atrocities. If you can't read the thread and understand it, then it is no skin off my nose. In fact for you, it is pretty much par for the course. If you presume to claim to know what I typed better than I, the person who typed it, then again no skin off my nose because you have already proven your dishonesty, and shown a total inability to handle the truth.
Here's a hint giant, when you have to argue with people about the meaning of their own words, you've already lost because you can't go around claiming to be a better authority than me on ME. This appeal to authority is a common fallacy you practice though and so it is nothing new. The only delusion is believing yourself the authority and that anyone would admire you as such. It is a subtle form of personal attack and it gets tiring.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Death, debt, all of it so a few friends can make some bucks.
I mean wouldn't it be a whole hell of a lot easier to just let them drill here[?]
The president can't make that decision. He can however go into Iraq without the approval of congress.
Originally posted by bunge
The president can't make that decision. He can however go into Iraq without the approval of congress.
Yes except you neglect to mention that he got the approval of Congress. Likewise do you honestly wish to declare it would be easier for Bush to get authorization to go to war in Iraq than it would be to get authorization to drill in Alaska or get defensive spending bills passed for military spending after 9/11?
Like I said, the hate has moved into claims that sound insane.
Kerry and Edwards would rather vote to give Bush permission to get over 500 U.S. soldiers killed instead of drilling for some oil in Alaska. Likewise the political cost of a war in Iraq and the effect of it on electability is LOWER than for drilling in Alaska.
Understand that you are saying this is true for Bush, the Congress that voted for the measure and of course the people in the upcoming election, who would, we can assume apparently reelect Bush because he took the "easy" way out by spending a couple hundred billion in Iraq.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
No, what we apparently know now is exactly what all of the evidence was pointing to. The only things pointing to Iraq having weapons were speculation, disinformation and ignorance of the facts.
Look again
Tiz like I always suspected.
Originally posted by trumptman
Like I said, the hate has moved into claims that sound insane.
From an oil drilling standpoint alone, where's the greater payoff and by how much, Alaska or the Middle East?
Originally posted by bunge
From an oil drilling standpoint alone, where's the greater payoff and by how much, Alaska or the Middle East?
Oh Iraq has more oil. However obviously the world is watching to insure that Iraq gets control of it's oil back. Would they ever be doing that in Alaska?
Again how could what we've done in Iraq even been considered a gain that someone would actually choose over any other choice. (Assuming of course they had one) In Alaska, the oil is ours. There are no disputes about the gains from it. No world watching what is done with it, etc.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Oh Iraq has more oil.
I was talking about the 'payout', not quantity. If Iraq's oil is re-pegged to the USD, we'll get more economic benefit than all the oil in Alaska.
Originally posted by bunge
I was talking about the 'payout', not quantity. If Iraq's oil is re-pegged to the USD, we'll get more economic benefit than all the oil in Alaska.
That might be cause for another thread because I think the decline of the dollar has been intentional and allowed for trade purposes. The EU is currently looking at solutions to prop up the dollar because the decline hurts their profits so. Japan has constantly done this in the past.
Nick
If we want to rely less on middle east oil... we need alternatives... there will never be enough oil off our coasts or in our national parks to change that.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Look again
The reason we make a big deal about the statements made by powell and kay regarding apparently lack of Iraqi WMD is because the 'Attack Iraq' cult clings to whatever they say without regard to substance, detail and context.
Kay's statements have always and will always be worthless, except to throw your own idols back at you.
In this case, while what he says may be true, there is no detail provided, so we have no idea at this point what would have been shipped across. As he noted, we aren't talking about tanker trucks full of VX (which would be physcially impossible), we are talking about possible "components," whatever that means.
Certain policy makers in our government also would like to take this war to syria. How convenient that a CIA operative says that "components" seem to have been shipped over there.
I have no doubt that there could be some validity to his statement, but this is just another example of you latching onto statements without interest in the full detailed story, just like how you didn't know where the Iraq/WTC93 story originated and, therefore, didn't even know the details of the theory before buying into it.