WMD in Iraq? Nah, nothing to see here, move along... by lynchaj

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Iraq possessed materiel in clear unambiguous violation of the terms of the agreement that temporarily ceased Desert Storm. Previously, I posted a link where Saddam's Iraq possessed leftover WMD in the form of numerous chemical munitions, nuclear technology (the centrifuge and design information), biological weapons research and materiel (granted mostly...

Not mostly. Completely.

Quote:
...from the early to mid 1990's but they never fully accounted for the balance either), not to mention blatant violations of the restrictions on rockets and missiles, including the Al Samoud weapons I believe you pointed out earlier. Just because you arbitrarily dismiss my supporting evidence does not mean it is invalid, it is just that you do not agree with it.

The evidence did NOT point to an ongoing program. There was no production of WMD, hence there could not have been stockpiles of WMD. As far as the accounting issue- except for mustard gas, WMD decays very quickly. Anything unaccounted for would have been useless. That was why UNMOVIC was about the certify that Saddam was in compliance.

Quote:
Now, could the US and UN have found more clear and better examples of chemical and biological weapons?

It would have been more suportive if they had found any evidence of recently produced WMD of any sort. Or any evidence of an ongoing production program. Which they didn't. I know this seesm to be a very hard concept for you to accept, but the report is quite clear. Either accpet the results, say thaye they were incompetent, or say they were lying. Stop blurring the data.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I do not know what is in your heart but I see your words and the words of others here. There is no doubt in my mind the left and the MSM comprise a strong "anything goes" attack on GW and anti-US message

Okay, no jokes in this one. I feel lucky and privilaged to live in one of the most open, prosperous, and diverse countries in the world. Regardless of my objections with my government's actions or inactions, I'm an American. Always will be. I love America.
I love my father, too. But once while he was drunk, he started hitting my mom. I was only fourteen, but I challenged him. He stopped.
If you love your country or your parent, that's no reason to accept whatever they do, it's all the more reason to try to help them see the right thing to do.
With a country it's called patriotism.

Patriot Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
We need some more tags to clearly denote what each of us are saying, our moods, and our intentions

I agree, Jason. Maybe 'ironic', 'don't take this seriously' or 'this is gonna sting' emoticons are needed.
I tend to mix it up, and let the reader make his/her own conclusions (which is not always a good thing). Must be why I like Joss' work so much, ya never can tell where he's headed 'till he gets there.

The sometimes confusing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 12:56 PM

"America-Haters", "liberal wackos", "blame America first", etc., etc.,
The problem with these phrases is that they are used so often, and so poorly, that they've come to mean nothing at all. They've become merely evasions to avoid dealing with criticism. In general, when I see them in an argument I read: "I don't have a rational response to your criticism and I don't want to talk about it."

I'm curious how someone can really love America, or even understand what it means to be American, when their idea of defending it involves trying to shut people up with knee-jerk accusations of disloyalty. I'm not an America-Hater, but I'm growing to hate those who have adopted this phrase as their mantra.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Just because we never found a big warehouse with a sign over it saying "Saddams Weapons of Mass Destruction -- The Home of WMD Bargains!" doesn't mean Saddam was not a dire and grievous threat.

I went back to the beginning of the thread. You know, Andrew, come to think of it, last time I looked, I didn't see any WMD's in your garage, but I guess I shouldn't rule you out as a threat, either.

Psst!...Your logic may be in question.

Guilty 'till proven innocent Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 1:29 PM

Here's an interesting article concerning what I was saying earlier about the irrelevance of WMD's. This is the kind of thing I wish more Bush advocates would come clean on so we can have as some serious discussion of the matter.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12230

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm curious how someone can really love America, or even understand what it means to be American, when their idea of defending it involves trying to shut people up with knee-jerk accusations of disloyalty. I'm not an America-Hater, but I'm growing to hate those who have adopted this phrase as their mantra.

Hey SergeantX, why don't we make up our own...Blind Government Stooge Idi- NAH. That would lead to purposeless name calling...wouldn't it?
Seriously, tell me I'm wrong, heck, tell me I'm crazy, but don't mislabel me and tell me I shouldn't be expressin' myself just 'cause my view might make you uncomfortable! If someone accuses me of being a Martian, it wouldnt get me pissed, 'cause it's just stupid. If what I'm saying is stupid to anyone on these threads, why should that get them angry?
Only thing gets me angry (a little) is having my words twisted to the convienience of the person who disagrees with me to somehow support an unreasonable bias.
Okay, I'm tired, I don't even know if that made sense outside my head.

T-t-t-that's all, folks Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12230

Oh, come on Sarge, there's a lot of facts and words there in that. Wouldn't sit well with some. Can't have too many considerin' their arguments based on that type of thing, now.
Good night, now.

Y A W W W N Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

One of the first things that strikes me, when I read their literature, is how comfortable they are with the idea of the United States essentially running the world. As the only remaining superpower, perhaps it is obvious that our role would be one of leadership, but to what extent should we press that leadership? Does it give us reason or right to call for 'regime change' in a given country? Does it give us justification to invade a country that won't bend to our will?

Another question is how far can/should other countrys go to resist you ? Is everyone around the world who doesn't want to be an American a terrorist?

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 4:03 PM

Thanks, but I was asking SergeantX's opinion,

not really looking for the right-wingnut version.

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

It is all open source and rather boring defense planning documents. Nothing special. Would you prefer planning documents that still refer to the USSR nuking West Germany? Lets join the 1990s, OK? (I am not even asking you to join a post 9/11 world -- one step at a time)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html

(I'm not sure what report you are referring to. There are several on the site and none of them are classified as far as I know.)

Now we have something substantial to disagree on. I realize the dry academic nature of the reports might bore some, but they are definitely NOT 'nothing special'. This group advocates a radically different foreign policy that embraces the idea of America as the undisputed leader of the world.

They suggest that this should not be a passive role, or one of leading by example, but that we should take an interventionist role in foreign affairs all around the world. We should pre-emptively attack any nation which is uncooperative or presents a challenge to our authority.

Now, I do agree with you that this is not a conspiracy. They've been open about their aims and methods. But here's what baffles me. I honestly think that most people, even many republicans, would balk if they felt they were supporting such imerialistic aims. If this was common knowledge, if you could at least talk about it in public without the shrill accusations of 'America Hater' shutting you down, I'd at least have a little more respect for the decision of the voters.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 5:02 PM

Quote:
Then why post in a public forum without specifically naming the person you wanted to reply from?

Sad.

Andrew Lynch

Gino, you have failed me for the last time....

You know the rules. Plus, you got kinda rude back there. You know, if you go around referring to people as "rightwing nuts" its only going to provoke them. How would you like it if Lynch called you a "paranoid lunatic fringe conspiracy nut"? Well?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 7:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

I find it interesting those who complain about my opinion on the anti-US anti-GW leftwing messages are those who espouse the "Bush Lied" mythos or at least vocally supported it. I did not see your objections when I called out specifically to SignyM if believed "Bush Lied".

Not so fun when its turned around on you is it?

Please bear that in mind next time you blast away and smear the US and the president. Its highly offensive, not stylish or cool....

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here... I guess you are upset because some people think the president lied? Am I missing something?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 11:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Lynch, you keep shifting your hypothesis. Sometimes you present the case that Saddam had large WMD stockpiles in 1991 that were a threat in 2003. Then you shift your case to large stockpiles in 2003 that were recently produced. Then you shift again to to the case that Saddam didn't have 2003 stockpiles but had plans to produce WMD in the future. Yes, some evidence points to some scenarios, but no evidence can be used in all scenarios. No wonder you're confused! You believe everything at once! Let me help you clarify/ settle your thoughts by presenting three different stories. Grab one senario and run with it as far as the evidence will let you instead of using random data to suport self-contradictory fears.

So, here are three scenarios. Modify all/two/one of them to your heart's content, but pick one and stick with it for your analysis. Some data will stick to some scenarios but not others. In the end, try to explain to us which single scenario seems to make the most sense in light of the data.

-------------------------------
Scenario One
Saddam used chemical weapons in the late 80's and early 90s. He had large-scale chemical weapons and bioweapons production, which created huge stockpiles of weapons, and a research program in nuclear weaponry. Despite Desert Storm- which did not destroy his stockpiles appreciably- and an active UN inspection program from 1991 thru 1998, Desert Fox in 1998, and inspections from 2002 into 2003, he continued production unimpeded up to 2003, adding nuclear capability and producing massive current stockpiles of WMD that were deployed. In the interval when UNMOVIC was forced to leave by the impending US invasion, instead of using his weapons, he hid or transferred all of his WMD to Syria. Production capabilites and stockpiles were not detected by David Kay or Duelfer.

Scenario Two
Saddam used chemicals....and program in nuclear weaponry. Operation Desert Storm destroyed many of his WMD stockpiles and put a temporary halt to his production, but not his plans. In the interval between 1998 and 2002, he reconstituted large-scale production of chemical and bioweapons, producing large stockpiles that were deployed. This new production was not detected by the UNMOVIC teams in 2002-2003, and their apparent plans to certify a nation that maintained large stockpiles of WMD led to the US invasion. In the interval when UNMOVIC was forced to leave by the impending US invasion, instead of using his weapons, he hid or transferred all of his WMD to Syria. Production capabilites and stockpiles were not detected by David Kay or Duelfer.

Scenrio Three
Saddam used chemicals....and program in nuclear weaponry. Operation Desert Storm destroyed most of his WMD stockpiles. UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspections forced Saddam to eliminate production and any active research programs, but not his plans to ultimately reconstitute his WMD programs. Saddam maintained basic dual-use chemical production and equipment, scientific and engineering know-how, and some exemplars of actual equipment. As soon as UN sanctions were lifted, he planned to re-assemble production and research teams, and start production, once again building up threatening stockpiles of WMD, this time with the intent of not only threatening his neighbors but also carrying them to the USA. In the interval just before the war, he transferred basic technology to Syria.

--------------------------------
Pick one. Run as far as you can with it. Tell us where you get. Stop pointing and gibbering at everything. Until you stop shuttling your fears between mutually self-contradictory hypotheses, there is no point in discussing this further.

www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,794275,00.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 12:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you truly believe "Bush Lied" then you should seek your representative to have articles of impeachment drawn up and bring this issue to court.

I have done this, and I urge everyone who thinks Bush lied to sign the letter written by John Conyers and signed by about 90 Congressmen (as of this post). You can find the letter at www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com Thanks for bringing this up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Please bear that in mind next time you blast away and smear the US and the president. Its highly offensive, not stylish or cool
Well for a start you called the freely elected President of the US an SOB and that is at least quite disrespectful of the office is it not?
Undermining the US through smears and hateful attacks on GW and the office of the president is not helpful and downright harmful to us all. I consider it highly offensive as well, somewhat similar to burning a flag or trampling on a Quran.

I am a (somewhat modified) Buddist. Call Buddah a (really bad name), and guess what? No effect.
Call my mother a (really bad name), and guess what? You don't know her.
Burn the flag of my country, and guess what? The price of the flag and a match have been wasted.
Every president has had his share of name calling directed at him. So what?

Buddah was cool, my mom's not a (really bad name), and the flag of my country won't be banished or forgotten no matter how many idiots want to play with fire.

Lives, particularly innocent children, are what matter most. Let's start there.

Peace, my brothers Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 5:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Lynch- I would not claim that Bush lied and cherry-picked data had not others who were party to the process (O'Neill, Clarke, British intelligence, Wilson, Kwiatkowski, CIA and DIA officers, DOE nuclear experts and others) made that claim. But - to take a specific case as example- when someone like Wilson (who was the last ambassador in Iraq and who saved hundreds of lives by offering sanctuary during the invasion, who lowered the flag and was one of the last people to leave) flatly contradicts the President's claims, and his undercover CIA wife is outed by the administration as a reward (and don't forget this is treason) that implies some pretty heavy-duty attempts to deny/ force facts. EDITED TO ADD: If Bush lied that means he knowingly, willfully and callously misused American armed forces, wasted 6000+ American lives, caused 20,000+ disabilites, and blew $300B+ (the entire projected Social Security shortfall) for reasons other than the imminent danger that he portrayed. Serious charges go with serious costs.

I'm not debating to debate. In my mind, there is sufficient evidence that Bush lied to start a Congressional enquiry. If you think so too, don't forget to sign this letter to start the process.
www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 7:12 AM

Lynch,

You seem really confused here. You've responded to my jabs about your argument style with some kind of odd tit-for-tat thing about me and Signym not repsecting the president. As though this either justified what you were doing, or was in some way equivalent. Let me explain.

The argument style (fallacy) that you've been using has, unfortunately, become a trademark tactic of Bush supporters. It's frustrating to deal with because it never addresses an issue but merely attempts to dismiss it. That is what I was needling you about.

The technique, if you can call it that, is essentially a shortcut version of the 'strawman fallacy'. It works like this: When someone says something you disagree with, rather than respond to their points, you seek to change the focus of the argument by labeling their argument as something it's not. You then start attacking vigorously (blindly) as though the situation were actually as you claimed.

For example, lets say someone posts a link to a Washington think tank that has been instrumental in forming American foreign policy. Rather than discuss the information introduced, you attempt to discredit it by suggesting it's a paranoid conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter that it's not a conspiracy at all. It doesn't matter that the information presented is straight from the source. All that matters is that you keep insisting it's so nutty as to not be worth consideration.

Or lets take Gino's comment about terrorism.

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Statements like:
Quote:
Is everyone around the world who doesn't want to be an American a terrorist?

really do not help your credibility and are the stuff of the paranoid lunatic fringe conspiracy nut crowd. The simplest explanation (Occam's Razor) is generally the correct one.

Now, I don't know what got you so worked up about this, but it's a legitimate question. The definition of 'terrorist' is vague at best and ought to be discussed. But to do so brings up fundamental problems with things like the 'War on Terror', so - best to just label it a paranoid conspiracy theory and move on.

The problem with this technique is, it works - if your goal is to derail the conversation. Immediately you've shifted focus away from the points the other person was trying to make and put them in a postion of defending their sanity/patriotism/loyalty or whatever.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 8:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Huh. I guess there really WAS nothing to see here all along. Just another person cherry-picking
facts to make a point.

Bush lied? Sign the letter

www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 9:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

YOU started this thread with the implication that actual WMD technology was tranferred to parts unknown BEFORE the invasion. Of course you refuse to be constrained by my scenarios because you refuse to be constrained by logic. Let me point out a just a few contradictions:

--------------------------
Were WMD deployed around Baghdad and Tikrit, as Rumsfeld said they were? If so, how could UNMOVIC have failed to notice them? Or did Rumsfeld refuse to pass along the information?

Did Saddam have WMD ready to deploy in 45 minutes, as Bush implied? Again, how could UNMOVIC fail to have noticed the massive production that this implies, or how could Kay have missed it afterwards?

Since Saddam supposedly was secretly producing WMD, why did he have a some parts to a nuclear centrifuge buried in someone's backyard? And if he was managing to secretly produce chemical WMD, why did he continue to operate "excess" (in your opinion) chlorine and phenol plants which would only draw inspection and hostility?

If Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, deployed or ready-to-be deployed, as Bush et al said, why did he not use them in the war? Whay tranfer them to another nation?

Once Saddam was captured, why would Iraqi scientists, engineers and military staff continue to lie about the nature of their work, especially since they were offered amnesty?

If Bush et al were correct about the urgent facts of which they seemed so certain, why have they not been able to prove their point? Why have they shifted their rationale from those huge- apparently phantom- stockpiles to "freedom is on the march"? If his facts were so secure, why would Bush use evidence that had already been discredited?

Why refer to WMD produced before 1996? They would be useless anyway.

-----------------------------
Some facts just naturally contradict others. You can't use them ALL. Remember- we didn't go to war because Saddam might be a threat some day. We were treated with visions of mushroom clouds and chemical attacks and biowarfare, huge stockplies of the stuff that Bush couldn't wait another month, another week, another minute, because the risk to the USA was so grave, so imminent, and growing so fast. Okay- we sent in 150,000 troops in harm's way to avert this imminent danger that Bush et al convinced us was there. The danger- pretty much like your arguments- just seem to have evaporated on insepection, didn't it?

Bush lied? Sign the letter
www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 9:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nope.

Bush lied? Sign the letter.
www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
-----------------------------
Some facts just naturally contradict others. You can't use them ALL. Remember- we didn't go to war because Saddam might be a threat some day. We were treated with visions of mushroom clouds and chemical attacks and biowarfare, huge stockplies of the stuff that Bush couldn't wait another month, another week, another minute, because the risk to the USA was so grave, so imminent, and growing so fast. Okay- we sent in 150,000 troops in harm's way to avert this imminent danger that Bush et al convinced us was there. The danger- pretty much like your arguments- just seem to have evaporated on insepection, didn't it?

Bush lied? Sign the letter
www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com

Signym, did you happen to read that article I linked to earlier? It's really an excellent overview of the situation and, I think, shows the WMD issue in a more realisitic perspective relative to the strategic interests in the area. Well worth reading if you have time.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12230

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Who is divert and distracting? Look at your own posts. You talk about everything but WMD in Iraq. I think its because you know you are wrong.

I was making the point that WMDs were only ever supplemental to the more profound reasons for attacking Iraq. It seems to me that the reasons we went to war with Iraq and the relevance of the WMD issue is very much 'on topic'.

Quote:
Who started the name calling? That was you with the SOB comment so don't presume to lecture me. "Bush supporter" you sound so arrogant. It is what I expect of hate filled liberals. Well, I have to break it to you, you are no expert.

Nor am I hate-filled, nor am I a liberal. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's not about name-calling. It's about trying to attack someone's credibility by just arbitrarily labelling them something that classifies them nicely for your premade argument. (ie, anyone who disagrees with you is an America Hater or a left wing conspiracy nut.)

Quote:
What do neo-cons or debating styles have to do with the phony story about "no WMD in Iraq" which is the original subject of the thread.

Quite a lot actually. In fact I couldn't think of any other issue more central to the ideas of the neo-cons, or the debating style of it's supporting arguments.

Quote:
I'll openly call you out when you attack GW with false claims and make anti-US smears and you don't like that very much do you? Someone has to stand up to you.

Actually I do like it. It's why I like to discuss stuff on these boards. There are lot of intelligent minds here. Its a great opportunity to test out ideas and I relish the feedback. Even some of yours.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 12:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge- OK, I read the article. It sounds like baloney to me and here's why:

The article doesn't focus on terrorism per se but radical Islamic fundamentalism. (BTW- I think the article gives some weight to the claim this is a religious war.... I personally don't think so, but the article does seem to support the notion.) The concept, it seems, is that by eliminating one of the few secular regimes in the area and putting Saddam's head on a pike at the city gates, we will terrorize the area nations into democracy which will cause the radical fundamentalists to see the error of their ways and get with the program.

I can imagine that we can bully some national leaders into some sort of compliance but that our effect on radical Islamic fundamentalists is likely to be opposite- hardening their opposition to the United States rather than softening it. Unless you can influence most of the population at all levels, occupation is unlikely to work. Even if you don't stir up terrorism per se, you will prolly stir up nationalism w/in the populace and resistance to anything the USA advocates.

I was going to go into detail on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Lebanon, but I'm running out of time. I'll have to pick this up later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 12:22 PM

Oh, I completely agree Signym. I certainly wasn't endorsing the conclusions in the article. It just seemed a particularly honest of accounting of what's going on. I find it refreshing and exactly the kind of discussion that is lacking in public circles. I'd like to see more Bush supporters addressing these issues so openly.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Then why post in a public forum without specifically naming the person you wanted to reply from?

Sad.

Andrew Lynch

Gino, you have failed me for the last time....

You know the rules. Plus, you got kinda rude back there. You know, if you go around referring to people as "rightwing nuts" its only going to provoke them. How would you like it if Lynch called you a "paranoid lunatic fringe conspiracy nut"? Well?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Sorry the " really do not help your credibility and are the stuff of the paranoid lunatic fringe conspiracy nut crowd. "

really annoyed me. Besides I really wasnt looking to argue with Andrew Lynch... from some of his posts with Signy I figure if Bush nuked France, he'd find a way to justify it... so not seeing the point.

If I was rude or out of line I am sorry

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 1:44 PM

Hey Gino, I was just kidding. Forgot to include the sarcasm tag.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 6, 2005 1:47 PM