I told you so by rue

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But whatever you do, do not confront the " Hero " personality with arguements and positions made by the " Pirate " personality or vise versa... a torrent of irrationality is sure to result.

Oh? You mean we've been treated to a torrent of rationality before? heh heh heh

I'm still waiting for that cogent argument.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

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

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:13 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
But whatever you do, do not confront the " Hero " personality with arguements and positions made by the " Pirate " personality or vise versa... a torrent of irrationality is sure to result.
Oh? You mean we've been treated to a torrent of rationality before? heh heh heh

I'm still waiting for that cogent argument.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

No.... I don't mean to give anyone nightmares

But imagine the merging of the two personas

the entrance of the " PirateHero "

If Rues suggestions are correct and one or both of the personalitys are in politics we would have a monster

A man for any position... and a simultaneous condemnation of that lifestyle

Some one who could justify the absurd, and make the rational seem crazy

Up is down ,right is left , Hillary is sleeping with Dick Cheney

Such a man could rise to be President in the US

and that would be even more scary than Bush ( by a margin )

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

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:02 PM

PIRATEJENNY

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:32 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I'm still waiting for that cogent argument.

The Enterprise came back through time and beamed the stockpile into space in billions of molocules to discredit GW's war, doing so will avoid the Eugenics War started by President Jeb Bush and his Vice-President Hillary Rodham of the mid-21st Century, thus restoring the timeline that was to be before a Ferengi helped GW win the 2000 election.

I just thought I' tell y'all before it gets announced...

Got sources Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 6:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I'm still waiting for that cogent argument.

Its an argument you can't accept. On one hand I claim they found WMDs and point to the all the WMDs they found. You say they didn't and point to all the ones they didn't find. There's no room for argument between those positions.

I had a pedophile case last year. Guy had taken photos of a young girl in explicit poses. In trial I held up the photos and said "sex". His attorney held them up and said "art". In this case I am holding up the Sarin Gas Warhead and saying "dangerous WMD" you are holding it up saying "not damgerous and not WMD". Its still a Sarin Gas Warhead and a violation of the 1991 Cease Fire and a dozen Resolutions...I doubt if Saddam'd discolsed the inspectors would have said..."nah, keep that one its ok."

My question for you is do you think the war would have been justified if we'd found any WMDs? And what in your opinion is a WMD (types and numbers) that you would have accepted? If we'd found under his bed a single, brand new, fully loaded prohibited warhead...would that have justified the war more then a few hundred old weapons with varying degrees of viable use? Or is the war unjustified for any of the reasons given (including but not limited to WMDs)? If that is the case, then the WMD argument is not relevant in your opinion.

H

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 6:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero, you are once agin mis-stating my postition. I accept that they found pre-1991 vintage, degraded chemical weapons shells and also missile engines with a range larger than allowed by the UN (120 miles instead of 90- which BTW were destroyed before the invasion). Take that where you will. Show me how it's meaningful, if you think it is.

My opinion about those weapons is that they were hidden before and abandoned or lost after the first Gulf War and did not indicate any ongoing weapons program. And since the weapons have been USELESS for years and represented a significant downside for Saddam with no possible upside they could not possibly represent an effort by Saddam to evade or subvert UNMOVIC inspections. (motive lacking)

The degradation of Sarin is not a matter of subjective opinion (art v sex) it is a scientifically verifiable fact- one that any CSI lab would be able to tell you. As a prosecutor, I would expect more respect for evidence from you, and the fact that you play so fast and loose with facts makes me cringe. I feel pity for your townspeople, because the one thing that a bad prosecutor does when convicting the wrong person is to let the REAL perpetrator loose.

There is, OTOH, evidence that Saddam did actively destroy thousands of WMD after 1991- both physical and documetary evidence. HIS problem is that he didn't order an accounting of the weapons that were destroyed and thus could not fufill the demands of the UNMOVIC inpsectors, who were left to piece together an accounting.

However, if your next argument is that the presence of old, degraded weapons proves the presence of an active weapons program and 2003-vitange weapons, then you've got a whole lot of explaining to do. So, make your case. Show us the evidence.

Tell us EXACTLY what you suspect Saddam of doing, when he did it, and bring us the evidence. So far, you've weaseled and waffled and I'M STILL WAITING. Unless you come of with something more than half-finished suspicions I'm going to consider your argument is- as it has always been- BULLSHIT.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, and BTW, if you want to know what I would have done... I would have waited for Hans Blix and UNMOVIC to finish their inspections. It would have only taken several more weeks... maybe up to three months... to reach the conclusion that Kay and Duelfer reached after-the-fact: that there was no active WMD program and that most of the previous WMD had in fact been destroyed. Bush's urgency to invade before the inspections could be finished is what tipped me off to the fact that something was really f*cked in the White House.

IF Hans Blix could not have certified Iraq (data not indicative of an active weapons program but not with the level of assurance that he would like) I would have referred it to the UN for consideration. Given what I know about the inspection program (it was painfuly intrusive- think body cavity search- despite lack of full UN support or full cooperation from Saddam) I would not have felt the need to rush an invasion, altho I might not have lifted sactions.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:52 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bush's urgency to invade before the inspections could be finished is what tipped me off to the fact that something was really f*cked in the White House.

For me as well. I started noticing it many months before we invaded - this push by the administration to get us in the war as quickly as possible while at the same time saying that war was a last resort.

The impression that I got from Bush was that he was a used-car salesman, trying to make the hard sell and get your money before you realized the frame was rusted through. It's the big reason I started to pay attention to the administration's case for war. I've found in the past that those who push me to make a fast decision never have my own best interest in mind - quite the opposite - so it sends alarm bells ringing when I see that behavior.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, and BTW, if you want to know what I would have done... I would have waited for Hans Blix and UNMOVIC to finish their inspections. It would have only taken several more weeks... maybe up to three months... to reach the conclusion that Kay and Duelfer reached after-the-fact: that there was no active WMD program and that most of the previous WMD had in fact been destroyed.

Thats why we couldn't rely on Mr. Blix...like you said they needed more time to finish their inspections, but the conclusion had already been reached. But its not uncommon for folk to make conclusions first before the facts are out. I assumed Bush was right about the WMDs...and look, turns out we found them.

Sure we could have waited 6 more weeks or 3 more months. By then it would have been unfeasable to launch the invasion in the worst of Iraq's weather months, so we would have waited another 3 months and about that time there'd be a new initiative and gee can't we wait 3 more months for more talky talky and then more inspectin and maybe another 10,000 pages of mixed notes in Arabic to with a few more weeks to review and then its Presidential election time in America and if you fight then its only about getting reelected and so on round and round and round.

Oh, and the small portion of the report that was declassified reveals 500 chemical weapons munitions and "On June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to the Energy Department. Also, U.S. Department of Energy specialist removed 1,000 radioactive materials in "powdered form, which is easily dispersed,".
UNSCOM in 1998 discovered that in 1996 Iraq had produced fresh bombs laden with mustard gas...also noted that four tons of growth media for biological agents remained unaccounted for in Iraq. Gee, I wonder what the rest of the report is about (Syria?).

Nah, it was all an accounting error...he left his weapons program in his other pants and was as shocked as us to find it and a twenty dollar bill in the dryer on laundry day.

H

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Thats why we couldn't rely on Mr. Blix...like you said they needed more time to finish their inspections, but the conclusion had already been reached.

BULLSHIT

Unless you have psychic abilities and could actually read Blix' and all of his team's minds, you have no idea what they were thinking. You're projecting my conclusion onto them. Since you CLEARLY don't know what you're talking about I'll bet you didn't know that David Kay was on the UNMOVIC Team, and that he was convinced up to the time that Bush chased them out of Iraq that Saddam did have WMD- just as the other US team member (you look up his name yourself- HINT: He was Marine) was convinced that Saddam did NOT have WMD. But just keep doing what you do best- tossing out completely unsupported statements.

Quote:
Sure we could have waited 6 more weeks or 3 more months. By then it would have been unfeasable to launch the invasion in the worst of Iraq's weather months, so we would have waited another 3 months

So? We would have waited another three to six months. But if Saddam had a weapons program, then is was seriously hidden in other words NOT DEPLOYED- and not an imminent threat.

Quote:
On June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in a nuclear facility in Iraq.

WHOA!! You mean they had NUCLEAR MATERIALS at a known NUCLEAR FACILITY?!?!?! MY GOD!!! HOW SHOCKING! What might they find next??? Cement at a cement plant?

Quote:
UNSCOM in 1998 discovered that in 1996 Iraq had produced fresh bombs laden with mustard gas...

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!! That is the exact opposite of what UNSCOM said. I sure hope you don't lie in court like you lie here!

Quote:
four tons of growth media for biological agents remained unaccounted for in Iraq

HOLY CRAP! Agar went missing!!! Compelling evidence that... agar went missing!

Wow Hero, I'm impressed!

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I found your source. It is a Times Herald article which is here: http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16827398&BRD=1672&PAG=
461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

--------------------
The Congressional report you mention can be found here: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

--------------------
The text of the unclassified portion of said report (which occupies less than one page) is:

Quote:
Key Points

-- Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

-- Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

-- Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.

-- The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.

-- The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

-- It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

As to your post (which was lifted slightly scrambled from the Times Herald 'news' article):

Quote:
Thats why we couldn't rely on Mr. Blix...like you said they needed more time to finish their inspections, but the conclusion had already been reached.

You and Unwrapped have a lot to discuss. He argues Hans Blix was certain there were WMDs, therefore it was the best intel available, therefore Bush was right to invade.

Quote:
Sure we could have waited 6 more weeks or 3 more months. By then it would have been unfeasable to launch the invasion in the worst of Iraq's weather months

So why the rush to inavde? If he'd been contained for so many years w/out inspections, what was going to happen with ongoing instrusive inspections? Manana was a credible option.

Quote:
the small portion of the report that was declassified reveals 500 chemical weapons munitions

see above

Quote:
On June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to the Energy Department.

Sneaky of you to include extraneous material under the 'declassified report' heading. It really didn't belong there, as it was not in that report. Anyway, it was old material previously under UN oversight ...

Quote:
UNSCOM in 1998 discovered that in 1996 Iraq had produced fresh bombs laden with mustard gas...also noted that four tons of growth media for biological agents remained unaccounted for in Iraq.

The news article you lifted this from referenced documents which are not in the government database. I could find NO supporting evidence for the claim of fresh bombs. And agar was 'undocumented'. Cleanup on the jello aisle.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So let's see... tossing out the lie about UNSCOM and mustard gas (you see, I actually read the UNSCOM report), the libelous statement that UNMOVIC was in Saddam's pocket, the completely expected finding of nuclear materials at a known, inspected nuclear facility (which took the USA several years to finally secure- must not have been high up in the priorities list, eh Hero?), degraded shells left over from 15 years ago, a serious concern about missing jello, and the fact that the United States government isn't telling us a A THING about all the recent-vintage weapons that they found (proof positive that they found some! After all, you know how sneaky those bastards are in the WH!) we are left with... a full-blown case of paranioa. And that's about it.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What Zero fails to address is Bush's own demand that Hussein and cohorts leave Iraq as the only way to avoid war. Complying with the UN wasn't enough.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BULLSHIT

Unless you have psychic abilities

Must be, I just knew what you were going to say. Its not psychic though...I don't think your capable of anything else.

1.7 tons of nuclear material is 1.7 tons over the limit...but not your limit. Everything on the list I gave you is beyond what was allowed, but not what you'd allow.

Its almost like you were getting a share of the Oil for Food scam like most of the UN, French, and other international officials and corporations (including a couple American). You make excuses like you've been bought off. I know thats not true, so there must be another reason although I suspect reason is not involved all that much.

H

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And on a slightly different tack, I don't think it's paranoia. The 'news' article Zero plagiarized was slanted, with claims that were either unsupported or erroneous. Then Zero compounded the disinformation, blending facts and selecting bits, all produced with a (virtual) flourish of conviction (ahem) and sincerity.

It's possible he gets away with that in a court - the pretense of truth - but it's harder to get away with that here.

No, it's not paranoia. He's just doing what he knows best.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What Zero fails to address is Bush's own demand that Hussein and cohorts leave Iraq as the only way to avoid war. Complying with the UN wasn't enough.

It was never a consideration until it was issued, days before the war. Saddam could have complied, but chose not to. When the ultimatum was issued, we'd reached the point were compliance was no longer an option.

It was never really fair for Saddam after September 2002. If Saddam complied, he stood a good chance of losing what influence and power he had...at best another Qadafi, at worst...gone. By the time the war started he was in a corner with no way out except surrender. Good thing its not important to be fair to brutal dictators. I'd feel bad if Saddam were a nice fellow.

H

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, and the fact that we were bombing communcations centers, radar installations and other targets MONTHS in advance of chasing out Blix.

The evidence says to me that the only forgone conclusion was the invasion.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
1.7 tons of nuclear material is 1.7 tons over the limit

What limit? Show me "the limit". Bet you can't.

Quote:
Its almost like you were getting a share of the Oil for Food scam like most of the UN, French, and other international officials and corporations (including a couple American).

You may find this hard to believe, but I happen to be interested in the truth. And the truth is that Saddam had WMD. HAD. He used them. He was a horrible bad man. But he deperately wanted the sanctions lifted (which implies that they were doing what they were supposed to do) and so he destroyed most of them. All of the scare tactics that Bush and his adminstration used to justify an invasion THIS MINUTE BC IT CAN'T WAIT! : mushroom clouds, mobile biolabs, WMD deployed around Bagdhahd and Tikrit (which we never found), the "connection" to AQ... was just so much bullshit.

Unlike you, I work with the military on chemical weapons detection. (Air Force and DTRA to be exact) Everyone that I talk to thinks the same as I do. At least we know shit when we smell it.

------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Zero,

You're babbling again.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What Zero fails to address is Bush's own demand that Hussein and cohorts leave Iraq as the only way to avoid war. Complying with the UN wasn't enough.

Quote:
Originally posted by zero:
It was never a consideration until it was issued, days before the war. Saddam could have complied, but chose not to. When the ultimatum was issued, we'd reached the point were compliance was no longer an option.

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

I was poking him with a stick, but he's not moving anymore. Did I poke too hard?

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, and the fact that we were bombing communcations centers, radar installations and other targets MONTHS in advance of chasing out Blix.

The evidence says to me that the only forgone conclusion was the invasion.

I agree. I took one look at Bill Clinton and said 'now there's a man out to invade Iraq' and sure enough from his first moment in office he was making with the bombing Iraq. Bush was merely forced to continue to a logical conclusion the 8 years of military provocation under Bill Clinton. My favorite was 1998 when Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors and Clinton bombed them for 30 days straight before admitting he had sex with Monica and thus allowing Saddam to get away with violating the 1991 cease fire.

Clinton many a forgone conclusions about the War on Terror are sitting in his library.

H

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:04 PM

Wow, double posted...must mean my post was meant to be twice as convincing.

H

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Zero,

You're babbling again.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What Zero fails to address is Bush's own demand that Hussein and cohorts leave Iraq as the only way to avoid war. Complying with the UN wasn't enough.
Quote:
Originally posted by zero:
It was never a consideration until it was issued, days before the war. Saddam could have complied, but chose not to. When the ultimatum was issued, we'd reached the point were compliance was no longer an option.

Kinda thought this one was easy. We issued the ultimatum a couple days before the war. By then it was a forgone conclusion. Until then it wasn't.

If you recall the same sort of ultimatum was given to the Taliban (turn over Bin Ladden) in 2001 and Saddam (leave Kuwait now) in 1991. A final ultimatum (surrender the ship/castle/town/princess) is kinda a tradition in both war and peace.

H

H

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

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So Hero- what was that WMD evidence again???

This time, can you restrict yourself to

(a) the subject, and

(b) the evidence?

So tell me, Hero, when you stand in front of the jury to make a case against a defedent, do you drag Clinton into it then too? Man I REALLY feel sorry for your city! Whatever they're paying you, it's too much!

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

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

Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Hero- what was that WMD evidence again???

This time, can you restrict yourself to

(a) the subject, and

(b) the evidence?

So tell me, Hero, when you stand in front of the jury to make a case against a defedent, do you drag Clinton into it then too? Man I REALLY feel sorry for your city! Whatever they're paying you, it's too much!

If your going to talk about the prewar bombing of Iraq, how can you ignore Clinton. Bush bombed Iraq for a couple years, Clinton for eight. The Clinton policy was not effective, so in 2003 Bush changed America's military stance towards Iraq by demanding their compliance with UN Resolutions, Iraq refused to comply, so we demanded Saddam's unconditional surrender, he did not surrender, so we invaded. Clinton's policy was to demand compliance with UN Resolutions, Saddam refused, Clinton would drop some bombs and then start over by demanding compliance.

As for the WMDs, you keep asking "what evidence" I keep sayin "here's what we found" and you keep asking "what evidence". We found what we found, you see it one way, I see it another, but there's tons of prohibited materials and talk all you want you can't get around it. Chemical weapons, enriched uranium, nuclear materials, biolgical weapons componants, delivery systems, medium range missiles, componants to build medium range missiles, a mobile chem labe that had been stipped of equipment, chemical warefare suits...on and on and so forth and not one thing that you are capable of accepting because you put the conclusion first and the evidence last.

H

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

Thursday, June 29, 2006 6:18 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You haven't clearly stated cause and effect. Until then, your post is meaningless.

Quote:
We issued the ultimatum a couple days before the war. By then it was a forgone conclusion. Until then it wasn't.

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

Thursday, June 29, 2006 7:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And here's what we found:

Quote:
Chemical weapons

1988 vintage, everything except mustard gas degraded

Quote:
enriched uranium

which was allowed and monitored

Quote:
nuclear materials

ditto

Quote:
biolgical weapons componants

NO. there were some old stuff that UNSCOM found back in- oh 1996 or so. There may have been one or two found after the 2003 invasion that dated to pre-1991. If you're referring to anything else, be specific

Quote:
delivery systems

of...? Are you referring to the missiles that you mention again (and again) in your list?

Quote:
medium range missiles

Medium range missiles are from 600-2000 miles. Saddam didn't have "medium range missiles" He was allowed was short range missiles for defensive purposes, and what he had was short-range battlefield missiles (Al Samoud 2) that on occasion exceeded the permitted 90 miles by less than 20 miles. www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0227nomissiles.
htm to build medium range missiles

NO.

Quote:
Oh, a mobile chem lab that had been stipped of equipment

NO. They found what they thought was was a mobile BIO lab, which turned out not to be the case

Quote:
chemical warefare suits

Hey WE have chemical warfare suits! They CAN be used for defensive purposes you know.

If fact, we have everything that Saddam is said to have had! And it's all proveable, unlike the allegations against Saddam. On that basis, should WE be invaded? Here's an index of the issues. www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/weapindex.htm

Your so-called evidence doesn't show beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam was a imminent WMD threat. In fact you haven't even been able to show a preponderance of evidence that he had an active WMD program at all. If you're trying to say that Saddam was not a man to be trusted, I agree with you. But he didn't have chemical weapons deployed around Bagdhad and Tikrit, he didn't have even a nascent nuclear weapons program, he didn't have even a nascent bioweapons program. He had dual-use items (like chlorine production facilities) but those capabilities are part of any modern economy (eg for water chlorination).

It all boils down the the point that if Saddam had WMD that represented such an imminent threat to whomever such that it required immediate invasion don't you think we would have found SOME evidence of deployed weapons or active programs? Yeah, I would think so too.

As far as I can tell, this discussion is closed.

And on a purely personal note- from the way you argue here on the board you're apparently more interesting in winning than you are in the truth. You'll even lie outright when the facts aren't twisty enough. And you LOVE having power. You'd really put me off on the whole profession if I wasn't working with our own Prosecutors who are so much more honorable. The ones I know- they actually do try and figure out what is going on.

Just a couple words of advice-

(1) You have already probably wrongly convicted quite a number of people. That's great for the conviction rate... too bad it means the real criminals went free

(2) Sooner or later you'll tangle with someone who has enough money to take you and your City to the cleaners. Like crooked cops and crooked investigators, you may look good in the short run but in the long run you're going to be a huge liability for your City. I'd buy umbrella liability insurance if I were you.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

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

Thursday, June 29, 2006 7:58 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Zero,

Quote:
As for the WMDs, you keep asking "what evidence" I keep sayin "here's what we found" and you keep asking "what evidence". We found what we found, you see it one way, I see it another, but there's tons of prohibited materials and talk all you want you can't get around it. Chemical weapons, enriched uranium, nuclear materials, biolgical weapons componants, delivery systems, medium range missiles, componants to build medium range missiles, a mobile chem labe that had been stipped of equipment, chemical warefare suits...on and on and so forth and not one thing that you are capable of accepting because you put the conclusion first and the evidence last.

SignyM addressed all of these conclusively.

But off the specifics of the topic - do you not know when you've lost the debate? AND the audience? Perceptiveness must be an asset in your job, but you seem to have none.

And I agree with SignyM's personal comments.

I know that conviction rates are another step on the political ladder. And your job choice, 'debate' style and comments show you to be nothing more than an opportunist, with all the negatives that implies. But give it a rest, if you can. (I suspect you can't. I suspect a deep personality flaw that you try to think of as a positive trait. Contact me personally and I'll tell you what that is.)

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

Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Wow, double posted...must mean my post was meant to be twice as convincing.

H

Because it couldn't stand on its own!

Sayin' it twice twice don't make it no smarter smarter.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 10:20 AM

SHADOWFLY

Conceited, haughty, pompous words for one so dim.

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 10:50 AM

Did you get your daddy to write those words for ya?

My my we are a busy little troll today aren't we.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 10:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen - don't pay him no mind. I showed it around to lots of people and everyone laughed out loud.

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 10:57 AM

Oh I'm not, I take it as a complement, ShadowFly is so taken with me (s)he seems to be following me from thread to thread trying to insult me. Like at primary school; you go and hit the little boy/girl you really liked.

Funny thing, love.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 12:04 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Oh I'm not, I take it as a complement, ShadowFly is so taken with me (s)he seems to be following me from thread to thread trying to insult me. Like at primary school; you go and hit the little boy/girl you really liked.

Funny thing, love.

ShadowFLY is PN with a different handle, and less words, imho.

The oh-so High and MIGHTY Chrisisall

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 12:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm jealous. And my feelings got hurt. I don't have anyone following ME from thread to thread! SNIFF!!!

---------------------------------
Gonna eat some worms.

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 1:15 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm jealous. And my feelings got hurt. I don't have anyone following ME from thread to thread! SNIFF!!!

---------------------------------
Gonna eat some worms.

Signy, don't eat worms. ShadowFLY targets those who severly badmouth Piratenews. Calls 'em high and mighty and such. Tell SF how ya feel about PN, and you've got a cyberstalker fer the rest of yer life!

Chrisisall

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 1:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I do! But it's with awe.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm jealous. And my feelings got hurt. I don't have anyone following ME from thread to thread! SNIFF!!!

---------------------------------
Gonna eat some worms.

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 2:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Awww... you guys crack me up!!! And you care! So now I know how to get me a stalker all my very own. Think I'm gonna cry again but this time with a tremulous smile in my lips. SNIFF!!

---------------------------------

Chuckles all the way home.

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 2:45 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Awww... you guys crack me up!!! And you care! So now I know how to get me a stalker all my very own. Think I'm gonna cry again but this time with a tremulous smile in my lips. SNIFF!!

Stalker here. Reporting for duty.

Whaddya mean I have to read every thread and look for Signym's posts and then post immediately afterwards with a pathetic attempt at a rebuttal?

Crap. I quit.

I'm going back to just enjoying and learning from Signym's posts.

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

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:06 PM