So, who goes first??119 responses total.
This response has been erased.
a conspiracy about what? you need more details first to create a good conspiracy theory.
How about this, in a mass plot to take over the world Saddamm Hussien begins a weapons program to create weapons that can kill thouasands and millions. In 1980 he goes to war with neighboor iran,a nd launches chemical strikes against iranian soliders, and in 1988 he even uses one against people in the north of iraq, an event covered by the American news media. Then in 1991 he goes and takes over the country of Kuwait, but America kicks his army out of Kuwait. With this large stockpile of weapons that is now banned, he goes through a process of ordering them hidden. He orders that some scientits know how to make chemical and biological weaponry at a moments notice, so while they dont have the warheads they have the capability to manufacture them in a short amount of time. Other chemical and biological warheads are hidden from inspectors thoughout the course of 12 years. Some of the nuclear material is hidden under rosh bushes. George Bush in reading his intelligence reports which the poster of this item never reads because hes obviouisly a civilian has to make a judgement. His decision, which is based on wanting to protect the lives of humans in all the countries around the world, not just America, but in the middle east also, orders the military strike to eliminate Saddamm Hussien. In doing this he eliminates a government that was committed to trying to build and stockpile and hide weapons of mass destruction. George Bush makes this decision based on the intelligence and the advice of his advisors. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY It's a culture that looks for one, the JFK or the Area 51. But no one well accept the knowledge that this is all real, that Hussien actually tried to hide his weapons, that he wanted to kill innocents, and that George Bush did the right thing. Why don't you f*cking communists who think there is a conspiracy just go eat a bowl of shut the f*ck up and then if you desire to talk thank your President for keeping you safe and thank the members of the US military who went and suffered in combat. F*ck, just to please me, thank every US military member you meet, cause even those of us who aren't in combat have had a role in supporting those who have. I don't know if you pukes know what its like to be the voice on the phone to someone and your the only person that month who he hears that speaks English, but its a role of support. Instead of heh wheres the conspiracy theory, just say, Heh lets use this item to thank my fellow americans. And for the souls of those who have died, you are not forgotten. Conspiracy theory my ass. I think I made my point.
Let's consider the facts in this case.
Iraq only violated one term of the cease-fire agreement, with the Al
Samoud missiles, which exeeded the permitted range of 150 miles by about ten
percent or so in 13 out of 40 United Nations-supervised test firings. Iraq,
though it's had a dodgy past in terms of cooperation with UN inspectors, did
comply with the UN and dismantled both the missiles themselves and the means
to manufacture those missiles. Victor Mizin, one of the former weapons
inspectors, commented that the Al Samoud missiles' capabilities "isn't
particularly worrisome ... isn't dramatic," and that Blix's decision to
request they be destroyed was a political move.
No NBCs have been found in Iraq. Despite allegations of Iraq's
attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, none have been found. Despite
allegations of a large-scale biological weapons program, no hard evidence of
biological weapons have been found. There have been allegations and
suspicions aplenty, and accusations about the posession of items that could
have a use in the creation or use of NBCs, but no actual weapons.
Evidence from coalition members was found to be faked. Tony Blair's
intelligence dossier to the public was found to have been plagarised from
three outdated academic articles, and inaccurate. Bush's allegations that
Iraq tried to acquire weapons-grade fissionables from Nigeria remain
unproven. Hans Blix referred to the US and UK's released intelligence as
"shaky intelligence".
The body who wrote the treaty, the UN, did not favour military
intervention, nor did most of the world.
At the same time, North Korea openly admitted to being in severe
breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and CBT, and only a few years
earlier, Pakistan and India, who refused to sign the NBT, openly displayed
just why they refused to sign the NBT by detonating nuclear weapons. Not
only did we ignore all three cases where there clearly were posession of
NBCs, we actually allied with Pakistan in our recent struggle in Iraq and
are currently providing them with substantial aid.
I mean, c'mon here, what more do you need to admit that there is
substantial ground for suspecting that the US action in Iraq was not quite
what it was billed to be?
GWB's balls are in a jar in Karl Rove's basement.
What I don't get is how Clinton got Sadaam to go along with the whole conspiracy. I mean clearly Sadaam didn't in fact have WMD, right? Isn't that the whole point? Yet somehow Clinton got Sadaam to go along with this conspiracy including having Clinton bomb Iraq over weapons what Sadaam didn't have. And Sadaam played the conspirator by preventing the UN inspectors from finding out that Sadaam didn't have anything and acting like he did, right? And Sadaam played the world press who are now saying Sadaam didn't have WMD by pretending he did, right? Sadaam is a crazyman so there is no rational to his actions so of course he risked destruction of his regime over something he didn't have, right? And when the evidence gradually trickles out, as it has started to already, it will be part of the conspiracy that all the evidence was planted by the US and the Brits who were not only clever enough not to find it right away but have a dedicated cadre of both Clinton, Bush-I, Thatcher, and Labor party operatives all of whom kept the secret of the conspiracy without any one of them playing the heroic whistleblower who was set for life financially. Oh, its a grand conspiracy, the best one yet.
Oh, did you know that the USARMY was in on the conspiracy to assassinate JFK? Yep, they were rehearsing transporting presidential remains from Texas *before* 11/22/63 - thats proof!
Did you know that Churchill who was secretary of the Royal Navy at the time, and J.P. Morgan who was the owner of the White Star Line of ships set-up the Lusitania (owned by the Canard Co.) to be the sacrifical pawn to get the Americans to join the Allies. yup, apparently the Germans tried to put an ad in the major east coast news papers warning that the Lusitania was a lawful target because it was secretly shipping munitions between the U.S. and Britain, but the State Dept prevented the ad from showing up in all but one paper. Back in that time period, it was customery to let all the civilian passengers off a ship before it was sunk, however the british gov't ordered all ships to attempt to ram any U-boats. making it impossible for the germans to accept any prisoners or let anyone off before it was torpedoed. There was a second much larger explosion that was caused by the munitions in the cargo hold, but officials tried to pass that off as a coal dust explosion.
I don't really give a rats ass if they find WMD or not. I take solace in the fact that the Iraqi poeple have been liberated from a despotic dictator.We may not be finding any WMD at this point but we sure as hell are finding evidence of genocide.Have you taken a gander at all the bodies they are finding stacked in warehouses and buried in mass graves?I guess not. All you liberals watch is CNN. Oh by the way CNN and fessed up to knowing about the atrocities all along..yet they kept silent because they didn't want to lose thier broadcast rights there. THERE'S YOUR F*CKING CONSPIRACY RETARD. Why don't we talk about what Saddam has done to his own poeple.he has violated international law worse than any head of state since Hitler.Liberals are F*CKED in the head.Your "reasoning" simlpy defys logic and it's because your agenda blinds you to the truth.I think you should all be neutered and medicated.
From the sound of that response, you should probably be a little more diligent about taking your meds as well. :)
Re #3: > Why don't you f*cking communists who think there is a conspiracy just > go eat a bowl of shut the f*ck up and then if you desire to talk > thank your President for keeping you safe and thank the members of > the US military who went and suffered in combat. So now anyone who criticizes the government for not being open and honest is a communist? I seem to recall government secrecy and a suppression of criticism of the government being hallmarks of past communist regimes, actually. Re #9: I don't think many people will argue that going after Iraq was a bad thing overall. What bothers a lot of us is that the government wasn't honest with us about the reasons for doing so. Doesn't the idea that your President LIED to you about the reasons for going to war bother you, just a little? I mean, a lot of the people who are defending George W. Bush now were incensed that Clinton would DARE to lie to us about who sucked his cock, but now lying about the reasons for putting thousands of lives on the line is okay? I wouldn't call what happened a "conspiracy", just secrecy and PR spin gone out of control.
Re #3: Jawohl, mein Hauptsturmfuhrer!
I do love the straw man arguments.
Nobody's arguing Hussein was a Good Guy. He's not uniquely despotic,
though, when compared to some of the governments in the area, and we've
ignored worse for the sake of international trade. A careful student of
American history would note that we've been guilty of most of the same sins
as Hussein's regime at one point or another. But that didn't make us the
Good Guys back then, and it doesn't make him one now. Nobody seems too sad
to see him go.
Hell, I cheered when I saw footage of people in Afghanistan walking
around without the strict beards and facial coverings proscribed by law.
But that wasn't America's motivation with Afghanistan, and Bush's PR
team didn't think up the whole "regime change" argument until after we'd
already committed. They were still trying to work the fear angle of the
weapons of mass destruction argument, until they realised that Hussein was
unpopular enough people would support the invasion just on those grounds.
Besides, if we care so much about despots, why did we ignore
Tiennanmen Square and the Vietnamese opium guerillas?
RE:#13 "He's not uniquely despotic, though, when compared to some of the governments in the area" What? If that's the case perhaps we should extend our occupation to those areas as well. I don't have a problem with dusting off any goverment that opresses it poeple and exixts for the sole purpose of self-gratification. As for my agruemnet being 'straw-man" let me address that for a minute. After 9-11 we developed a policy of weeding out ALL state sponsired terrorism. Saddam gave finacial compensation to the families of suicide bombers.That fact alone justifies our actions against him. Granted there is PR work in the act of selling any war.We suspected that there were WMDs and Saddam was not forthcoming with the required information.He has placed cat&mouse for the last decade and we decided to push it all the way this time. I think the point of this debate shouldn't be about what's been done. We can agree to disagree.You feel it's not justified...I feel it is. The point should be about what we are doing NOW.The regime has been changed...we should turn it over to the UN and get out.Maybe we should move on to those despots that surround him and as you say are just as bad.I'm really sick f liberals whining about the injustice Aren't you the same ones who praised Clinton for his policy in Bosnia? Yet when it's a republican making a similar decision you whine like a bunch of two-year olds.Come admit it. We did the world a favor when we dusted that bastard.As for Tiennanmen Square we didn't ignore it. We handle the matter with sanctions and diplomacy...the same tactics that FAILED with Saddam. The Vietnamese opium guerillas haven't heard the last of us either. First things first.That is if you liberals don't whine about that too. I bet if we did take action you'd be here screaming bloody murder about how unjust it was.What do you say bomb China for Tiennanmen Square? No? Then quit usuing it as a smokescreen to hide the invalidity of your agrument.
So, when are we invading Africa, sabre?
The Dialectic method is great for expounding on your philosophy in
literature, but it's not so great for debating with someone who can respond.
I'm not "you liberals", nor could or would I say some of the things you're
ascribing to me. Please don't do that in the future.
Now what I was referring to as a straw-man argument is the (common)
practice of assuming that anyone who opposes recent American conduct is
pro-Hussein. Very few people that I've talked to actually supported leaving
Hussein's government in place, and most of those did so because they feared
that what replaced it would be worse. Essentially, no one's arguing that
Hussein should be running Iraq, so attacking Hussein's character is a
distraction. We all agree he's a Bad Boy.
The problem with "dusting off" any government that uses terrorist
tactics is that *we* use terrorist tactics. Our trading partners and allies
use terrorist tactics. Many of the nations and parties we're considering
war with now were trained in terrorist tactics at the School of the
Americas. The Vietnamese guerillas were originally trained as a part of Air
America. Hell, even Hussein was supplied with toxic agents when he was
opposing Iraq, whom we considered to be a more present threat. We're
playing the same game, and so is everyone else, and we're deliberately
ignoring some players and targeting others, with no apparent regard for the
severity of their evildoing.
And, for the record, I supported our action in Bosnia and in Somalia
both (though I disagree at some points with our tactics) ... because they
were sanctioned by the UN, and carried out as a true coalition with fairly
universal support. I supported the Iraqi inspections for the same reason.
I decried the Iraqi war because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN, cost us
considerable support in the world community - that is to say, we're not the
"Good Guys" anymore in a lot of eyes - and was flimsily excused by a number
of fairly transparent pieces of faked or exaggerated evidence.
I don't like being lied to, what can I say?
RE#16 "*we* use terrorist tactics. Our trading partners and allies use terrorist tactics." Say what? Can you be a bit more specific? Like place and time? Perhaps in our infantile state..when the world abounded in colonialism questionable things were done.When in recent history have we every commited an act of terror? Have we blown up buses on purpose to cause terror? have we unleasehed suicide bombers on innocent civilians? Have we hijacked airliners and crashed them into buildings full of poeple?Has our goverment ever sponsered training to teach how to do these things best?We have waged war in a legal manner with honor and courage.Yes we have hurt civilians in doing do..but not on purpose. Not any more than killing some of our own soldiers was on purpose.You need to look up terrorism in the dictionary.As for this war not being sanctioned by the UN. Well..the only reason it wasn't was that the French and Germans opposed it.The had a vested interest in doing so.The Germans built Saddam's underground bunkers. The French have been in bed with ass for years....and I mean post-gulf was.AFTER it was known what his agenda was.The french had alot to lose if we attacked.Hence thier position.America's interest do not always follow those of the UN.We retain the right to act independent of them. We are the world's greatest power. The UN exists because of us and not vice-versa.As for us providing support for Saddam it was an issue of maintaining a balance to Iranian power in the region."The Vietnamese guerillas were originally trained as a part of Air America. " They weren't guerillas until the goverment in the south fell. They were legit soldiers and became what they are in being opposed to communisim. They ARE being dealt with..as far as drug trafficking in concerned . "I don't like being lied to, what can I say?" What can I say I don't either and I don't think I have. Iraq is a large nation. It make take a long time to find those weapons. I am sure we will. It is true I misread your position somewhat..and for that I apoligise. You are however errant in the salient parts of your argument.
Actually, I noticed in comments today that our expectations are being carefully lowered. You no longer hear people in the Bush administration talking about finding actual weapons. Now they're just telling us that they think they can find documents indicating Saddam was trying to get WMD.
[warning: long post]
You were warned ...
RE#16
Say what? Can you be a bit more specific? Like place and time?
Perhaps in our infantile state..when the world abounded in colonialism
questionable things were done.When in recent history have we every commited
an act of terror?
The most recent example that comes to mind is the Iraqi invasion's
bombing phase, which was referred to as "shock and awe". Merriam-Webster's
online dictionary defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror
especially as a means of coercion", specifically referring to definition 4
of terror, "violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate
a population or government into granting their demands". That's exactly what
we did. Used violence in an attempt to intimidate.
Have we blown up buses on purpose to cause terror? have we
unleasehed suicide bombers on innocent civilians? Have we hijacked airliners
and crashed them into buildings full of poeple?
None of those tactics is particularly effective for a first-world
nation with the largest and best-armed military on the globe. If we wanted
to destroy a target, it's much easier to send a cruise missile or a
carrier-launched fighter-bomber to do so, and considerably easier to talk the
pilot into a mission he'll likely come back from. Blowing up random Iraqi
targets would have accomplished absolutely nothing. Moreover, Iraq has had
no proven connection to 9/11, so the implied allegation is false.
Has our goverment ever
sponsered training to teach how to do these things best?
Absolutely. We run a cadre training operation out of Fort Benning
called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. It's better
known as the School of the Americas. Even though it's not effective for us
to use cheap and suicidal tactics, it is for some of our allies, and we have
a long history of training them well. We trained the Thai guerillas as a part
of Air America. We trained the Vietnamese. Remember the Contra-Sandanista
war?
We have waged war
in
a legal manner with honor and courage. Yes we have hurt civilians in doing
do..but not on purpose.
We did fairly recently, until it was found out that a first world
nation doing massive civillian bombing doesn't work particularly well in terms
of demoralizing the enemy. We did massive civillian bombings in the first
and second World Wars, however. The real difference here is that it's much
easier to demoralize a colonial power into lifting an expensive and difficult
occupation than it is to demoralize an equal or lesser power with the same
tactics of fear and intimidation. But when we're backing someone else who
is a smaller power, or the underdog, we definitely use those tactics through
them.
Not any more than killing some of our own soldiers
was on purpose.You need to look up terrorism in the dictionary.As for this
war not being sanctioned by the UN. Well..the only reason it wasn't was that
the French and Germans opposed it.
I think you're missing the whole concept of the UNeSCo here. It's a
committee. Committees disagree. It's already a pretty big rubber stamp for
Western interests - look at who holds permanent veto status and who's on the
token rotating committee. It's kind of ludicrous to assume that every nation
on this earth that opposes the US does so because of some shadow conspiracy,
yet the US is incapable of shadow conspiracies itself. Either way, the UN,
as a body, said "no", and the world concurred. The Iraqi war was protested
by more people than any other event in world history.
The had a vested interest in doing
so.The
Germans built Saddam's underground bunkers. The French have been in bed with
ass for years....and I mean post-gulf was.AFTER it was known what his agenda
was.The french had alot to lose if we attacked.
I would expect no less of a first world power than to consider their
own interests. However, if you look at the French and German voting public,
you'll also find another interest - their people, by and large, didn't want
the war, and they have little or no interest in the business dealings of a
few arch-capitalists. Occam's razor.
Hence thier
position.America's
interest do not always follow those of the UN.We retain the right to act
independent of them. We are the world's greatest power. The UN exists
because
of us and not vice-versa.As for us providing support for Saddam it was an
issue of maintaining a balance to Iranian power in the region."The
Vietnamese
guerillas were originally trained as a part of Air
America. " They weren't guerillas until the goverment in the south fell.
They
were legit soldiers and became what they are in being opposed to communisim.
Wait. I just thought you said we didn't train terrorists. We trained
these terrorists. We're not sponsoring the drug trade ... right now ... but
we did before, and when we stopped doing so, did we assume that everyone would
quietly go back to their homes as if nothing had happened?
They ARE being dealt with..as far as drug trafficking in concerned .
"I don't like being lied to, what can I say?" What can I say I don't either
and I don't think I have. Iraq is a large nation. It make take a long time
to find those weapons. I am sure we will. It is true I misread your position
somewhat..and for that I apoligise. You are however errant in the salient
parts of your argument.
Well, we were swearing up and down that we knew what they had and
where. Now we can't find anything at all. We certainly didn't give them much
time to do so. It, especially in light of prior faked evidence, is not a very
convincing situation.
Good job of taking sabre apart, jazz. He/she is clearly just a loud demagogue thinking that shouting some party line will intimidate others.
People who respond in such a haphazard, emotional fashion are rarely attempting to shout party line to intimidate. Typically they are insecure and become upset when they hear strong opposing arguments (I probably dont' agree with a lot of them, but they are well-composed and certainly have discussional merit), and respond by lashing out and vehemently opposing everything they manage to perceive as wrong. The result? Poorly organized, limited arguments that are easily dismantled. I don't think sabre was/is as composed as implied. :) John had an easy time of it. I'd think sabre *was* a straw man if I didn't read the actual posts--perhaps it's a troll.
Occam's razor? I prefer to call it the principle of parisimony myself.. but a rose by any other name.I think you're a bit guilty of this yourself.You have made some grand assumptions. Our motivation in "shock and awe" was to use precision guided munitions to hit specific targets.It wasn't the scope of the explosions that are meant to awe but the ability to put them right where we want. Where they random acts of violence intended to produce terror? I was watching Msnbc's web cam when the attacks occured and they were poeple walking the street..driving thier cars and going about life as usual.They were so unafraid that we had to actually drop fliers and warn them off the street. The poeple weren't the target and they knew this.I do agree that any act of war can be loosly define as terrorism but for the sake of the arguement let's define it as "a random act of chaos" intended to make poeple fear to go about thier daily lives.Terror gives everyone a sense of"I could be next" We don't do this. I want to ask a question. If we had our way(US)everyone on the planet who have certains rights. At least we have some illusion of freedom. What would the world be if the Islamic fanatics had thier way? It's a question of who's right.Do we have black ops and things of that nature? I'm sure we do. The targets however are never innocent civilains dancing in a disco. The targets are wicked evil men who destroy and oppress everything they touch.You' re far from stupid...why can't you see this? We are at war my friend. A diffrent kind of war than we have ever faced before. It's war of culture and foundational principles.Those fanatics desire to make to whole world bow to "ALLAH" Who is just some 6th century moon god. They want to control what we wear.What we eat.How we live or whole lives. The PR battle isn't a one way street either.Have you seen how Al-jazera and the BBC covered the war? What a crock! In any case they have started bombing our cities now.We have to go in a root out as much of them as possible. I support efforts of that nature 100%. <rant>ON TO IRAN</rant>
I don't respond to ad hominem points in a post so I won't comment any further on them except to say this. I AM NOW FULLY MEDICATED..lol I did rant on with some emotion earlier but I'm not a troll. I actually like Jazz's post also. His form is excellent..I just think his assumptions are wrong.I think there are some things I still need to learn but don't throw way the mail because the postman's shoes are dirty. so senna I stand corrected for my method..I don't apologise for my position.
Hmmm for someone who doesn't respond to ad hominem points you did pretty good I also don't agree that all of your points are "easily dismantled". You haven't been "taken apart" just corrected on your method. Some of your arguements are quite sound. Here's a url to help you expose them better: http://debate.uvm.edu/ Enjoy sabre..Don't intimidate and don't be intimidated.
THere are those who believe that the US govt is run by Christian fanatics.
Hey Scott
|| ||
|\___/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
_____|<--->|_____
/ | | \
/ | | | | \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | |
| | |
| /
| /
\ /
\ /
| |
| |
Was that really necessary??
Re: #27 Thanks. You've save me the time of trying to figure out if you're worth reading.
I knew the was too easy. Must be a m-netter.
Spare me.
"I knew the was too easy" Proof positive that are gaps in your limited knowledge.You pukes are the kinda nerdish peons that get an ego boost from THINKING you won an arguement. Like you really took me apart.HA If we didn't attackk Iraq Saddam would still be in power and sponsering terrorism. Any objections to that should be filed under"Liberal Agenda" You and your little remoras remind me of warner brothers cartoon.You know the one where the big dog is followed around by the little taco bell dog and taco says"go get em spike go get em" What a laugh I get form you weinies.You're a hypocrite for saying you were glad when Afghan was freed..yet you oppose action in Iraq because it wasn't saction by the UN.Fuck the UN. Why don't you move that french hen ass of yours to europe? You'll fit in nicely....
Time for sabre to put up proof, or shut up. This ain't Fox News, and you aren't Bill O'Reilly, kid. We're not the sort of lame "liberal" actors he hires as punching bags.
I not the one who has to prove anything you one line post whore. Jazz is the one making absurd statements about the US sponsiring terrorism He is the one saying the American poeple have been lied to. I have yet to read a single post of yours that has had any merit whatsoever. Just a bunch of one liners.You are JUST the kind of liberal punching bag O'reilly uses.You might win a stuttering contest in your special ed class but you aren't jack shit here.Go back and hide behind jazz's skirt
Heh. Guess I found somebody's sensitive spot, eh? Let me clue sabre in on a bit of truth. Ever notice how O'Reilly always has the loudest mike and the brighest lighting? Propaganda - and yes, they always hire weaklings to debate him, just like Rush will never debate anybody outside the tightly controlled confines of his own show. Perhaps in a couple decades then the history has been written you'll understand, although I'll admit it's still possible to find people who will swear that Nixon was never a criminal either.
I'm not in the mood for name-calling. If you want to debate, I'll
adress you, but most of those posts don't merit a response.
Hrm, I was going to start by addressing any responses sabre had to my
points, but I don't see any. So let's address his statements.
If we didn't attackk Iraq Saddam would still be in power and sponsering
terrorism.
Outside of a few payments to the families of suicide bombers, Saddam
really didn't sponsor that much terrorism to begin with. But this is another
straw man argument; nobody's saying that a peaceful and mature process
doesn't take more time than sending in the troops immediately. The question
isn't which one is faster, but which one is better.
You're a hypocrite for saying you were
glad when Afghan was freed..yet you oppose action in Iraq because it wasn't
saction by the UN.
It's entirely possible to think that a war was badly handled but that
the outcome had some good points, or that a war was well handled but the
outcome had bad points. It's not all "just good" or "just bad". The
eminently sensible resolution of World War II, for instance, had several
negative repurcussions on the American economy.
jazz said:
"
Outside of a few payments to the families of suicide bombers, Saddam
really didn't sponsor that much terrorism to begin with."
That sounds like the teenage girl who told her father she was 'a little bit
pregnant" The fact is he ran a state that was a sponsor of terrorism.
The same can be said of your post on Saddam's missle range violation.
This is a really long post. In December 1983, Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Searle, paid a visit to Saddam Hussein. This was on behalf of the US govt. Apparently he was trying to help Betchel secure an oil pipeline contract In 1980, President Reagen took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations. In March 1984 the United Nations had a team of experts go to Iran who came back and reported on March 28th that indeed Iraq had used chemical weapons on Iranians. Around the same time, Rumsfeld was still making trips to Iraq. Post-1984 the US saw major oil deals go to the French, Russians and Chinese. "While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them - not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation. Saddam is more wily, brutal and conspiratorial than any likely conspiracy the U.S. might mobilize against him. Saddam must be overpowered." - Donald Rumsfeld, Robert McFarland, Judge William Clark, "Open Letter to the President," Feb. 19, 1998" So attacking Iraq isn't a post-9/11 policy. The plan was already laid. Clinton refused to consider it. Bush did. Snippets from: http://www.arachnia.com/adc'images/livejournal/Behind%20the%20Invasion% 20of%20Iraq.doc The US administration provided crop-spraying helicopters (to be used for chemical attacks in 1988), let Dow Chemicals ship it chemicals for use on humans, seconded its air force officers to work with their Iraqi counterparts (from 1986), approved technological exports to Iraq s missile procurement agency to extend the missiles range (1988). In October 1987 and April 1988 US forces themselves attacked Iranian ships and oil platforms. Militarily, the US not only provided to Iraq satellite data and information about Iranian military movements, but, as former US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) officers have recently revealed to the New York Times (18/8/02), prepared detailed battle planning for Iraqi forces in this period even as Iraq drew worldwide public condemnation for its repeated use of chemical weapons against Iran. According to a senior DIA official, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down [ie, slipped from US control Aspects] that was the backdrop of the policy. As part of the Anfal campaign against the Kurds (February to September 1988), the Iraqi regime used chemical weapons extensively against its own civilian population. Between 50,000 and 186,000 Kurds were killed in these attacks, over 1,200 Kurdish villages were destroyed, and 300,000 Kurds were displaced.... The Anfal campaign was carried out with the acquiescence of the West. Rather than condemn the massacres of Kurds, the US escalated its support for Iraq. It joined in Iraq s attacks on Iranian facilities, blowing up two Iranian oil rigs and destroying an Iranian frigate a month after the Halabja attack. Within two months, senior US officials were encouraging corporate coordination through an Iraqi state-sponsored forum. The US administration opposed, and eventually blocked, a US Senate bill that cut off loans to Iraq. The US approved exports to Iraq of items with dual civilian and military use at double the rate in the aftermath of Halabja as it did before 1988. Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use were accepted by the US commerce department, which did not request licenses and reviews (as it did for many other countries). The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invaded Kuwait. ( The dishonest case for war on Iraq by Alan Simpson, MP, and Dr Glen Rangwala, Labour Against the War Counter- Dossier, 17/9/02) The full extent of US complicity in Iraq s weapons of mass destruction programmes became clear in December 2002, when Iraq submitted an 11,800 page report on these programmes to the UN Security Council. The US insisted on examining the report before anyone else, even before the weapons inspectors, and promptly insisted on removing 8,000 pages from it before allowing the non-permanent members of the Security Council to look at it. The US was the sole country to vote against a 1986 Security Council statement condemning Iraq s use of mustard gas against Iranian troops. More interesting stuff at: http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc1510.html I am not saying that you hang on to every word in those documents but read it with an open mind and argue with yourself. The above are not my opinions. They are copied and pasted here from research done by other people. However, having been in the gulf for sometime now, I do have a few opinions. First it was interesting to see France, Germany and Russia oppose the US. Why?? Bcoz the US had already made its position very clear. Either Saddam surrenders or they would invade Iraq. Now this meant one thing, that having publicly said this, there was no way US could back down now. Doing so would be humiliation not only for US govt but the Bush administration too. So the french, germans and russians knew that the attack was coming and their opposition wouldn't matter. So what did they achieve by opposing the US is still an interesting question to me. Making the US look bad might win a few brownie points with Arabs but that won't count when their local populations go to vote in their respective national elections. To the arab on the street the US is evil. And its not bcoz the arabs envy americans or disapprove of the lifestyle of the west. The propoganda that the arabs want the entire world to chant allah is hogwash. Any expat in the gulf would tell you that. Its just a bunch of fundamentalists who get the media's attention and create the impression. The hatred is bcoz, one the US is seen as the bully behind Israel and two, the US is seen supporting unpopular governments in the region that suppress people. There is no denying that Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator and he was EVIL. But having said that, the intentions of the US government aren't what they had been stated to at the beginning of the war. Hans Blix has publicly discredited US/UK claims about WMDs in Iraq. British government's report on WMD was sourced from an outdated report by a student???!!!! As for helping the Iraqis. After the war, the little food and medicine the Iraqis used to get under Saddam is also not available now. While the US was very swift in awarding a contract to Halliburton for rebuilding oil wells , no such swiftness has been shown in restoring food supplies and medicines to the people. The case of Halliburton itself is shrouded with controversy. After the war, one ministry was singled out by the coalition for protection. It was the Ministry for Oil. The rest were left for looters to ransack. As for the US/UK armies, their governments cheered them a lot while the war was on. But now they seem to have been deserted by the lack of a proper handover plan. The promised rebuilding isn't happening and the local population is getting restless. So whom do they shoot? The troops are left in Iraq facing the bullets of various guerilla groups bcoz there governments no longer care what happens to Iraq. Well, except for the oil. Regions like Basra, that were strongly anti-Saddam, have witnessed brutal attacks on British forces after the war. Wonder why?? The army is supposed to fight an enemy force. Making it do the job of civic administration in the face of local unrest is dangerous. What am I trying to point out?? The politicians hatched a plan for their interest only, fed the people with lies and inaccurate reports and have now abandoned the people of Iraq, their own armies and their own people (by lying to them).
Yes, it does make a big difference how much or how little a state is
sponsoring anti-American activities and terrorist activities. It's not at
all like being pregnant or not pregnant. Most states sponsor a variety of
things that are counter to American interests and in their own. It's called
rational self-interest.
It's also worth noting just how much interest Cheney has in Haliburton,
as, on a seperate note, how much interest Bush Jr. had in Enron. Hell, he
flew around in Ken Lay's private jet while he was campaigning.
From various media reports: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Condoleezza Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 2001 when she was transferred by President George Bush Jr. to National Security Adviser. Previously she was Senior Director, Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, and Special Assistant to President George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991. Another Chevron Corporation giant in the Bush administration is Vice President Dick Cheney. Vice President Cheney was Chairman and Chief Executive of Dallas based Halliburton Corporation, the world s largest oil field services company with multi-billion dollar contracts with oil corporations including Chevron. Lawrence Eagleburger, a seasoned Bush counselor who held top State Department posts under George Bush Sr., is a director of Halliburton Corporation. Halliburton's global network of investments includes projects in politically volatile areas including the Caspian Sea region. Dick Cheney was instrumental in negotiating a Caspian Sea pipeline for Chevron. The crude oil pipeline is a 900-mile project stretching from western Kazakhstan to the Black Sea that will primarily benefit Chevron by connecting the Tengiz oil field to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk in Russia. Chevron, the largest oil company member of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, holds a 55 percent ownership interest with the Republic of Kazakhstan in Tengizchevroil. The 40-year, $20 billion joint-venture company was formed in 1993 to develop the Tengiz field. Tengiz is one of the world s largest oil fields with 6 to 9 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Also, there are allegations that the Bush Administration declared war in Afghanistan, not necessarily to combat terrorism, but to make it possible for U.S. oil interests to construct gas and oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to Pakistani harbors on the Indian Ocean. The first phase, now accomplish, was to install a friendly "puppet" regime in Kabul. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Back in 1986 Bush's oil company, Spectrum, was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. As tends to happen in the Bush clan, a group of businessmen close to his father absorbed Spectrum into their company, Harken Energy. George W. Bush was facing bankruptcy one day and the next day he had $600,000 worth of Harken stock in hand, a $80,000-a- year salary and a stock option arrangement that allowed him to buy Harken stock at 40% below market value. In all, the deal put well over $1 million in his pocket over the next few years -- even though Harken itself lost millions. Bush also borrowed $180,375 from the company - a loan that was later "forgiven." (In 1989 and 1990 alone - according to the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filing - Harken's board "forgave" $341,000 in loans to its executives.) Harken also owed more than $150 million to banks and other creditors. But, Harken wasn't producing anything - unless of course you count the rich flow of fees, stock options, and salaries for its top executives, including George W. Bush. Harken also owed more than $150 million to banks and other creditors. But, Harken wasn't producing anything - unless of course you count the rich flow of fees, stock options, and salaries for its top executives, including George W. Bush. It was spring 1990 and Iraq was threatening Kuwait thereby also threatening Harken Energy's only pending contract, a drilling project in Bahrain. And, Harken's Smith Barney financial advisors had just delivered a hand wringing report voicing alarm at the company's rapidly deteriorating financial condition and mounting debts. The company established a restructuring board to which Bush was appointed. But, the only restructuring Bush did involved his own finances. In June 1990 Bush pulled a Skilling. Claiming ignorance of the Harken's financial difficulties or the Smith Barney report, he sold his 212,140 shares of Harken Energy banking $848,560.00. Even though the sale fell squarely under the SEC's insider stock sale rule requiring almost immediate formal notice, Bush did not report the sale until seven months later - after US troops had finished fighting Desert Storm. At the time the SEC was headed by George H. Bush appointee, Richard Breeden and no action was taken against the President's son for his tardiness in reporting his insider trades. Of course, reporting such a sale at the time it occurred could have been both revealing and embarrassing. Bush sold his Harken stock less than thirty days after his father's National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft sent the President a secret memo warning that hostilities between Iraq and Kuwait were likely. Did dad share this information with his son? If so, W. Bush traded on "non-public" information of an extraordinary nature indeed. Less than two months after Bush sold his shares hostilities broke out in Gulf and Harken's stock dropped like a stone. The shares lost 25% of their value alone on the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. Had Bush held his shares until then he would have lost nearly a quarter of million dollars. Harken's stock fell to as low as .25 a share. Today it trades under a dollar. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gp o.gov/2003/03-13412.htm I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order: Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following: (a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products [...] ------------------------------------- The executive order is cleverly worded to make it seem as though all Iraqi oil revenues are going into the Development Fund for Iraq. But that's not what it says. (a) and (b) are independent above. If any oil company goes in to pump Iraqi oil, no organization can sue to have the revenues go to a just cause. The executive order says that oil companies may pump Iraqi oil without fear of lawsuits. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enough oil for a day!!!!
I find it very amusing that someone is using "communist" as a pejorative so long after the fall of the Berlin wall and the death of Mao and all but the name of his dynasty.
Thinking about America's military invasions since Vietnam, it seem to me that being an evil dictator, practicing genocide, bankrolling & arming terrorists, developing nukes, etc. are okay with America. Sure, you may get some flack, and preferential trade status is more iffy (unless you know who to pay off in Washington), but America really doesn't mind such things. There is, however, one thing that America won't forgive - persisting with defiance (vs. bow/scrape/boot-lick) when Washington's in a macho mood. Try that strategy, and you'd better be really ready (vs. in-your-dreams ready) to inflict "utterly unacceptable losses" when they unleash the Pentagon to show you who's really Alpha Thug on this planet. As far as i can see, our invasion of Iraq fits this pattern perfectly. Sure, Washington made lots of nice noises about evil, WMD's, wanting to fix Iraq, etc. But out in the actions-speak-louder-than-words real world, there's almost nothing to back it up. They fantasized that it'd be "and all the liberated good Iraqi's made a nice democratic goverment, took over all the hard/boring/expensive details that aren't macho to think about, and gave us a giant going-away victory parade a month later", while ignoring or canning folks with real knowledge and experience who told 'em that "hell won't turn into paradise just 'cause you chased off the current top devil & his lieutenents - it'll take huge quantities of troops, time, and money to even get it up to purgatory status". The historically-tiny modern military force they sent in was plenty big to show Saddam & his followers who's really the Top Thug, but it clearly was far too small or couldn't be bothered (per priorities & orders from the top) with grabbing & guarding any number of targets that would have been awesomely valuable if they Washington actually gave a crap about finding WMD, rounding up Saddam's hard-core loyalists, etc. - sites like Ba'ath Party HQ, military & weapons production HQ, and key nuclear & biological facilities were ignored as resistance collapsed. Did looters smash & steal computers full of Party membership lists, while Saddam's bodyguard carted off the nuclear blueprints & where-the-plutonium-is buried-in-the-desert maps, and Osama's sleeper cell wheeled away the freezer full of smallpox, ebola, & anthrax "starters"? No one really knows, and no one can find out now, because Washington didn't really care about anything beyond playing macho.
Re:40 Jazz stood up and said: " Yes, it does make a big difference how much or how little a state is sponsoring anti-American activities and terrorist activities. It's not at all like being pregnant or not pregnant. Most states sponsor a variety of things that are counter to American interests and in their own. It's called rational self-interest." When dealing with in-corragable children that repeat the same mistake over and over you draw the line. When it is stepped over you apply disipline instantly. That is how Saddam was dealt with. He's been playing this game for years now." Yes, it does make a big difference how much or how little a state is sponsoring anti-American activities and terrorist activities. It's not at all like being pregnant or not pregnant. Most states sponsor a variety of things that are counter to American interests and in their own. It's called rational self-interest." The above statement doesn't apply to a leader who continues to use political charades to cover thier non-compliance. Saddam used gas on his own poeple. He used gas on the Iranians. He invaded Kuwait and caused one of the worst ecological disasters in history(It's even in the guiness book of world records) In a case such as this any non-compliance should be dealt with swifty and severly. Due to such behavior he found himself on top of the shit list. You have pointed out many other situations in the world arena that need dealing with and I agree.Will you piss and moan when we begin to react to Iran and North Korea?I'll save your prior posts in case you do.
We're not dealing with incorrigable children here, we're dealing with
nations. The analogy is pretty weak. America doesn't send other nations to
college, and doesn't beam with parental pride at their accomplishments.
It's interesting that you note that Saddam used gas on the Iranians.
Because we provided chemical weapons and funding for chemical weapons programs
to Saddam and his regime in the eighties, and downplayed the fact that they
used chemical weapons on Iran and on Khurdish nationalists (well, and any
villagers who happened to get in the way), because the Saddam was one of the
"good guys".
Furthermore, I'm not "piss[ing] and moan[ing]", I'm pointing out that
our actions are not motivated by abstract notions of keeping nations from
acquiring dangerous weapons and keeping the world safe, but by simple
political self-interest. I'm also pointing out that our government, and
England's, has chosen to represent their actions as being motivated by
abstract notions. Unfortunately, some people have believed the line.
However, I've provided ample evidence, none of which you have refuted, though
you have thrown in some dandy rhetoric.
"We're not dealing with incorrigable children here, we're dealing with nations. The analogy is pretty weak." I think the analogy is perfect.We have a nation thathad a leader who acted in a way that showed time and time again that he couldn't recieve correction and join civiliased nations in harmony.His actions could not be seen as minor violations. Due to his past countless atrocities he had to be made to adhere to the "letter of the law". His dragged out compliance and only gave minor tokens and lip service to submission to UN mandates.He constantly brought us to the brink of war then backed down just as action was a forgone conclusion. " I'm pointing out that our actions are not motivated by abstract notions of keeping nations from acquiring dangerous weapons and keeping the world safe," I disagree with the above statement totally. That was exactly our motivation as much as your reotoric and hyberbole would try to cloud the issue.We have to prevent such weapons from being devolped and delivered to terrorists.We to deal with each nation on a case by case basis. If they have shown in the past that they have yielded to diplomacy like N. Korea has(despite it's sabre rattling) Then that is the method we use. Iraq under Saddam didn't display that trait. Quite the contrary it showed that the only method of dealing with it was military action and in it's case that's the method we used.
Yeah, well, the other difference is that N. Korea actually *has* "such weapons".
Re #47:
Right.
Re #46:
You've accused me or using "rhetoric and hyperbole" but yet have failed
to provide specific examples. Now, in this thread, I've caught you doing just
that, and provided specific examples. Until you do, your accusations of
"rhetoric and hyperbole" are ... well, rhetoric and hyperbole. If you need
a few reminders of cases past, or factual points I've raised that you've
accepted which invalidate your current arguments, then I'd be happy to provide
them.
Within your last posting, let's consider the analogy of an "errant
child". I've pointed out where the analogy fails, and you've failed to
respond to any of those points. Instead, you defend the analogy not by
addressing its' faults, but rather by continuing to extend the analogy by
what seems an appeal to emotion rather than logic by continuing to compare
Hussein to a baby. The flaw here is that it is the *differences* between
Hussein and a baby, not the similarities, that undermine the analogy.
That, for the record, is a rhetorical tool.
On your second point, you've missed that North Korea hasn't responded
to diplomacy. They've outright violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,
essentially bragged about it, and no sanctions have been levied, and no
attempt to get them to renounce status as a nuclear power has succeeded. In
fact, they're now threatening to export fissionable materials. There's a good
breakdown in http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/dprk/nuc/cap/NKN_CGO.html .
No matter how you argue it, North Korea has done what we went to war
with Iraq accusing Iraq of doing, *and* we have yet to substantiate any of
our accusations.
I didn't compare to Saddam to a baby. I compared him to a child. he has acted as such with with tantrums and lies.If you want to discuss conspiracy let's discuss his.You also haven't responded to some of my points without apparent appeal to your comrades here. Your premise to this whole discussion is that we will not find WMDs in Iraq and that is an assumption that is too early to make. You are also jumping the gun in your retort about NK's WMD's. The very fact that they DO have nuclear warheads should preclude caution.We cannot risk such weapons being used against Japan or the South in a revenge attack. Also your response in NK not responding to diplomacy isn't entirely true. There economic position will force them to the table very soon. We aren't sitting on our butts and just waiting for this to happen. We are hosting three way talks with SK and Japan discussing just what action to take. http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-02-091930.asp?reg=PACRIM Even if the North's WMD status is a bluff they still have enough conventional artillary aimed at SK's capitol to level it within hours.This inspires caution.North Korea is ready to deal Bush just doesn't like thier terms.We have already held talks with them in China and couldn't reach an agreement.They simply want a non-agression pact with us.We however disagree on the timing of such an agreement.I believe as Bush does that diplomatic and economic pressure will result in NK's compliance. If it doesn't then will will have to decide if we want to risk a NUCLEAR war or not.It's your position on NK that defies logic. You are usuing it as analogy to Iraq and that is comparing apples to oranges. That, for the record, is a rhetorical tool also. Now the above link does say that the talks are just to compare views and they don't think any earth shattering decissions to be made. That is due to simply the nature of what a war with NK would involve. Think about THAT for a minute.
"The very fact that they DO have nuclear warheads should preclude caution." I don't think you mean preclude, do you? Just to throw gasoline on the fire, there's another big difference between Iraq and N. Korea: NK doesn't have oil.
Yes..I meant preclude..thanks for sharing. You are wrong in assuming that we aren't attacking NK becasue they don't have oil however. The real worry is that we fear nuclear reprisal against SK or Japan. It's even concievable that they would attack China to escalate the issue into an out right nuclear war.If Iraq had nuclear weapons our response would have been quite diffrent. In fact Saddam made a public statement saying that his only mistake in attacking Kuwait was doing so BEFORE having nuclear weapons and in this I beleive he was correct. The statement also showed that he had every intention of obtaininf such weapons if not using them.This issue is why I beleive Iraq and NK are two totally diffrent situations and they must be dealt with as such. I see that you are viewing this issue thru your Bush-bashing paradigm.Would you risk nuclear attack on Seoul or Tokyo to deal with them before we exhaust ever diplomatic means possible?
It's really hard to read a page of text without proper punctuation or
paragraph breaks.
Nonetheless ...
I don't recall any points you've raised that I haven't addressed. Feel
free to quote one or two, and I'll show you where they were addressed, or
address them at the moment.
The fact remains that, whether you believe North Korea may be ready
to deal at some point and hand over their existing nuclear weapons or not (and
it'd be a day to call Guinness if they did), that they're engaged in the
business of creating weapons of mass destruction. I believe that your
statements about having conventional weapons pointed at Seoul also proves the
point that they are actively a threat to an economic ally of ours.
In foriegn policy, you don't often get situations that are more
parallel. The idea that North Korea might attack South Korea, or Japan,
outside for making a decent premise for a Bond flick, really doesn't change
the essentials of the case, and that is a nation which has threatened our
allies is rumored to have acquired some heavy-hitting weapons, and in one case
we went to war, and in another we're sitting on our thumbs. If an apple needs
to look any more like an apple for your purposes, you're never going to find
it, and therefore a president can do whatsoever he wishes, since there is no
way to suspect hypocrisy. I challenge you to find any situation in recoded
history that more closely parallels the allegations made against Iraq.
It's also a big distraction to say that North Korea might *use* their
weapons of mass destruction. That's the whole argument we were making against
Iraq when we invaded them. They could have plausibly used them against *us*,
against Israel or against a number of nearby locations, as long as they relied
on alternative delivery technology, which we were assured they have.
I'm not sure where you came up with the theory of North Korea attacking
China, but it sounds too ludicrous to be believed.
sabre, your atrocious punctuation and lack of proper distinction between quotes and replies makes your posts damn near incomprehensible. You put at LEAST one blank after a period which ends a sentence, you put blank lines to delimit paragraphs, and it is common practice to designate quotes with a leading character such as ">".
russ you sound like a prissy little grammer queen.Refer to post #27
Evidently he can't handle criticism any more than he can handle
paragraphs and punctuation.
I gave up reading his posts. It just isn't worth the effort.
You're endless whining about NK is a s boring as your nerdish dialogue. As I have said before if we did attack NK you would be raising a shit storm about the injustice of it all.While I don't have the graceful form that your posts display,I have something you lack. It's called PITH. Your endless rambling and hyperbole show your bias.I hope you have a job as a technical writer or as an editor.We have enough liberal brain-washed robots like you in politics.I never said NK wasn't a threat. In fact I agree that they are more of a threat than Iraq.You never answered me when I ask if you wanted to risk a nuclear attack on SK or Japan.You just vomited out a bunch of liberal rhetoric that is the epitome of the liberal cookie-cutter mindset.I think you should take occam's razor and slash your wrists because you damn sure haven't applied it to your thinking. I could do all my posts in EBONICS and still make more sense than you or any of your ass-kissing buddies.If you want me to bash Bush start talking about his domestic policy. I would be more apt to agree.
In case anyone else has stopped reading sabre's "pithy" posts, I feel
compelled to point out a couple of gems hidden deep in the bowels of #58.
I particularly like the suggestion that we slash our wrists with Occam's
razor, though the suggestion that sabre could do his posts in Ebonics and
still make more sense raises the delightful possibility that maybe he'll
actually do it, which would kick ass. :)
re: way back there: maybe you meant "preclude", but if so, you don't seem
to know what it means.
pre-clude
tr.v. pre-clud-ed, pre-clud-ing, pre-cludes
1. To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent.
See Synonyms at prevent.
2. To exclude or prevent (someone) from a given condition or
activity: "Modesty precludes me from accepting the honor."
Source: The American Heritage. Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition, via dictionary.com, formatted by yours truly for
this medium.
The quote under discussion is "The very fact that they DO have
nuclear warheads should preclude caution." Since then, you've done
nothing but argue for caution in approaching N. Korea, for fear of
their nuclear weapons.
No need to thank me again for sharing; you're quite welcome. :)
What a fountain of maturity you are today.
You chose to bring up foriegn policy on GREX. This isn't Yahoo chat,
and it isn't UseNet. So you're going to get responses which are more
carefully thought out, but you're also going to be expected to think your
points out carefully, and present them in a readable fashion. If you can't
handle that, then you probably shouldn't be posting on GREX, because you're
only going to get upset.
I don't think there's anything worth addressing in #58. I'm actually
a moderate who disagrees with the way that the war was handled, not with the
intention of keeping Iraq free of biological and chemical weapons. I do
disagree with almost all of Bush's policy, but not because of a political
stance I have, but because I don't like the effects of his policy.
However, it's pretty clear that you respond to rational arguments with
personal attacks when you can't back your own statements up. I have better
things to do with my time.
Re #59:
I'm gunnae do all me postin from nae on in Irvine Welsh like Scots
drawl, ye ken? Someone dun hooked eh up with the gear from the quality of
his posts like.
There was an accurate description by the columnist David Broder of Antonin Scalias dissent diatribe against the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action in UM law school admissions. Broder called it "sarcastic, dismissive, polemical and smug.". That is an accurate description of sabre's contributions here. He is probably a fan of Scalia, too.
I rise ta da challenge.You pimpz aren't moderate at all.I say kill all liberals.You pimpz can finally buttfuck each other legally.I say bomb North Korea. and shit. The result o' Bush'spolicy in Iraq has freed an opressed poeple.You peep fo' da worst in everything conservatives do. Don't make me come ovah there bitch...
/cheers wildly
affirmative action is a disgrace to the black race.maybe whites should have affirmative action in sports like .5 of a second added to every sprint.Maybe we should get 2 1/2 points ber basket instead of 2.Maybe we should get a 20 count in boxing.It's a shame that blacks feel they can't compete with whites on an even footing.Re:#59 Hey phlegm. thanks for sharing. You gay ass grammer queen.I guess you get your ass kicked in school every day and you only avenue of venting is too sit back and "carefully think out your posts" like jazz does He probally cut-n-pasted half the bullshit he spewed.Sitting around on this bbs thinking out your posts in agood indicater than you never get laid.Maybe know that sodomy is legal you can all get together and buttfuck each other.
He really is a scream, isn't he?
I'm trying to figure out whether sabre is beady really cutting loose, or polytarp trying to prove something...
what's a scream is your bleeding heart position on affirmative action.I think it's a conspiracy to decrease the quality of our work force.You see them everywhere you go. Affirmative action token niggers that advance to high positions just to meet a quota.Those that merit such advanced are ignored in favor of such deadbeats.I think you're on Jesse Jackson's payroll.As for jazz's delusion that GREX is some kind of superior collective..well I've seen better posts from special ed m-netters.Your Homo Gestalt is just plain HOMO. You compensate your inferiority complex by deluding yourself that what you post has merit.The fallacy of ad populace is the reigning factor here.You damn sure haven't proved anything.
Sabre, on the other hand, has quite handily proved itself to be incapable of discussion, as opposed to diatribe, and a master of pedagogical discourse. I.e. attack first, don't think later.
I don't think you should quote fallacies of logic when your posts are filled with them Jazz has posted some himself. The most notable is ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM. another is ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM . and another is REIFICATION contained in fallacy of "hypostatization". He also uses ILLICIT PROCESS in one place. sabre and flem both use argumentum ad hominem Sabre you are the worst offender here.Your use of ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM in defending Bush's failure to find WMDs in Iraq is full of holes. You also use ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM to make us accept your conclusions. Can anyone spot his AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT ? How about his ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM ? His bifurcation is also incorrect. I get a kick out of his FALLACY OF INTERROGATION when he asks questions. His PETITIO PRINCIPII is sheer entertainment but I bored with this whole discourse. I don't intend to read this thread any longer. I look forward to meeting SOME of you in another thread.
I dinnae see the difference wit sabre's posts before an after eh wenta
usin ebonics mate. I nosh he get the whitfor then, and drub ehself intae the
ground.
Inae language Americans ken:
Damn, it's funny to see some dork get so riled up at being beaten in
a debate that he starts calling everyone around "gay ass" and telling
themselves to go slit their wrists, and then come back with a string of
rationalisations. "Boy, I bet they're all really nerdy, or gay, because they
use complete sentences." "Bet I can intimidate them by using white boy
gangsta slang, they won't even know I can't do it."
Summae us wentae college, ye ken?
Muchas eh I dinnae like Scalia's decisionmaking, I wouldnae ascribe
sucha level a noggin to sabre a I woulda Scalia. He isnae a Justice, hell,
he isnae even coherent.
Aww, por boye dun got shuffled and he dinnae wanna play no mae?
I scrolled back about 30 responses trying to find a place where I might reasonable be accused of ad hominem argumentation, but I didn't find any. Perhaps spectrum would be kind enough to point it out to me? I'd also be interested to see definitions and examples of the various other logical fallacies he accuses people of, above. That's got to be more interesting than ebonics. :)
I got beat in dis here debate? Bull sheeit. You gots yet ta prove anythin' ya little dweeb.Our attack on Iraq wuz justified. Our lack o' action at dis here point in NK iz justified.You haven't won uh debate until ya prove yo' point.You lack o' ability ta do so has caused ya ta respond in dis here manner.Believe me..if ya seen me on da street ya would shake wiff fear...faggot beeotch don't make me shank ya!
Why would I shake with fear if I saw you in the street? Are you perhaps carring some of Iraq's missing WoMD? Perhaps you should try l33+5p34k instead of what you seem to think is ebonics; it seems to be more your speed.
You would shake with fear because you are a little faggot grammer queen I would break your pencil neck.
This response has been erased.
I now have five logins on my ignore list - I suggest other readers use the same approach, but some people seem to like arguing with anybody.
There was a debate? Looks more like a battle of brains, to which sabre came unarmed. So far he's gone from "None shall pass" to "It's only a flesh wound" to "Come back here, I'll bite your bloody kneecaps off!", only without the tough first impression. I find him slightly interesting in his outraged-wedgie-victim mode. Oh, and sabre... if I'm ever reviewing your resume and associated cover letter (or, should less-qualified personnel be in charge of that step, conducting an interview) rest assured that you will have to do much better even to get an internship. That means showing humility, and intelligence, and skill with the language, and a willingness to learn what you do not yet know. So far, as any kind of code monkey or reference-checker, I think you might make a good stable hand. The one with the shovel and the wheelbarrow, in case you were wondering. It's the only job for which you've demonstrated any aptitude.
Come on, Russ. If humility was a prerequisite for jobs, you'd be unemployed. Along with everyone who's replied to this item, including me.
Actually, being a cocky bastard helps during interviews.
The guy was already down, but russ has to come and beat on him some more. Don't you have any mercy?
I was down...HA. The only way to "beat on me" is to PROVE your fucked up point. tod pussied out when he met the slightest flame. I could care less about your ass-kissing sycophantical babbling. You bunch of inbreed computer weinies. You can't defeat my position with ad-hominen arguments coupled with the fallacy of ad-populace. You have to focus on the point I made. It's buried in my retorts againts your lame ass cut downs. At this point I could care less because I see that you goobers try to frighten everyone away that you don't agree with. Once I saw that I knew I could manipulate this whole thread. I won. I even had jazz posting in fucking ebonics. You fuckers will pay toll to this troll in every thread I chose to control.You pathetic bunch of social misfits. I have a real life with real social interaction. This is all you have....a phony virtual"society" replete with fucked up misfits. I am not wrong because all of you agree that I am. It just shows that you're a bunch of borg like yes men. I was probing you. I wanted to see if there was one single person who had the vision to see the good we accomplished in taking out Saddam. You sound like a mob of tree-hugging baby killers. You probally march in front KFC protesting cruelty to chickens and on the next go protest to give women the right to murder thier unborn children. I shall enjoy trolling and degrading every thread I choose.
This response has been erased.
In other words, you're a troll.
Of course a simpleton like you would consider me a troll. I on the other merely plane to shatter the illusion that this is a "society" with a free and unbiased exchange of ideas. All you poeple do is kiss each other's ass
Re #82: I'm giving the masochist exactly what he wants. If I wanted to *hurt* him, I'd gleefully rub my hands in my best villian manner and snicker, "You want me to tear you down? No." and walk away. Re #83: The operative phrases are "... the point I made... [is] buried in my retorts against your lame ass cut downs." You seem to be under the impression that whatever shred of intelligence might exist therein is worth getting one's hands dirty to dig out of the crap in which you gratuitously embed it. As usual, you are mistaken.
Actually, the people who've been slamming sabre cover a pretty wide part of the sociopolitical spectrum. I've about given up on expecting him to notice stuff like that though.
No shit. The fact that he's trash is about the only thing some of us agree on.
The fact is I haven't felt a thing from your "punishment" Your comments are far from intelligent. You're too much of a pussy to be a villian. In fact I think you should change your login to "puss" Henceforth I shall address you as such. I see that you love digging into my trash jmsaul. I guess that makes you a maggot. Henceforth I shall address you as maggotfaggot.
Ays wasnae posting in Ebonics. Get a fucken clue. Sie is Scots
dialect, ye gage basturt.
I knew this guy that had himself a pretty elaborate self-defence
mechanism. If you said something positive about him, of course it was true,
but if you said something negative, of course it was "just a reflection on
you." I'll have to add a new one to my list of cheap excuses to avoid
admitting you screwed up. If everyone recognizes you screwed up, just call
them all brainwashed yes men.
(Sabre is especially ludicrous when he gets into categorizing people that he doesn't know at all. I've been acquainted with Joe Saul for over fifteen years. The various women I've known him to keep company with over the years, including his wife now that he's married, are no doubt in a much better position to decide whether the "faggot" label is applicable than sabre is.)
It brings up an oddball question: have you ever had a student who,
prior to becoming your student, made a considerable ass out of themselves
online?
I see that this thread has been degraded to the point that all of the posts are off topic. It's all about me know...isn't it? It's just as well. I did get a kick out of some of your reactions though. maybefromnowoniwillpostlikethiswithoutanypuncuationorspacesanywhereperhapsiwil lquoteplatoorshakesspearandyoucansayhowstupidtheyarebecauseofmylackofgrammeran dsyntax.
He makes himself easy to ignore, doesn't he?
Has anyone ever noticed how threads full of flames seem to grow the fastest? I'm devoting a whole chapter in my book about it.
Re #90: Of course you haven't felt anything. IIRC the medical term for your condition is "cranium anervosa", which translates colloquially as "numbskull". Were it not for that, the effects of the repeated blows to the head which are so obvious to others would also be apparent to you. Your obliviousness is what makes you so *funny*, or at least until you start repeating yourself. Then you're just lame. (I know, I know, making fun of the handicapped is terribly un-PC. But he's losing his originality, so this game is about over anyway.) Re #92: The really funny thing is, sabre's style shows that he hasn't progressed beyond the mental age of about fourteen.
I didn't see much replies to posts #39 and #41. I thought the facts in there would be interesting. No?
ok what happened to the ORiginal Post??? what i have heard (and im not saying i fully believe it) is that SARS and other such virus's are man made and have a porpose and that is the bring population levels down since the earth is quite over populated. and then why have most cases happened in China? hmm maybe becuase ITS THE MOST POPULATED continent in the world.
Maybe because it's one of the most densely populated countries (it isn't a continent), public health precautions are poor (for political as well as logistical reasons), and they'll eat anything they can catch.
Wasn't SARS outbreak a major problem in Canada too?
Not at all. There were SARS patients in Toronto, but it didn't spread elsewhere in the nation, and it was actually contained within a small number of hospitals. If SARS had started in Canada, the Canadian health authorities would have identified it much faster and it wouldn't have gotten as out of hand. Canada's public health authorities are better equipped, better funded, and (most importantly) don't have to worry about getting sent to a labor camp if they report problems to their higher-ups. All of those were apparently factors in the slow PRC response to SARS.
I disagree. While no one thinks it was as big a problem in Toronto as it was in China, it was a major problem. The Toronto Hospitals were unable to contain it in the same way other Canadian hospitals were able to.
Re #49: Even if we find WMD, the fact will remain that the intelligence was stretched quite a bit. We were told that Saddam had weapons already produced and ready to use with 45 minutes' notice. That clearly was not the case or we'd have found them already. Re #52: I don't think North Korea would attack China. That would be suicide. Re #58: So, wait. We attacked Iraq instead of North Korea because, while Iraq had WMD, it was *less* likely to use them against us? That makes no sense. Re #83: If you've got a real life, and we're such losers, why are you wasting so much time here?
This response has been erased.
This is delightful. I don't think anyone has ever called me a pencil-neck before. :)
This response has been erased.
Well, there's that, yes, but I was thinking more of the fact that when I last put on my dress shirt with the 20" neck, it felt a bit tight. That's one hell of a pencil. :)
This response has been erased.
Re #103: If I remember correctly, that's because a patient decided not to
seek treatment and infected a lot of other people.
The mea culpra SUCKS. Ahh.....the fallacy of ad-populace
Here's a link to a nice "leftist" database one can use to do research into political figures and big business worldwide. http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?BUSH_PRESCOTT_SHELDON Once in a while it's nice to take a vacation from yellow press and not depend upon news generated strictly for corporate gain. Read and enjoy!
Actually, the real reason Bush invaded Iraq was to stomp out the source of all the penis enlargement spam on account Saddam's son Uday had actually discovered a potion that would make a white man's penis black using prions and Dubya was worried that Laura would fall for a white house aid using such on account his had withered due to steroid use after dubya gave up booze. You totally missed the bit about the steroid use didn't you.
i totally did.
Hi all! I belive america did the right thing whne it attacked iraq. Suddam was an ass. He killed thousands and from the looks of things he was planning another hitler move. I thank america for having the balls to do wot the other countrys didnt have the balls to do. People like suddam need to be taken out in to the street and put on there knees and shot. There is no room in this world for people like him. If we tolerate it then we support it. There is no middle ground on this matter. I do belive that bush and blair went about it the wrong way. they should not have lied to there people. But on another note america and the brits need to get ur heads out of ur ass's. You maybe the biggest super powers in the world but that will not always be the case. so i suggest u do on to others as u wish them to do on to u. But in this case i thank you for ur actions and support the moves u made 100%. it had to be done. but dont think we will tolerate the same thing from u. I know u get blaimed for a lot of things that arent really ur fault. u get asked to join things and then get blaimed for it then told not to help then blaimed for not helping. and wots this shit about u (america) being greater than the rest of us? Thats wot some of u americans sound like ur trying to say. just remember to play nice. the world is like a pyramid the top is supported by the bottom. In other words if u fuck us off to much with ur shit we will move and u will fall from your high seat.
where are you from, retard0nia?
I think thatthere is no conspiracy theory, but we are a culture that must look for one to explain things that we don't agree with. At the moment, however, i believe that the world should, instead, turn and look at north Korea,, and try to remember that they are the threat at the moment, as they already have WMD, and it's been proven that they have the technology to build them.
This response has been erased.
Re #117: Iraq was relatively easy to take down. North Korea would be messy. I believe Iraq was taken out not so much because of terrorism (the connections were tenuous) or because Saddam was "evil", but because it was an easy target both politically and militarily. Also, North Korea has no oil, so it doesn't hold our government's attention quite the same way.
You have several choices: