" Clinton was a scumbag, hell he IS a scumbag even today, but that's what modern presidents are. Does it make me morally bankrupt to acknowledge that and not really care all that much, that's your call. "
So why not decide to not except this standard? Try to move to something better and more trustworthy be it republican or democrat. Following this road and just accepting it can only lead to one thing. The errosion of our democracy.
I just lost an entire post because Safari quite. I'm not going through that again....let me summarize:
1) There is no evidence Bush lied. There are so many other possible explanations at this point we can't begin to say that. We still may find weapons (asI believe we will). They could have ben moved in the five years there were no inspectors. The intelligence could have been dead wrong (though that would be another matter). One can't base this assumption on one mistatement about an IAEA report. That in itself could have a million different explanations. Perhaps he was thinking of another report. Perhaps he was just wrong about it. Who knows? I agree he shouldn't have said it but that doesn't make it a lie.
2) If he did lie, I have as much of a problem with that as some of you do. However, those of you calling Bush stupid enough to blatantly lie about this should realize that one of his biggest strengths is that people underestimate his intelligence and political skills. We'll see.
3) I agree...when exactly did Saddam get rid of his weapons? Since we know they were there in 1998, at what point between then and now did he destroy them? Where did he destroy them? How? Where is the evidence? He was required to present this information, and/or lead inspectors to stockpiles he DID have so they could be destroyed. He didn't do that. End of story. The aformmentioned questions MUST be answered for me to agree there are no weapons. The mere apparent absence of CBN now is not sufficient to say "there are no weapons".
4) Tonton, Clinton did not tell a white lie as you claim. He literally looked at the camera and shook his finger at the nation. That's no white lie.
I just lost an entire post because Safari quite. I'm not going through that again....let me summarize:
1) There is no evidence Bush lied. There are so many other possible explanations at this point we can't begin to say that. We still may find weapons (asI believe we will). They could have ben moved in the five years there were no inspectors. The intelligence could have been dead wrong (though that would be another matter). One can't base this assumption on one mistatement about an IAEA report. That in itself could have a million different explanations. Perhaps he was thinking of another report. Perhaps he was just wrong about it. Who knows? I agree he shouldn't have said it but that doesn't make it a lie.
2) If he did lie, I have as much of a problem with that as some of you do. However, those of you calling Bush stupid enough to blatantly lie about this should realize that one of his biggest strengths is that people underestimate his intelligence and political skills. We'll see.
3) I agree...when exactly did Saddam get rid of his weapons? Since we know they were there in 1998, at what point between then and now did he destroy them? Where did he destroy them? How? Where is the evidence? He was required to present this information, and/or lead inspectors to stockpiles he DID have so they could be destroyed. He didn't do that. End of story. The aformmentioned questions MUST be answered for me to agree there are no weapons. The mere apparent absence of CBN now is not sufficient to say "there are no weapons".
4) Tonton, Clinton did not tell a white lie as you claim. He literally looked at the camera and shook his finger at the nation. That's no white lie.
Oh, and the noogie idea could be fun:
Give it up SDW. The world has already pasted you by. Hey Nixon was a very intelligent man. He lied. Intellegence doesn't imply common sense and I don't think Bush is any where near as intellegent or skillfull as Nixon was.
Safari occasionally does stupid things doesn't it?
when exactly did Saddam get rid of his weapons? Since we know they were there in 1998, at what point between then and now did he destroy them? Where did he destroy them? How? Where is the evidence?
C'mon giant---you need to settle down on an answer for this.
By voting for an honest, hard-working advocate of the little guy... like... Ralph Nader?
Let's see, I already did that.
Why don't you *ahem*except this standard?
Quote:
Try to move to something better and more trustworthy be it republican or democrat. Following this road and just accepting it can only lead to one thing. The errosion of our democracy.
Who did you vote for in 2000?
Who did I vote for in 2000?
And again, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
What is this 'them'? What *exactly* are the weapons that he 'had'? This shouldn't be difficult at all since it is so 'obvious'.
For extra credit, you can demonstrate that what you refer to is and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people.'
Sarcasm.
"He obviously had them in 1998..." is a satirical impersonation of a partisan tool trying to defend 1998's Desert Fox (or at least ignore it) while screaming bloody murder about Operation Iraqi Freedom; both of which were pushed by the president-of-the-time with the WMD story.
C'mon giant---you need to settle down on an answer for this.
AND NO 58,000 WORD POSTS!!
That he destroyed what? Please, tell me exactly what weapons Saddam had that posed an 'imminent threat' that required immediate war. If I don't know exactly what weapons people are referring to I can't answer the question.
Stop avoiding it.
And I will post the relevant information in the amount required by the topic. I have no pity for people that base their lives on unsubstantiated assumptions.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Sarcasm.
I understand what your post said, but what I was referring to was an underlying unsubstantiated assumption in many of the posts here.
I ask again, what *exactly* are these weapons that are an 'imminent threat' to the US?
This should be a really easy question to answer for anyone with even a remote knowledge of Saddam's weapons programs, which certain individuals here claim to have but obviously don't.
I understand what your post said, but what I was referring to was an underlying unsubstantiated assumption in many of the posts here.
Read: "I am unable to counter your actual arguments so I'm making assumptions about what you are 'really' saying and using those assumptions to build fake arguments that I can battle more easily."
Quote:
I ask again, what *exactly* are these weapons that are an 'imminent threat' to the US?
*Since* I never *said* there *were* weapons *that* were *an* imminent *threat* I *don't* know why *the* hell you would *ask* me *that* question*.*
QUICK, GIANT, WHY DO YOU EAT BABIES!? WHY!? TELL ME NOW!
Read: "I am unable to counter your actual arguments so I'm making assumptions about what you are 'really' saying and using those assumptions to build fake arguments that I can battle more easily."
No, just simply read. If someone assumes Iraq 'had' 'them' without anything to back it up, it is an ansubstantiated assumption.
Quote:
*Since* I never *said* there *were* weapons *that* were *an* imminent *threat* I *don't* know why *the* hell you would *ask* me *that* question*.*
...no word games giant, what was Iraq in "material breach" over----sometime last fall/early spring?
....did he have CBN weapons in 1998?
Sorry, but Bush himself stated that we were invading Iraq immediately becuase Iraq was an 'ugent' and 'imminent threat.'
As for you trying to use UN terms, neither the Security Council, the UN as a whole nor the mojority of citizens of any country in the UN (with the exception of the US and Australia, representing only 1% of the nations in the UN) supported the war, so you can't use the UN as justification. Furthermore, the US only went through the UN as a formality and to build support.
As for Iraqi 'CBN,' it is a general term that is meaningless unless backed up by specific data concerning specific chemicals or other materials.
What if the WMD were really there...just as claimed? Saddam, knowing many months in advance that he would be crushed by a US invasion, decided to conceal everything well beforehand in the most unlikely of places in Iraq, or even across the remote borders of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saddams a horror story, but not stupid: he must have carefully planned his actions well in advance of the certain military defeat he knew he was facing. Perhaps there are some tens of thousands of loyalists who have melted into civilian life waiting for "the orders"...and thats when we will see evidence of those WMD...or the effects of them. ..in Iraq, or Israel, or even the US. Perhaps Saddam and his loyalists may sell WMDs off to the highest bidder so they can use them? Or perhaps whats left has been looted...just like what happened at the Tuwaitha nuclear facility. There's enough highly dangerous nuclear waste at that site to manufacture an arsenal of "dirty bombs".
Before the war...Saddam Hussein and his regime was a known entity, contained, surveilled and no real threat to an outside nation. Now...all bets are off, anything may happen. Bush lied, Powell lied, Blair lied... and now the world is now potentially a far more dangerous place.
As for Iraqi 'CBN,' it is a general term that is meaningless unless backed up by specific data concerning specific chemicals or other materials.
giant, you are being silly.
8/11/2002
Quote:
Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ?MATERIAL BREACH? OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ?Serious Consequences? for Continued Violations
Holding Iraq in ?material breach? of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a ?final opportunity to comply? with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
Is this more Halliburton propaganda---or was Iraq in material breach?
Is this more Halliburton propaganda---or was Iraq in material breach?
Did the UN support the war?
There is no way you can avoid two flat-out facts: 1. that the UN did not support the war and did not deem war necessary and 2. that the Bush admin only went to the UN for diplomatic reasons.
The simple fact that the US invaded Iraq for 'self-defence' means that Iraq needed to be a threat in order for the war to be justified.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Bush colored glasses.
Well, when did he have them? 91? 98?
" Clinton was a scumbag, hell he IS a scumbag even today, but that's what modern presidents are. Does it make me morally bankrupt to acknowledge that and not really care all that much, that's your call. "
So why not decide to not except this standard? Try to move to something better and more trustworthy be it republican or democrat. Following this road and just accepting it can only lead to one thing. The errosion of our democracy.
Originally posted by ena
Well, when did he have them? 91? 98?
How do you know I wasn't talking about you?
Originally posted by SDW2001
ALL of the evidence Bush cited was wrong? ALL OF IT???? Please. That's just an absurd, ridiculous statement.
For the love of god, please present something to back up what you post!
Originally posted by groverat, ena and SDW
He obviously had them in 1998
What is this 'them'? What *exactly* are the weapons that he 'had'? This shouldn't be difficult at all since it is so 'obvious'.
For extra credit, you can demonstrate that what you refer to is and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people.'
1) There is no evidence Bush lied. There are so many other possible explanations at this point we can't begin to say that. We still may find weapons (asI believe we will). They could have ben moved in the five years there were no inspectors. The intelligence could have been dead wrong (though that would be another matter). One can't base this assumption on one mistatement about an IAEA report. That in itself could have a million different explanations. Perhaps he was thinking of another report. Perhaps he was just wrong about it. Who knows? I agree he shouldn't have said it but that doesn't make it a lie.
2) If he did lie, I have as much of a problem with that as some of you do. However, those of you calling Bush stupid enough to blatantly lie about this should realize that one of his biggest strengths is that people underestimate his intelligence and political skills. We'll see.
3) I agree...when exactly did Saddam get rid of his weapons? Since we know they were there in 1998, at what point between then and now did he destroy them? Where did he destroy them? How? Where is the evidence? He was required to present this information, and/or lead inspectors to stockpiles he DID have so they could be destroyed. He didn't do that. End of story. The aformmentioned questions MUST be answered for me to agree there are no weapons. The mere apparent absence of CBN now is not sufficient to say "there are no weapons".
4) Tonton, Clinton did not tell a white lie as you claim. He literally looked at the camera and shook his finger at the nation. That's no white lie.
Oh, and the noogie idea could be fun:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I just lost an entire post because Safari quite. I'm not going through that again....let me summarize:
1) There is no evidence Bush lied. There are so many other possible explanations at this point we can't begin to say that. We still may find weapons (asI believe we will). They could have ben moved in the five years there were no inspectors. The intelligence could have been dead wrong (though that would be another matter). One can't base this assumption on one mistatement about an IAEA report. That in itself could have a million different explanations. Perhaps he was thinking of another report. Perhaps he was just wrong about it. Who knows? I agree he shouldn't have said it but that doesn't make it a lie.
2) If he did lie, I have as much of a problem with that as some of you do. However, those of you calling Bush stupid enough to blatantly lie about this should realize that one of his biggest strengths is that people underestimate his intelligence and political skills. We'll see.
3) I agree...when exactly did Saddam get rid of his weapons? Since we know they were there in 1998, at what point between then and now did he destroy them? Where did he destroy them? How? Where is the evidence? He was required to present this information, and/or lead inspectors to stockpiles he DID have so they could be destroyed. He didn't do that. End of story. The aformmentioned questions MUST be answered for me to agree there are no weapons. The mere apparent absence of CBN now is not sufficient to say "there are no weapons".
4) Tonton, Clinton did not tell a white lie as you claim. He literally looked at the camera and shook his finger at the nation. That's no white lie.
Oh, and the noogie idea could be fun:
Give it up SDW. The world has already pasted you by. Hey Nixon was a very intelligent man. He lied. Intellegence doesn't imply common sense and I don't think Bush is any where near as intellegent or skillfull as Nixon was.
Safari occasionally does stupid things doesn't it?
Originally posted by SDW2001
when exactly did Saddam get rid of his weapons? Since we know they were there in 1998, at what point between then and now did he destroy them? Where did he destroy them? How? Where is the evidence?
C'mon giant---you need to settle down on an answer for this.
AND NO 58,000 WORD POSTS!!
So why not decide to not except this standard?
By voting for an honest, hard-working advocate of the little guy... like... Ralph Nader?
Let's see, I already did that.
Why don't you *ahem*except this standard?
Try to move to something better and more trustworthy be it republican or democrat. Following this road and just accepting it can only lead to one thing. The errosion of our democracy.
Who did you vote for in 2000?
Who did I vote for in 2000?
And again, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
What is this 'them'? What *exactly* are the weapons that he 'had'? This shouldn't be difficult at all since it is so 'obvious'.
For extra credit, you can demonstrate that what you refer to is and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people.'
Sarcasm.
"He obviously had them in 1998..." is a satirical impersonation of a partisan tool trying to defend 1998's Desert Fox (or at least ignore it) while screaming bloody murder about Operation Iraqi Freedom; both of which were pushed by the president-of-the-time with the WMD story.
Flex that NW muscle, come on!
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:
By voting for an honest, hard-working advocate of the little guy... like... Ralph Nader?
Let's see, I already did that.
Why don't you *ahem*except this standard?
Who did you vote for in 2000?
Who did I vote for in 2000?
And again, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
I'll give you a clue. I'm registered independent.
As far as him lying about WOMD in Iraq in 98 well we'll never know. That was a different time and we have no way of investigating it now.
That may be the weakest cop-out I have ever seen in my life.
Yikes.
Originally posted by ena
C'mon giant---you need to settle down on an answer for this.
AND NO 58,000 WORD POSTS!!
That he destroyed what? Please, tell me exactly what weapons Saddam had that posed an 'imminent threat' that required immediate war. If I don't know exactly what weapons people are referring to I can't answer the question.
Stop avoiding it.
And I will post the relevant information in the amount required by the topic. I have no pity for people that base their lives on unsubstantiated assumptions.
Originally posted by groverat
Sarcasm.
I understand what your post said, but what I was referring to was an underlying unsubstantiated assumption in many of the posts here.
I ask again, what *exactly* are these weapons that are an 'imminent threat' to the US?
This should be a really easy question to answer for anyone with even a remote knowledge of Saddam's weapons programs, which certain individuals here claim to have but obviously don't.
I understand what your post said, but what I was referring to was an underlying unsubstantiated assumption in many of the posts here.
Read: "I am unable to counter your actual arguments so I'm making assumptions about what you are 'really' saying and using those assumptions to build fake arguments that I can battle more easily."
I ask again, what *exactly* are these weapons that are an 'imminent threat' to the US?
*Since* I never *said* there *were* weapons *that* were *an* imminent *threat* I *don't* know why *the* hell you would *ask* me *that* question*.*
QUICK, GIANT, WHY DO YOU EAT BABIES!? WHY!? TELL ME NOW!
....did he have CBN weapons in 1998?
Originally posted by groverat
Read: "I am unable to counter your actual arguments so I'm making assumptions about what you are 'really' saying and using those assumptions to build fake arguments that I can battle more easily."
No, just simply read. If someone assumes Iraq 'had' 'them' without anything to back it up, it is an ansubstantiated assumption.
*Since* I never *said* there *were* weapons *that* were *an* imminent *threat* I *don't* know why *the* hell you would *ask* me *that* question*.*
*Then* *don't* *answer* *the* *question* *genius*
Originally posted by ena
...no word games giant, what was Iraq in "material breach" over----sometime last fall/early spring?
....did he have CBN weapons in 1998?
Sorry, but Bush himself stated that we were invading Iraq immediately becuase Iraq was an 'ugent' and 'imminent threat.'
As for you trying to use UN terms, neither the Security Council, the UN as a whole nor the mojority of citizens of any country in the UN (with the exception of the US and Australia, representing only 1% of the nations in the UN) supported the war, so you can't use the UN as justification. Furthermore, the US only went through the UN as a formality and to build support.
As for Iraqi 'CBN,' it is a general term that is meaningless unless backed up by specific data concerning specific chemicals or other materials.
What *exactly* are you referring to?
Before the war...Saddam Hussein and his regime was a known entity, contained, surveilled and no real threat to an outside nation. Now...all bets are off, anything may happen. Bush lied, Powell lied, Blair lied... and now the world is now potentially a far more dangerous place.
Originally posted by giant
[B]
As for Iraqi 'CBN,' it is a general term that is meaningless unless backed up by specific data concerning specific chemicals or other materials.
giant, you are being silly.
8/11/2002
Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ?MATERIAL BREACH? OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ?Serious Consequences? for Continued Violations
Holding Iraq in ?material breach? of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a ?final opportunity to comply? with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
Is this more Halliburton propaganda---or was Iraq in material breach?
Originally posted by ena
giant, you are being silly.
ena, you are avoiding the question.
Is this more Halliburton propaganda---or was Iraq in material breach?
Did the UN support the war?
There is no way you can avoid two flat-out facts: 1. that the UN did not support the war and did not deem war necessary and 2. that the Bush admin only went to the UN for diplomatic reasons.
The simple fact that the US invaded Iraq for 'self-defence' means that Iraq needed to be a threat in order for the war to be justified.
No, just simply read. If someone assumes Iraq 'had' 'them' without anything to back it up, it is an ansubstantiated assumption.
Again, does this apply to me?
And if not, why do you keep asking me questions that don't apply to me?