Yeah and everyone should walk around with a shotgun too.
Dope.
Well it wasn't the best presented argument ever, but I think you have missed another option inherent in Nightcrawler's post i.e. no-one walks around with shotguns.
You're running around in circles to avoid what has been said to you. You made the assertion that delivery is nonexistent. I countered that smuggling a large amount of something into the country is a nonissue, if illegal drugs are an indication. You implied that the condition of "delivery" is soley contingent on the presence of long range missles. I countered that a "delivery" could be made quite easily right at your doorstep via postal mail. That said, there are any number of ways to terrorize you, none of which require the possession of intercontinental range "delivery" devices. All of this comes from your remark that it was impossible for Iraq to present a threat to us because of "delivery". The bottomline still is, delivery is a nonissue. If you are unsatisfied with the answer to your "delivery" conundrum, then don't keep bringing it up. Faced with that, you turn around and refocus on the "where's the WMD" rhetoric. You will recall that it was explained that the need to "go in" based on the essence of determining if something does indeed "exist" or "does not exist". If it "doesn't exist", that doesn't diminish the need to have "gone in". We still had to verify that it "doesn't exist". [...awaits for what you will loop back to this time]
...imagines, "Uhh, yeah, well Bush lied to the people! Out the door in 2004! Rah-rah-rah!"
The reason I focus on those is that they're very good questions! Look either Saddam was a real threat to us here in america or not. That was the main reason this war got off the ground. Without it all the other reasons would have been shrugged at. You know that and I know that!
No I'm afraid you're the one who's running around with his fingers in his ears yelling " That doesn't matter! That doesn't matter! ".
What was implied was a cache of WOMD that could be delivered ( and of course since this was vague due to " security reasons " what was implied by the yellow cake urainium deal was nuclear ) to us in a big way ( not just my doorstep or just a few ). That's what was implied and what pro war advocates were thinking. Otherwise people would have pushed for this to be handled another way.
It really doesn't matter if you think there were plenty of reasons to " Go in ". The one that got this war going apparently doesn't exist!
Those are the facts and no amount of spin doctoring will change that. I say spin doctoring because I don't think you're stupid and can wrap your mind around the concept. You just don't want to.
what you seem to not understand is the fact that nearly every nation in the world has biological and chemical weapons or can easily produce them, because they are easy to produce!
I do understand that. All of these nations are/should be critically accountable for said materials, as well. Clearly, that demands certain standards for those who are fit to possess such items responsibly and those who cannot be trusted. Saying that anybody should be able to have them just because the US does, is plainly irresponsible. You should know that.
The reason I focus on those is that they're very good questions! Look either Saddam was a real threat to us here in america or not. That was the main reason this war got off the ground. Without it all the other reasons would have been shrugged at. You know that and I know that!
Poor logic, short-focused, simplistic...
You seem to be perpetually stumped on a single point ("He lied to me!") and cease to be capable of seeing the forest for the trees. You want to shout it from the mountaintops in hopes that someone cares about it as much as you do, but alas, you are just shouting into space. Life goes on, things have gotten better, the future holds promise. That's what the rest of the world will be doing while you choose to keep your mental frame stuck in 2002.
You seem to be perpetually stumped on a single point ("He lied to me!") and cease to be capable of seeing the forest for the trees. You want to shout it from the mountaintops in hopes that someone cares about it as much as you do, but alas, you are just shouting into space. Life goes on, things have gotten better, the future holds promise. That's what the rest of the world will be doing while you choose to keep your mental frame stuck in 2002.
Some of the greatist concepts in life can be distilled down into simple terms.
So the president lieing about starting a war is ok in your book. I got that.
About things like life and death ( and a lot of money ) the president shouldn't lie.
Bottom line.
There have been presidents in the past that thought the end justified the means.
I think many more people than myself are concerned with this sort of thing. I don't think they just want to sweep it under the rug ( the curious thing is only Bush supporters want to do that ). If you don't believe me I refer you to Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon.
I think you'll find in the coming months it's a lot more real than you give it credit for.
Aside from your regular alarmist headlines, I think you will find out, as well. Sell your Mustang, yet? No? I guess burning that Iraqi oil isn't so unpalletable when weighed against your personal comfort.
Aside from your regular alarmist headlines, I think you will find out, as well. Sell your Mustang, yet? No? I guess burning that Iraqi oil isn't so unpalletable when weighed against your personal comfort.
Randy, Randy, Randy, have been drinking or smoking something again. I don't know who told you they would sell their car but it wasn't me. That's the last time I respond to that. Couldn't answer my other question? I thought not since just about everybody here would be all over you if you tried to manufacture an answer.
By the way how do you know where the oil in my car comes from?
You really need to better than this kind of response. You accuse me of being a " bleating parrot " I think it was. At least I give credible reasons for my thinking.
In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.
"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.
The CIA named former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who had expressed his own doubts that unconventional arms would be found in Iraq, to replace Kay.
Kay said he believes most of what was going to be uncovered in Iraq had been found and that the weapons hunt would become more difficult once America returned control of the country to the Iraqis in June.
Top Democrats on the congressional intelligence committees seized on Kay's comments.
"It increasingly appears that our intelligence was wrong about Iraq's weapons, and the administration compounded that mistake by exaggerating the nuclear threat and Iraq's ties to al Qaeda. As a result, the United States is paying a very heavy price," said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"Dr. Kay's astonishing statement today cannot be ignored. It is increasingly clear that there has been a massive intelligence failure," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee.
James Rubin, national security adviser for retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Kay's comments meant "the major premise for urgent war in Iraq has been devastated by the administration's own findings."
No banned arms have been found in Iraq since the United States went to war against Baghdad last year.
The ultimate backpeddle...of course, you won't own up to your own statement, jimmac. Just deny you ever said it (very Clinton-like of you, I might add). You could never live it down if you did admit it. The only thing left is that you have simply lost your integrity since you aren't bicycling your way to wherever these days.
I don't care to answer your question because this has been done around and around, many topics over. It's hardly worth digressing this topic further just to rehash it with you. The only thing required is to express that there will always be "the other half" of the story to any of your invaluable doom'n'gloom headlines/topics/remarks you utter.
Jim, Randy, end it now. The thread will be locked if either one of you continues your personal attacks. If you take it to another thread, you'll be banned for a week.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Yeah and everyone should walk around with a shotgun too.
Dope.
Well it wasn't the best presented argument ever, but I think you have missed another option inherent in Nightcrawler's post i.e. no-one walks around with shotguns.
Originally posted by Randycat99
You're running around in circles to avoid what has been said to you. You made the assertion that delivery is nonexistent. I countered that smuggling a large amount of something into the country is a nonissue, if illegal drugs are an indication. You implied that the condition of "delivery" is soley contingent on the presence of long range missles. I countered that a "delivery" could be made quite easily right at your doorstep via postal mail. That said, there are any number of ways to terrorize you, none of which require the possession of intercontinental range "delivery" devices. All of this comes from your remark that it was impossible for Iraq to present a threat to us because of "delivery". The bottomline still is, delivery is a nonissue. If you are unsatisfied with the answer to your "delivery" conundrum, then don't keep bringing it up. Faced with that, you turn around and refocus on the "where's the WMD" rhetoric. You will recall that it was explained that the need to "go in" based on the essence of determining if something does indeed "exist" or "does not exist". If it "doesn't exist", that doesn't diminish the need to have "gone in". We still had to verify that it "doesn't exist". [...awaits for what you will loop back to this time]
...imagines, "Uhh, yeah, well Bush lied to the people! Out the door in 2004! Rah-rah-rah!"
The reason I focus on those is that they're very good questions! Look either Saddam was a real threat to us here in america or not. That was the main reason this war got off the ground. Without it all the other reasons would have been shrugged at. You know that and I know that!
No I'm afraid you're the one who's running around with his fingers in his ears yelling " That doesn't matter! That doesn't matter! ".
What was implied was a cache of WOMD that could be delivered ( and of course since this was vague due to " security reasons " what was implied by the yellow cake urainium deal was nuclear ) to us in a big way ( not just my doorstep or just a few ). That's what was implied and what pro war advocates were thinking. Otherwise people would have pushed for this to be handled another way.
It really doesn't matter if you think there were plenty of reasons to " Go in ". The one that got this war going apparently doesn't exist!
Those are the facts and no amount of spin doctoring will change that. I say spin doctoring because I don't think you're stupid and can wrap your mind around the concept. You just don't want to.
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
randycat99,
what you seem to not understand is the fact that nearly every nation in the world has biological and chemical weapons or can easily produce them, because they are easy to produce!
I do understand that. All of these nations are/should be critically accountable for said materials, as well. Clearly, that demands certain standards for those who are fit to possess such items responsibly and those who cannot be trusted. Saying that anybody should be able to have them just because the US does, is plainly irresponsible. You should know that.
Originally posted by jimmac
The reason I focus on those is that they're very good questions! Look either Saddam was a real threat to us here in america or not. That was the main reason this war got off the ground. Without it all the other reasons would have been shrugged at. You know that and I know that!
Poor logic, short-focused, simplistic...
You seem to be perpetually stumped on a single point ("He lied to me!") and cease to be capable of seeing the forest for the trees. You want to shout it from the mountaintops in hopes that someone cares about it as much as you do, but alas, you are just shouting into space. Life goes on, things have gotten better, the future holds promise. That's what the rest of the world will be doing while you choose to keep your mental frame stuck in 2002.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Poor logic, short-focused, simplistic...
You seem to be perpetually stumped on a single point ("He lied to me!") and cease to be capable of seeing the forest for the trees. You want to shout it from the mountaintops in hopes that someone cares about it as much as you do, but alas, you are just shouting into space. Life goes on, things have gotten better, the future holds promise. That's what the rest of the world will be doing while you choose to keep your mental frame stuck in 2002.
Some of the greatist concepts in life can be distilled down into simple terms.
So the president lieing about starting a war is ok in your book. I got that.
About things like life and death ( and a lot of money ) the president shouldn't lie.
Bottom line.
There have been presidents in the past that thought the end justified the means.
I think many more people than myself are concerned with this sort of thing. I don't think they just want to sweep it under the rug ( the curious thing is only Bush supporters want to do that ). If you don't believe me I refer you to Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon.
You keep chasing those windmills, though! Have fun!
Originally posted by Randycat99
In the larger picture, he saved lives, reduced deaths, and saved money over the long term.
You keep chasing those windmills, though! Have fun!
Just how did he save money in the long run?
How did he save lives? Specify please.
I think you'll find in the coming months it's a lot more real than you give it credit for.
Originally posted by jimmac
I think you'll find in the coming months it's a lot more real than you give it credit for.
Aside from your regular alarmist headlines, I think you will find out, as well.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Aside from your regular alarmist headlines, I think you will find out, as well.
Randy, Randy, Randy, have been drinking or smoking something again. I don't know who told you they would sell their car but it wasn't me. That's the last time I respond to that. Couldn't answer my other question? I thought not since just about everybody here would be all over you if you tried to manufacture an answer.
By the way how do you know where the oil in my car comes from?
You really need to better than this kind of response. You accuse me of being a " bleating parrot " I think it was. At least I give credible reasons for my thinking.
Have another one for me.
David Kay... Bush's hound dog searching for WMDs.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=4198877
In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.
"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.
The CIA named former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who had expressed his own doubts that unconventional arms would be found in Iraq, to replace Kay.
Kay said he believes most of what was going to be uncovered in Iraq had been found and that the weapons hunt would become more difficult once America returned control of the country to the Iraqis in June.
Top Democrats on the congressional intelligence committees seized on Kay's comments.
"It increasingly appears that our intelligence was wrong about Iraq's weapons, and the administration compounded that mistake by exaggerating the nuclear threat and Iraq's ties to al Qaeda. As a result, the United States is paying a very heavy price," said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"Dr. Kay's astonishing statement today cannot be ignored. It is increasingly clear that there has been a massive intelligence failure," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee.
James Rubin, national security adviser for retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Kay's comments meant "the major premise for urgent war in Iraq has been devastated by the administration's own findings."
No banned arms have been found in Iraq since the United States went to war against Baghdad last year.
I don't care to answer your question because this has been done around and around, many topics over. It's hardly worth digressing this topic further just to rehash it with you. The only thing required is to express that there will always be "the other half" of the story to any of your invaluable doom'n'gloom headlines/topics/remarks you utter.