REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Capital Offense

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6691
PAGE 4 of 5

Sunday, September 14, 2008 11:55 AM

CHRISISALL


So...when is our government gonna outlaw 'flea bombs'? 100 of those in a major building's air shafts could do some damage, I'd conjure.

LexLuthorisall

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 12:07 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Yes, Raid is prettymuch Sarin gas, don't believe me, go look it up yourself.


Raid uses pyrethroids, which are only really toxic to Insects.

Sarin has the same mechanism of action as some Insecticides (though I don't think Raid is actually one of them), but that's not the same thing at all.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 12:47 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm sorry Finn, but the plain fact of the matter is that the horror story that the Administration painted was just that: a story. It was far away from the reality of the situation ... a reality readily available to anyone who chose to listen to ground-based evaluations.

And getting back to the original point: That is how I knew that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD.

So you knew he didn’t have WMDs, because we found WMDs in Iraq. No amount of logic can bring you to that conclusion – that is driven by ideology.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 12:54 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

And getting back to the original point: That is how I knew that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD.


Signy, Finn is showing no flexibility in his thinking on this, he has gone all Herbert on us. Your arguments, while magnificent, are wasted on him I'm afraid. Good show, though.

I’m not often persuaded by ideology. I tend to look at the facts. I’ve heard a lot of magnificent arguments about why I’m going to hell, but I don’t buy those either.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 12:56 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
[ So you knew he didn’t have WMDs, because we found WMDs in Iraq. No amount of logic can bring you to that conclusion – that is driven by ideology.


LOL, yeah, and I once found my son with an empty box of cookies, so I said "Where are you hiding the rest, whelp?"
He said there were no more, that he'd just finished the box that was there, but I knew better- so I tore apart the house. I didn't find them, but I KNEW they existed...perhaps the mice spirited them away.

Finn, your Herbert routine is getting old.

Chrisisall

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 12:58 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’ve heard a lot of magnificent arguments about why I’m going to hell, but I don’t buy those either.


Just for the record, I had you as going upstairs.

Cisall

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 1:06 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not often persuaded by ideology. I tend to look at the facts.


Yeah, but people just blindly following Ideology say the same thing.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 1:32 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
[ So you knew he didn’t have WMDs, because we found WMDs in Iraq. No amount of logic can bring you to that conclusion – that is driven by ideology.


LOL, yeah, and I once found my son with an empty box of cookies, so I said "Where are you hiding the rest, whelp?"
He said there were no more, that he'd just finished the box that was there, but I knew better- so I tore apart the house. I didn't find them, but I KNEW they existed...perhaps the mice spirited them away.

That’s an ideologically driven opinion as well, since you can’t know that. I have my doubts that this is a fair comparison to your son, however.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 1:34 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not often persuaded by ideology. I tend to look at the facts.


Yeah, but people just blindly following Ideology say the same thing.

People who blindly follow ideology tend to claim that know things they can’t possibly know.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 1:38 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’ve heard a lot of magnificent arguments about why I’m going to hell, but I don’t buy those either.

Just for the record, I had you as going upstairs.

Thanks, but that is not a popular theory in certain circles. Some of my more devout friends don’t like my point of view about the inability to “know” unknowable things, anymore then others do.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 1:57 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Some of my more devout friends don’t like my point of view about the inability to “know” unknowable things, anymore then others do.



Why that's inconthievable!!

Finn, we ALL have preconceived notions & personal ideologies- they colour all that we see & think.

I remember thinking Carter was evil, & when he got elected, I feared for this country, heh heh. Turns out he was an okay dude, his inexperience with the poitical machine notwithstanding.
I am prepared to be wrong about stuff. Gorram it, I WANT to be wrong about stuff sometimes!

(the above was a hint, nudge nudge, wink wink)



It'sokaytobewrongisall

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Raid uses pyrethroids, which are only really toxic to Insects.

My bad, mighta been D-con, it was one of em though, but then again, that was back in the 80's so they mighta changed formulas too.

Pyrethoids are definately safer, especially with pets around.

Never DID get all them little german bastards, the fuckers were pissin me off so bad I started callin em the fourth reich - when I finally moved out of there, I left the furniture (it was just salvation army relics anyway) and torched everythin I wasn't wearing.

Evil little things, at least they're exempt from the geneva conventions, cause that's one case were use of a WMD is freakin warranted.

I HATE Roaches.
And crickets are worse, bigger, nastier roaches that MAKE NOISE, arrrgh.


SO glad to see the back of that place.

-F

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 3:20 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

People who blindly follow ideology tend to claim that know things they can’t possibly know.



Things like "Saddam has WMD!"

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 4:32 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I am prepared to be wrong about stuff. Gorram it, I WANT to be wrong about stuff sometimes!

(the above was a hint, nudge nudge, wink wink)

It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s about recognizing the limits of what you can and can’t know, especially for those things that you think are true. Being right or wrong is easy. I’m right or wrong many times a day. But sometimes formulating an opinion on something clouds your judgment, because you will always want to see that opinion as “right.” Just as you’ve learned to see the opinion that there were no WMDs in Iraq as “right,” when the reality is that we’ve simply not found as much as we believed were unaccounted for. That’s all. But by forcing the issue into simplistic terms of right or wrong, you’ve forced your mind to crystallize around a point of view that is not currently knowable. For that reason, you are actually afraid to even admit to yourself that Iraqi WMDs, that were understood to be unaccounted for by the US IC and the UN, may exist.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 5:10 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

But sometimes formulating an opinion on something clouds your judgment, because you will always want to see that opinion as “right.”


And has your opinion clouded your judgment because you thought that it was "right"?

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 5:32 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And has your opinion clouded your judgment because you thought that it was "right"?

As far as I’m concerned we have yet to know whether those WMDs exist or not. They might exist. They might not. It’s possible that Signym Clairvoyance is right and that Saddam destroy at least some of those WMDs – he obviously didn’t destroy all of them, since we’ve found stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. It’s possible that more stockpiles of WMDs still exist in Iraq to total the unaccounted for amount. It’s possible that Hussein had large stockpiles of WMDs transported to Syria or Lebanon or another country. We don’t know – so there’s no way to say what is right or wrong. What we can say, for sure, is that Saddam Hussein doesn’t have any WMDs anymore.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 5:40 PM

RUE

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


"But sometimes formulating an opinion on something clouds your judgment, because you will always want to see that opinion as “right.”"

Maybe that's how you work. Other people think differently. It's possible to form an opinion (or hypothesis) and keep looking for data to test that opinion. Scientists do it all the time. Should the data indicate the opinion is faulty either in whole or in part, then it's time to revisit it. That's what I do.

I didn't think Iraq had WMD.
I came to that opinion though my own professional knowledge of CBW and the information publicly available at the time.
I came to that opinion partly by noting where experts disputed the administration's claims (eg, the Africa uranium, the aluminum tubes).
And I came to that opinion by watching the administration itself.
If they had such good evidence, they wouldn't have had to phony it up like they did for poor Colin Powell's presentation for UN. I believe I posted a lengthy dissection of that presentation, pointing out where they used old pre-war data as if it was current, where they used simulations, where they conflated hypothesis as fact, and so on. Fortunately the people at the UN were sharper than the average USer and were unconvinced.
The administration wouldn't have had to make claims which were known to be false at the time, for example the 'yellow cake' reference in the SOTU speech, or linking Iraq with 9/11.
Bush wouldn't have had to keep moving the goal posts as Iraq kept meeting the UN demands. Just before the US launched its unprovoked attack against Iraq, Bush announced that the only way Hussein could avoid war was to quit the country with his family and administration. Now that was just creating a pretext where none existed.
I watched the administration close the door on letting the UN finish their inspections and declaring Iraq to be WMD-free.
I watched as tens of thousands of soldiers were sent into battle without proper protective gear.
And I watched as US troops were not ordered to secure those WMD sites or even to look for them, until the US was goaded into it by world opinion.


All of that tells me Bush and his administration knew ahead of time there were not enough WMDs to be a threat, and they lied, and lied, and lied, and then lied some more to start an illegal war.

If the administration had treated Iraq like it really did have all those fearsome WMDs I would have entertained the possibility. But their actions before, during and after the war pretty much clinched it - they lied. That is what the data told me.




***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 5:57 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
All of that tells me Bush and his administration knew ahead of time there were not enough WMDs to be a threat, and they lied, and lied, and lied, and then lied some more to start an illegal war.

But WMDs were found in Iraq, so your initial assumption that there were no WMDs in Iraq was wrong – it clouded your judgment. Now you look for reasons to justify it – the way you think the Bush administration did this or did that suddenly becomes evidence to support that initial assumption. That’s not the way science should work. We shouldn’t attempt to draw conclusions from inconclusive evidence.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:16 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I’m not often persuaded by ideology. I tend to look at the facts.
I've heard no "facts" from YOU sufficient to support the administration's "imminent threat" claims.

BTW- I knew that Saddam "had" WMD. The operative word is "had". I expected, in the rout of the first Gulf war, that some things would be left behind.
Quote:

we’ve found stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq.
But you're claiming "stockpiles". By which you imply... meaningful amounts of imminently threatening WMD, not old leftovers scattered here and there?

Cites please!!!

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:37 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

I’m not often persuaded by ideology. I tend to look at the facts.
I've heard no "facts" from YOU sufficient to support the administration's "imminent threat" claims.

I don’t remember administration stating that Iraq was an imminent threat.
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- I knew that Saddam "had" WMD. The operative word is "had". I expected, in the rout of the first Gulf war, that some things would be left behind.
Quote:

we’ve found stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq.
But you're claiming "stockpiles". By which you imply... meaningful amounts of imminently threatening WMD, not old leftovers scattered here and there?

By stockpiles of WMDs, I imply stored WMDs found in Iraq by coalition forces following the 2003 Iraqi war, which you are aware of but ignore.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 12:04 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t remember administration stating that Iraq was an imminent threat.



Quote:


"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html

Quote:

Rumsfeld thanked those people for their relatives' willingness to serve the country. He then very directly laid out the threat an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction poses to the United States and the world. He said people should think back to the time before Sept. 11, 2001, and ask themselves when the attack of Sept. 11 became an imminent threat.

"When was it sufficiently dangerous to our country that, had we known about it, we could have stepped up and stopped it?" he asked. "When was it that we could have saved 3,000 lives?"

He asked listeners to move forward in time and imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussein were to use weapons of mass destruction or transfer those weapons to groups like al Qaeda.

"With a weapon of mass destruction, you're not talking 300 people or 3,000 people being killed, but 30,000 or 100,000," he said. "If you think about it, it's the nexus, the connection, the relationship between terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks that has changed our lives and changed the security environment of the world."


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42501

Quote:

A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.

But the president made clear his decision whether to attack Iraq would not hinge on U.N. approval.

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others."

Calls have mounted in recent weeks for the president to make a better case for going to war. In response, Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent.


http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/iraqimminent.html

Quote:

"We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today/’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction - weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning."

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/89/rumsfeld-on-the-imminent-threat-from
-iraq




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 1:28 AM

SWISH


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As far as I’m concerned we have yet to know whether those WMDs exist or not.

Let's test the theory of your open-mindedness according the options you present...

Quote:

It’s possible that Signym Clairvoyance is right and that Saddam destroy at least some of those WMDs – he obviously didn’t destroy all of them, since we’ve found stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq.
So, where did we find "stockpiles"? Cause my understanding is that we didn't. But that's beside the point - in this option #1 you are talking about destruction of stockpiles, so your underlying assumption is that Iraq had tons of WMDs and destroyed them just in a nick of time. Or do you mean destroyed them since 1992? Cause I've seen talks from inspectors who went to Iraq in 1992, and they saw no stockpiles. They saw the beginnings of a weapons program, but no stockpiles of mushroom cloud making weapons.

Point is: in this option, you seem to suggest that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs in his power in relatively recent times.

Quote:

It’s possible that more stockpiles of WMDs still exist in Iraq to total the unaccounted for amount.
Your option 2: they had WMDs and hid them in Iraq.

Quote:

It’s possible that Hussein had large stockpiles of WMDs transported to Syria or Lebanon or another country.
Your option 3: they had WMDs and hid them outside Iraq.

Quote:

We don’t know – so there’s no way to say what is right or wrong.
Except you seem to be only considering a choice between Iraq having WMDs and Iraq having WMDs, which doesn't allow for as much right and wrong as some other posters here. It does suggest a not very open mind.

Here's my question: Can you allow, with equal weight and consideration, the possibility that Iraq never developed any new WMDs past what they had in 1992? Which, by the end of that war and certainly after years of inspections, wasn't a helluva lot.

Just... can you see that as a valid possibility?

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 2:29 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t remember administration stating that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Either you're playing with us or somewhere in your mind you've actually come to believe yourself here, either way you've put a LOT of thought into distortion.
Simply weighing facts & evidence takes SO much less energy, Finn.

But you'll keep over-thinking it, I suppose. Have fun.

Byeisall

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 2:59 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html


Yeah, but Cit, where in all that is it stated or implied that Iraq was an imminent or direct threat? I...I just don't see it.

Oh-I'mnotlookingisall

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 3:08 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
Point is: in this option, you seem to suggest that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs in his power in relatively recent times.

Since stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq by coalition forces, then without question, these weapons existed in Iraq until they were removed by coalition forces. You choose to ignore these WMDs, so that you can claim none were found in Iraq – but that is not true, they were found.
Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
Quote:

It’s possible that more stockpiles of WMDs still exist in Iraq to total the unaccounted for amount.
Your option 2: they had WMDs and hid them in Iraq.

They clearly had WMDs – this much is a fact, not an option. We have not found all that were thought to be unaccounted for.
Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
Your option 3: they had WMDs and hid them outside Iraq.

It’s possible WMDs were transported outside of Iraq.
Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
Except you seem to be only considering a choice between Iraq having WMDs and Iraq having WMDs, which doesn't allow for as much right and wrong as some other posters here. It does suggest a not very open mind.

It’s a fact that WMDs were found in Iraq – that you choose to ignore this says more about your closed mind then anyone else’s. Like I said, I follow the facts. You’ve chosen to ignore facts that don’t sit nicely with the point of view you’ve chosen – you’re point of view is ideological.
Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
Here's my question: Can you allow, with equal weight and consideration, the possibility that Iraq never developed any new WMDs past what they had in 1992? Which, by the end of that war and certainly after years of inspections, wasn't a helluva lot.

Just... can you see that as a valid possibility?

To my understanding, not a lot of evidence exists for continuing production of WMDs in Iraq, but that Iraq had WMDs is without question a fact.

You choose to ignore evidence, I don’t. WMDs were found in Iraq this is a fact – anyone who chooses to characterize Iraq as having no WMDs at the time of the invasions is stretching.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 3:11 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t remember administration stating that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Either you're playing with us or somewhere in your mind you've actually come to believe yourself here, either way you've put a LOT of thought into distortion.
Simply weighing facts & evidence takes SO much less energy, Finn.

But you'll keep over-thinking it, I suppose. Have fun.

In fact, Bush implied that Iraq was not an imminent threat in the 2003 state of the Union Address, which has become known as the Bush Doctrine – to not wait until a threat becomes imminent. The administration was operating on a policy of pre-emptive attack. Although some people may have used the phrase loosely at times, it was made clear that Bush was operating on a policy of preempting an imminent threat, not acting on an existing imminent threat.


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." President Bush, 2003 State of the Union.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 5:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Finn,

Can we agree that the pres and his people did claim Iraq was an imminent threat on at least a dozen occasions, both before and after the speech you cite?

Can we agree that Iraq appears to have had no active WMD program at the time of the invasion?

Can we agree that Iraq appears to have posed no greater threat to us in 2003 than they did in 2000?

I think if we can agree on this, we might reach a consensus of some kind. A middle ground.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 6:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FINN
Quote:

By stockpiles of WMDs, I imply stored WMDs found in Iraq by coalition forces following the 2003 Iraqi war, which you are aware of but ignore.
I will ask again, since it seems to have slipped your notice:


CITES PLEASE?

Kay/ Duelfer DIDN'T find stockpiles of anything. Their conclusion, not mine, was that Saddam did not have ongoing WMD production or even a viable WMD program.

Now, as time went one, bit and pieces of the old program were found: A few drums here, a few shells there. Eventually it added up to 500 pieces or so of miscellany. But certainly not a "stockpile", since it was all 1980s vintage, scattered about, and none viable or ready to use except a couple of drums of mustard gas. Certainly not stored in any organized fashion or recorded location. Like I said: a threat only insofar as somebody might stumble upon them.

So I dunno Finn, you better do some pretty deep googling and show me these "stockpiles" of weapons just ready to deploy... or, according to Rummy ALREADY deployed...'cause as far as I can tell, there weren't any. Certainly not anything matching the Admin's description.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 6:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FINN: Imminent threat:
Quote:

The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.
www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html

GAWD Finn! Are you NOW trying to portray the Administration as never having fear-mongered? It takes delusion of significant proportions to erase the memory of their constantly increasing hysteria. Not only did they use the words "imminent threat" (and similar) they collectively claimed that Saddam had massive stockpiles of-ready-use weapons, that the weapons were already deployed etc.

I KNOW you're smarter than that. You're usually pretty good at putting facts together, but you're waaaay over the line of denial on this.

---------------------------------
Please think responsibly.
A public service announcement.

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 7:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


GAWD Finn! Are you NOW trying to portray the Administration as never having fear-mongered?



I don't think he's saying it never happened, or that they never said it. Like Ronald Reagan and Alberto Gonzalez before him, he's simply resorting to the "I don't recall" strategy; if you say you don't recall or can't remember, you're absolved of all responsibility.

The thing is, he probably DOESN'T actually remember them saying that; he's wiped his mind utterly clean of any fact that might contradict his ideology. In his mind, it doesn't exist, didn't happen, and doesn't matter. That's the only conclusion I can reach, given the evidence.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 8:31 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

The thing is, he probably DOESN'T actually remember them saying that; he's wiped his mind utterly clean of any fact that might contradict his ideology. In his mind, it doesn't exist, didn't happen, and doesn't matter. That's the only conclusion I can reach, given the evidence.


I concur Mike. He keeps on about finding old useless remnants of WMD as if we don't recognize it as fact, and how Saddam used WMD on his own peeps in times past, proving he once had and employed them, again, as if we dispute it or something. The possibility that he used up the good stuff he had, and that the remaining effective lot he was supposed to have on the side was VASTLY overestimated is a near impossibility to Finn, even though he admits to 'not being able to fully know'. Then he uses a quote where Bush states we had to get Saddam before he became an imminent threat, as if that negates other more direct, inflammatory & fear-mongering language .
This kind of incredibly hyper-focused combination of blinders & cherry-picking is what make me give up arguing with him over it; his objectivity is clearly in question- not that ours isn't, but I see the rest of us at least attempting it.

Excuse me now, I have to continue looking for that hidden stockpile of cookies my son stashed away four years ago, I've expanded my search to neighbour's houses, and some of 'em are putting up quite a fight letting me do my inspections.

Not-so-friendly-neighbourhood Chrisisall

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 8:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I have to continue looking for that hidden stockpile of cookies my son stashed away four years ago, I've expanded my search to neighbour's houses, and some of 'em are putting up quite a fight letting me do my inspections.
HAHAHA!!!!

Hey, when you find those cookies can I have some?

Unless they're stale by now, in which case... you can have 'em! (And I advise you to let your neighbors do the same.)

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 9:27 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey, when you find those cookies can I have some?

Unless they're stale by now, in which case... you can have 'em! (And I advise you to let your neighbors do the same.)


While it's true that some cookies will go stale, SonIsAll's cookies were stored as cookie precursors, that won't ever go stale.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 9:59 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

While it's true that some cookies will go stale, SonIsAll's cookies were stored as cookie precursors, that won't ever go stale.


I HAVE THEM!!
A kid told a kid who told me that his Dad carted them away into his basement right around the time I found my son with the original supposedly 'only' box- I won't wait to get the cops, I'm busting into his house tonight to grab them & pre-emptivly remove the threat of a large-scale food fight!!!!

Chrisisall

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 10:25 AM

SWISH


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
Point is: in this option, you seem to suggest that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs in his power in relatively recent times.

Since stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq by coalition forces, then without question, these weapons existed in Iraq until they were removed by coalition forces. You choose to ignore these WMDs, so that you can claim none were found in Iraq – but that is not true, they were found.



Cites please?

The rest of the discussion is moot until this is clarified. Where were the stockpiles, and what exactly did they consist of?

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

Monday, September 15, 2008 2:17 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:

Cites please?

The rest of the discussion is moot until this is clarified. Where were the stockpiles, and what exactly did they consist of?


Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006
063001528.html


Basically, a bunch of used-to-be dangerous stuff.

Dustyisall

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FINN- One LAST attempt to reset your memory to what the Administraiton was really saying and doing.

The Admin used the terms "imminent threat" "mortal threat," "urgent threat," and "immediate threat", and "unique threat".

By any normal interpretation this does NOT imply stale leftovers from two decades ago.

They also used the term "serious and mounting threat". In any normal intepretation of the term, this implies that Saddam was currently manufacturing even more WMD.


The admin would not be able to get the peeps to support an invasion based on a realistic assessment, which was:

Saddam had WMD as late as 1990, and he hasn't accounted for them although they're well past expiry. We're concerned that he may be manufacturing more, although we haven't seen any evidence of that. UNMOVIC may not be doing a good enough job to assure us that ongoing WMD programs do not exist.

No, what they said was was

They're stockpiled! They're growing! They're deployed! We can't wait! We have to invade NOW!!!

What would you call that?



---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:39 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Saddam had WMD as late as 1990, and he hasn't accounted for them although they're well past expiry. We're concerned that he may be manufacturing more, although we haven't seen any evidence of that. UNMOVIC may not be doing a good enough job to assure us that ongoing WMD programs do not exist.



Well, shit, Signy, why'd ya haffta go an' get all LOGICAL about it? Hell, when you put it like that, even I wouldn't support invading Iraq.

Oh, wait - you did put it like that, and I didn't support the invasion. Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. And that includes Finn and his refusal or inability to simply say, "You were right. I was wrong."

Mike



This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:05 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. And that includes Finn and his refusal or inability to simply say, "You were right. I was wrong."


Mike, Mike, Mike, try not to think of it in terms of 'right' and 'wrong', think of it in terms of 'duh' and 'd'oh'.

isall

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:11 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

They're stockpiled! They're growing! They're deployed! We can't wait! We have to invade NOW!!!

What would you call that?




To quote Reggie Hammond from 48 Hrs- "Lack of p***y make you brave, man."

isall

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:11 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by swish:

Cites please?

The rest of the discussion is moot until this is clarified. Where were the stockpiles, and what exactly did they consist of?


Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006
063001528.html


Basically, a bunch of used-to-be dangerous stuff.

Dustyisall

So we find stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, but it's just a "bunch of used-to-be dangerous stuff."

Like I said, ideology, not facts. The FACT is that WMDs were found in Iraq. Some of you are so ideologically driven that you are terrified to even consider factual evidence that doesn't completely support your preconceived notions.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:12 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So we find stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, but it's just a "bunch of used-to-be dangerous stuff."

Like I said, ideology, not facts. The FACT is that WMDs were found in Iraq. Some of you are so ideologically driven that you are terrified to even consider factual evidence that doesn't completely support your preconceived notions.


You've not actually provided any factual evidence Finn. Why are you so terrified to back up your own argument?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The FACT is that WMDs were found in Iraq
Yeah yeah Finn, we get it. We got it, oh, about 20 threads ago. Nobody is arguing that Saddam didn't have WMD, or that he didn't use them against Iran and the Kurds, or that a few hundred leftovers were found.

But did those WMD form an imminent, mortal, urgent, unique, immediate, serious, and growing threat?

Yes or no?


---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:42 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It would appear to me that Finn is arguing from this point of view:

[If there existed any remnant of WMD in Iraq, then the Administration was truthful and justified in all of there statements.]

The fact that these remnants were decade-plus leftovers from prior wars is unimportant to him.

The fact that Iraq had no active WMD program to develop and use WMD's in the future is unimportant to him.

There could have essentially been a room full of WWI era mustard gas in an old mud hut in the middle of the Iraqi desert, and he would point to it and say, "See? Justified."

And I suppose strictly speaking he'd be right. If you have two items in stock, and stack them one on top of the other, you can call it a stockpile. If you use government resources to store said item, you can call it an 'active government program.' And if this is your yardstick for government truth, you can be very easily satisfied.

I don't feel it is enough. Finn apparently disagrees. I don't think we'll be able to breach that gulf.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


For some strange reason, I keep misreading "stockpile" as "sockpile". Mmmm.... maybe my laundry is an imminent and growing threat!
Quote:

I don't feel it is enough. Finn apparently disagrees.
He HAS to disagree, because otherwise he'd have to consider the possibility that our authorities aren't always moral and virtuous.


---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:10 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


There could have essentially been a room full of WWI era mustard gas in an old mud hut in the middle of the Iraqi desert, and he would point to it and say, "See? Justified."



So you're saying Finn actively supports the overthrow and replacement of the Bush regime? After all, we DO have stockpiles of WMD, and we HAVE used them in the past. And all that really matters is the past, right?

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:24 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So we find stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, but it's just a "bunch of used-to-be dangerous stuff."

Like I said, ideology, not facts. The FACT is that WMDs were found in Iraq. Some of you are so ideologically driven that you are terrified to even consider factual evidence that doesn't completely support your preconceived notions.


Like I said, ideology, not facts. The FACT is that no significant amount of viable WMD were found in Iraq to claim 'imminent threat', nor the delivery systems they would need to be so even if more non-rusty, potent stuff had been found. YOU are so ideologically driven that you are too terrified to even consider factual evidence that doesn't completely support your preconceived notions.


Backatyaisall

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:33 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
He HAS to disagree, because otherwise he'd have to consider the possibility that our authorities aren't moral and virtuous.



Signy, when has ANY government or military authority EVER been as moral and virtuous as ours?
Our authorities are singular among those in the world's history in that they do their best to do their best- intentional lies & deceit, errors in judgement, general & common human failings- these are all beneath them apparently.





The imperfect Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:41 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I don't feel it is enough. Finn apparently disagrees. I don't think we'll be able to breach that gulf.


Nah, he's too hung up on the necessary technicalities to admit the overall truth of the situation, and keeps hollering 'ideology', as if he repeats it enough, it'll be accepted.
He's apparently never heard the term 'spirit of the law', and if a cop, would nail you for every roll-thru, every parking-too-far-from-curb, every late-executed turn signal, etc.

He's so full of nonsense on this...it really ain't funny.

Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:03 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


So you're saying Finn actively supports the overthrow and replacement of the Bush regime? After all, we DO have stockpiles of WMD, and we HAVE used them in the past. And all that really matters is the past, right?


Whoah, that's a little outside the box.

The box is good.

The box is necessary.

The box loves us.

isall

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
MAGA movement
Sun, November 24, 2024 05:04 - 14 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:53 - 113 posts
Any Conservative Media Around?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:44 - 170 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:40 - 42 posts
Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Sun, November 24, 2024 01:01 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 23, 2024 23:46 - 4761 posts
Australia - unbelievable...
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:59 - 22 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:33 - 4796 posts
More Cope: David Brooks and PBS are delusional...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:32 - 1 posts
List of States/Governments/Politicians Moving to Ban Vaccine Passports
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:27 - 168 posts
Once again... a request for legitimate concerns...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:22 - 17 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 23, 2024 15:07 - 19 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL