It's war time...

[LWW 10+ year member]

No, the Bushes ARE IN THE OIL BUSINESS, so they want the oil.. Texas has nothing to do with it.. sorry..

Actually Dubya made his money in the BASEBALL business so:

the whole point of the war was not to liberate Iraq or disarmament it was to take their shortstops but wait Tony Blair made was in the legal profession so:

the whole point of the war was not to liberate Iraq or disarmament it was to take their shortstops and laws think of how stupid this stuff makes you sound.

EARTH TO SAVANT: we had the oilfields in 1991 and returned them. We had Kuwait's also and returned them. We could take the Saudi's in a week but we haven't. We have them now and are returning them. Iraq could have exported far more oil in the 90's driving prices through the floor and we wouldn't allow it. This argument is absolutely without basis. OOOPS!!! Sorry Reality crept up again.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Why is it that none of you guys (that being LWW and Joshpoints, for the most part) can understand SIMPLE statements..
A) Saddam is a bad man.. NOT IN QUESTION to the best of my knowledge, yet you two keep acting like I don't agree with that point..

B) Saddam has had a 12 year past of defiance, non-compliance, cruelty, blah blah blah.. POINT AGREED ON..

C) Saddam WAS starting (how ever reluctantly) to comply once we poised troops on his border. To me, that means we should have continued on with diplomatic efforts.. That's all that means.. Instead, when Saddam was giving an inch when we asked for a mile, we didn't bother to say "no, a mile or we invade", we said "too slow, we are gonna kill you now".. If you can't see the difference, then I submit that you must be a warmonger as well, thinking charging in with guns blazing is better than the display of force and talking.. Course, you keep beating the same old dead drum about the last 12 years, only this isn't about the last 12 years.. you just keep trying to make it that way.. it's about the last 5 months.. From last November when resolution 1441 was passed and Saddam started with the documents.. From that point, it was a fresh situation, previous actions/inactions be dammed *shrug* At least, that's my OPINION on the matter.. in my OPINION, Bush rushed in and pissed off alot of other countries when he didn't really have to. There was NO impending threat to the US that forced us in.. and in that light, we should have tried a little harder to get this done without killing over 100 US troops, 50+ British troops, and over 1200 civilians..

Savant cut the crap. This is why these things are said about you. You start out saying something as a smokescreen to show you don't support Saddam then go on a rant about how it's the President's fault, it's England's fault, it's my fault, it's Joshpoint's fault, it's anybody's fault except SADDAM'S FAULT.

Man would you quit thinking you are so brilliant minded when your cranial cavity actually looks like someone tried to cram 20 lbs od monkey crap in a 5 lb bag.

NOW AGAIN I don't think you INTENTIONALLY support Saddamite Hussinsein but your obvious hatred of the President and the American people, American government, and American way of life bleeds through. By passing blame off Saddam and ONTO anything or anyone American you de facto become his cheerleader.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html

WOW! Weapons grade plutonium seems to have been found in Iraq. Now of course we must forget that we stated before going in that we had intelligence stating they were hard at work on this and possibly within months of a nuke.

We must forget that we found it where we said it would be and that Iraq said it wasn't there.

We must forget that 2 field tests were done and both confirmed it to be weapons grade plutonium.

What we must remember is that 2 or 20 or 200 or 2,000 or 2,000,000 tests will be not be PROOF to some people. Only a mushroom cloud over an American city would be PROOF. And we all know that the CIA might have done it just to frame someone and justify the grabbing of several dozen Iraqi shortstops.

Until then who knows it could just be glow sticks. We should throw them in the pile of non evidence with the pesticides. And empty aerosol dispenser artillery shells. And bottle rockets.

Sorry I lost my head for a moment.

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW EARTH TO SAVANT...EARTH TO SAVANT...EVERY newspaper... EVERY news magazine... EVERY cable news network... EVERY TV station... EVERY radio station...the INTERNET...the house impeachment panel...the US senate...ALL have stated publicly that Slick Willie lied...but hey you believed Saddamite Hussinsein also so this isn't a surprise.

Um, again.. nothing to do with anything.. This is another example of how you feel the need to make personal attacks without providing anything to the discussion.. I agreed with you and simply pointed out I never mentioned anything about Clinton BEFORE he was put in office.. then you mentioned 'proof of the felony' again, why I have no idea, it's a VERY dead subject, especially since it has NOTHING to do with this current topic or the war.. After I agreed and you pointed out irrelivant things and implied there was something wrong with me for not getting it AFTER I AGREED WITH YOU was something I pointed out, then you come back with this? Why? It has NOTHING to do even with what was being discussed about Clinton .. Man.. and you say I need a clue..

Here, let me make it a little easier for you since I understand it's difficult for you to connect dots..

quote:The ONLY thing you were correct about, and could substantiate was the Clinton purgering himself (as pointed out many times, I never brought up anything about his being a felon, just that I was under the impression he never actually lied while in office.. you showed he did but wasn't prosecuted),
More puke. What was shown was that Billy Jeff had received a pardon from President Carter for being a draft dodger IE AWOL IE with Federal warrants.

I also showed that Bubba plead guilty his last day in office to AVOID prosecution and accepted fines and disbarment in lieu of jail time. Anyone who actually believes Clinton never lied is a fool.

Now, you see where "I" said you showed he lied but wasn't prosecuted? That's me agreeing with you.. I had not heard anything before that about 'proof' he lied, just a lot of 'pap' as you would call it. People on both sides were arguing, right saying he lied, left saying he didn't.. To see it on paper from a reasonable source shows he did lie, or at least said he did to avoid prosecution.. either way.. Then, notice I simply said "I" never brought up the felony thing you had a tiraid about, then went on to imply I was refuting that, but when you posted that info I agreed with your statements about the felony (even though I never brought anything up other than the Lewinski thing) and his perguring himself.. So, why even comment on that? Especially when time and again it's been stated that that has NOTHING to do with the current thread? Then to imply I still don't believe it so I'm a fool is just ANOTHER example of how you would rather rally support for your opinions by emotional responses than debating on merrits.. Course, I'm guessing that's why you brought this up again.. and can't let it go.. it's a perfect tool for you to use to twist things around and confuse people.. And, I'm sure it works too.. just not something I could be proud of.. But whatever works for you..

EVERY time I see this you prove yourself to be an idiot AGAIN. Let's review for the reality impaired:

 

01-UNSCOM confirms Saddam had chem/bio weapons.

.......................................................^^^

Yes, we all know he HAD them.. but we still have not PROVEN he HAS them.. we just might well prove it, but the FACT is, we have NOT YET.. *shrug* Why is that such a sore spot for you? Perhaps because if for some bizzar reason we don't find any that your entire JUSTIFICATION for the war goes out the window? and the FACT that you accept circumstantial evidence as 'truth' would come out? If you ask me, that seems to be the biggest thorn in your side at this point.. you keep saying we have 'proof' of various things, but have yet to offer one piece of evidence that isn't a guess or circumstantial.. then get mad at me cause you claimed proof prematurely? whatever.. That truely does seem to be the issue (or at least the fire in your belly that keeps you attacking me for no good reason)

02-UNMOVIC confirms this as well.

 

03-Saddam admits to having had them.

 

04-Saddam used them against US in Gulf War round 1.

 

05-Saddam used them against his own people.

 

06-Saddam used them against Iran.

 

07-Saddam Admits to having TONS of the stuff made after the cease fire.

 

08 Saddam's son in law defected and dropped a dime leading inspectors to many finds in the 92-98 round of inspections.

Again.. and this time PLEASE try to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what is being said.. NO ONE IS REFUTING THAT HE HAD THIS STUFF IN THE PAST!.. got it? that sink in this time? So, please stop bringing it up, it does NOT support the CURRENT situation.. at all.. as has been stated, this all kind of started fresh in November 2002 with resolution 1441.. Kinda, but not entirely.. I understand that he's been being a shitbag for along time, and not doing what he was supposed to for a long time... no one is refuting that.. at least, I'm not.. I really hope that gets into your head this time, I'm getting soooooooooo tired of repeating myself on this point..

09-In round 2 of inspections shells made for the express purpose of distributing chem/bio weapons were found. WHY would someone mfr aerosol dispersion artillery shells if not to use chem/bio weapons? Perhaps it was so they could share their water with us?

 

10-They have been found again now that we are in country.

Again, finding delivery systems is not the same as finding chemical weapons.. Yes, I agree that it's damm likely that he has the shells for chem weapons, but that does NOT mean he has any of those weapons assembled, nor does it mean he was in the process, nor does it mean he even has the chemicals to do it.. he USED to, but we don't know for sure if he does NOW..

11-A chemical weapons plant was found in the middle of the desert. It was a site that CIA and Israel both had pegged as a chem weapons plant. It was surrounded by an electrified fence and guarded soldiers with automatic weapons. The official finding last I saw was that it was not in use now. It could be used for routine chemical production also so it was a dual use facility which was required to be disclosed. IT WASN'T. Saddam also knew we were coming so a "clean up" is a real possibility.

I still have not seen anything on the chemical FACTORY being a WEAPONS PLANT.. circumstantial guessing you have here, that's all.. I've not even seen an official statement that it looked like the plant might have been cleaned up.. And, let's ask this question, shall we? If it was a weapons plant, and Saddam used chem weaps on the US in the first conflict, and he is pretty sure the US was gonna kill him no matter what, why clean up the plant? we invaded, the war started, why not crank out the weapons and start dropping them on people? That's what he does, remeber? Yet, he didn't do that.. and to my knowledge so far (if things have changed, feel free to show me a link that says more than 'suspected weapons plant' so I will be up to date) there STILL have been no confirmations to chemical weapons chemicals.. Not heard the test results on the barrels found though..

12-Tabun was found at a "chemical weapons training facility". Now let's see if your neurons fired on that one? Does the US Army have an "anti matter weapons training facility"? NO. Why? Because we don't have any. If we had a facility to "train" people in their use it would be a safe bet that we probably had some.

Again, this is the basis for our headbutting.. You say something like this as FACT but don't offer support.. I've not heard about this (which doesn't really mean too much, I stopped watching the news since it's mostly the same inane crap over and over). If you want ANYONE to accept your point as the fact you claim it is, provide a link, and not one that says 'suspicious chemicals found, might be Tabun'.. something that CONFIRMS what it is.. that would be 'proof'.. I see no reason, given your past records of not being able to supply proof of your claims to fact, to bother trying to look it up.. You look it up and show you aren't talking out of your *** yet again.. Or don't.. doesn't matter to me anymore..

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

13-Knowing that failure to comply put his nation at risk of destruction Saddam for 12+ years refused to comply.

 

14-Iraq offered NO explanation of where TONS of this stuff went, even though they had admitted having it.

 

15-If Saddam provided proof of the weapons destruction oil sanctions would be lifted. He refused. They weren't. This cost Iraq and hense Saddam OVER $200,000,000,000.00 in oil revenue.

Well.. since he's a liar, him saying verbally he destroyed it won't work for proof, right? And any documents he might produce wouldn't be 'proof' either since.. well, Saddam is an evil liar.. So, I ask you.. how does he prove he no longer has what he's accused of having? HOW.. you tell me since I just don't get it.. I'm pretty sure that no matter what he says he can't prove the chemicals are gone.. Just like I said we don't have proof he had that stuff, ONE example would 'prove' he did.. the only way to 'prove' he actually destroyed all the chemicals would be to.. you guessed it..INSPECT until we felt satisfied that we exhausted all the possible locations they could be.. Another example of how people just don't understand what is provable and what isn't.. he can't offer any acceptable 'proof' that he destroyed stuff, but to put the onus on him knowing full well we can always say 'not good enough' is our back-door plan.. Course, war is one way to carry on inspections, just not the way I would think we should have done it.. me and hundreds of millions of people around the world.. *shrug*

16-Barrels of stuff were found and test 1 (the canary died) showed chem weapons. Test 2 which was an on site test showed it to be chem weapons. SOldiers on site became ill and devoloped blister...all symptoms consistent with trace exposure to ILLEGAL mustard gas.

and all symptoms to exposure to industrial strength pesticieds.. your point? They went back in without chem suits, they apparently weren't that worried.. And, they can know for SURE what those chemicals are eventually.. perhaps even by today.. again, you want suspected to mean fact.. I'm only asking you to be honest and admit there is a difference.. but that would also mean all your posts about 'fact' based on words like 'maybe' and 'suspected' and circumstantial evidence would be wrong, and your credibility would be in the toilet (with more than just me.. seems I'm a serious minority here, one of the only ones that can see how this is working).. In criminal law, that's called motive.. I guess you have motive to keep beating on dead horses (to distract from valid and reasonable points of others) and to keep sticking by your guns of 'maybe' means 'fact'..

17-THOUSANDS of chem weapon suits and atropene injectors were found in Iraq. We do not have these weapons and have no history of using them. If Iraq has non either then WHO were they protecting themselves from.

A) all our troops carry that stuff into battle to.. doesn't mean we always think someone WILL chem us, it means we are PREPARED if they do.. Again, while suspicious, not PROOF..

B) we used Agent Orange.. a 'defoilage' in Vietnam.. turns out it's a pretty good chem weapon too.. For some reason I was thinking we used chem weapons in WWII or Nam or something.. but, in any event, we put a foot up the *** of Japan with a NUKE (Weapon of Mass Destruction, much like a burning oil well).. na, the US doesn't do such things.. and in WW-II, we bombed -intentionally- civilian populations to try and get them to resent their government for getting them in a war.. But, lets just ignore those FACTS, shall we?

18-These were found in locations the inspectors had checked.

 

19-We have telephone intercepts of Iraqi personnel discussing hiding this stuff and being amazed that the inspectors missed stuff.

 

I could go on and on but the point is moot because as has been noted you would question an anthrax enema.

What is moot is that you base MOST of your points on HISTORY.. not TODAY.. and the history isn't really in question.. today is.. and what is eating MOST of the people who don't think we should have marched into war is the WAY we did it.. not that we did it.. but that it looks a lot like we rushed in which implies it wasn't our interest to disarm Saddam, our interest was something else (and PLEASE stop with the saving the Iraqi people, if that is TRUE, we will attack Syria next, then Iran, then other middle east places with horrible dictators, then to Africa, then to Aisa.. but we WONT.. why? we don't liberate people on a whim, which is what this administration is trying to say we do)

Oh, and I almost missed this before:

You just refuse to get it. The only way to prove 100% is to lay hands on it. There are 3 ways to do this:1-Wait until it is used against us or an ally (again).

2-Go in and lay hands on it.

3-Saddam allows people to lay hands on it peacefully. This was tried for 12 yrs and failed miserably.

 

Now we had proof that was 99.999% a sure thing that Saddam had these weapons on the day of the invasion. We had 100% proof that he had them in the past. We had 100% proof that he had used them in the past.

 

Faced with thes FACTS and the FACT that option 3 failed miserably we are left with 1 and 2. Dubya chose #2 and I support it. You chose #1. SHAME ON YOU!

You offered a false dicotomy.. that means, you said the choices are 1, 2, or 3. yet that's not entirely true.. or more to the point, you said #2 is what we did.. yet, "Go in and lay hands on it" can be done in MORE than ONE way.. we chose to do it by invading with military force.. another option (that wasn't fully explored despite what you would like to believe) was to tighten the 'legal' noose around his neck with troops pointing guns at his country.. Then get the inspectors back in there with totally unrestricted access (lay hands on if there).. we didn't do that.. we brought troops over, Saddam got scared and let the UN test his Al Samoud missles and when told they were too far ranged, started destroying them.. Inspectors were gaining more and more access and the scientists were being allowed to leave the country for interviews (or at least I thought I heard something about that on the news.. I could be wrong on that point, but even more reason to push the issue with the threat of force, get better intel).. But, that wasn't good enough for Bush, he said "nevermind, we are comming in"..

#3 was tried for 12 years with not serious backing to the 'threats'.. perhaps an overly peacful attempt?

The point there is, #2 has more than just one way to be achieved.. But it sure goes a long way to show your distinct lack of problem solving skills to not see that, and will go a long way to showing your lack of ability to think if you can't at least admit that #2 isn't singular in execution.. *shrug*

As for your 'stats'.. proof is 100%.. always.. NEVER 99.9999%, that's a copout.. we had very strong suspicions that he still had them when we invaded. Only, from the way I see it, that's MORE reason to NOT invade but to try to cause a big enough scene to make him cave in .. as in give in and let the world rummage around his country at will.. Hell, we could have at least let him finish destroying those other 30+ Al Samoud missles first, then he would have had less to attack us with..

Anyway.. I guess I should really be done this time.. I managed to stay away for what, 5 days or so? but, since it's still the same thing there is no point in any more posts. Perhaps I'm not as smart as I thought I was since I was hoping things might actually elevate to reasonable debating.. course, giving others a second chance is in my nature, as long as your first offense didn't cause any harm.. but now I guess my good will is used up, I've tried MANY times to get this brought up to an intellectual debate, but it keeps floating around the rim of the toilet bowl of insults, twisted words, out of context quotes, redundency, false associations, smear campaigning, etc etc.. There really is no point left to it..

Oh, and Joshpionts, this is a Car Audio forum.. to tell me to leave it because you don't like my political views and accusing me of not having anything 'wise' to contribute is.. well, ignorant.. I happen to have learned a lot about car audio from this forum, and I share that info with the community here..

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW Actually Dubya made his money in the BASEBALL business so:

the whole point of the war was not to liberate Iraq or disarmament it was to take their shortstops but wait Tony Blair made was in the legal profession so:

the whole point of the war was not to liberate Iraq or disarmament it was to take their shortstops and laws think of how stupid this stuff makes you sound.

Nice out of context pulling again.. Bush SENIOR is the oil guy, Bush - II might have made a lot of money on Baseball, but guess what, it takes MILLIONS to buy a team, not the kind of money you or I will ever see, but the kind of money the kid of someone in the OIL business can get easily.. And, when Old Bush dies, who do you think is gonna get he oil companies? Certianly not his sons //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

EARTH TO SAVANT: we had the oilfields in 1991 and returned them. We had Kuwait's also and returned them. We could take the Saudi's in a week but we haven't. We have them now and are returning them. Iraq could have exported far more oil in the 90's driving prices through the floor and we wouldn't allow it. This argument is absolutely without basis. OOOPS!!! Sorry Reality crept up again.

Man.. you really are that stupid? Kuwait asked us for help, what, we are gonna go help and then steal their oil wells? have fun trying to keep them.. not to mention that ALL the countries in the world would have a problem with that.. Then, since we LEFT IRAQ, of course we 'gave them back their oil fields'.. so? And for us 'not allowing them to ship oil'.. guess what, that would mean that some of the AMERICAN OIL GUYS would loose a LOT of money.. falling prices means falling profits (unless we don't see the effect at the pumps).. And, that would be giving SADDAM money, not something we wanted to do.. so, now, we want the oil (perhaps 10x as much as Saudi has, by last report.. making it 10x more than the next single largest reserve in the world) but can't have it if we let Saddam stay in office.. he would get the money and we can't let that happen given our past (and still kind of running actions with the UN and sanctions).. so we go to war and replace him with someone sympathetic to the US and our government.. why is it that hard for you to see that VERY distinct possiblity? Why are many US OIL companies supporting this war?

It's really sad and sickening to see you keep touting 'reality' when you have on such dark blinders that you can only see one tiny piece of anything.. Reality is much bigger than you can obviously grasp.. Bush got antsy.. we wanted the oil but Saddam was playing games with the UN and preventing us from making any deals (and make no mistake, the US would have happily made oil rights deals with him if they could, I'm betting the UN sanctions since the first Gulf conflict prevents us from doing anything).. So now we remove him and put in someone that will make oil deals with the US.. Hmm.. wonder if some of that might tie back into the FACT that Al Qaeda activities have been DIRECTLY linked to Saudi Arabia? Na, couldn't be.. not since Saudi is our #1 oil supplier..

Yes, Saddam is evil.. Yes his people were living in horrid oppresion. but that's a lot of countries out there right now.. we are NOT invading them... and I bet we don't.. so, if this is really ONLY about Saddam being such a bad man and bringing Freedom to an oppresed people, who are we invading next?

Whatever.. I'm done here.. I just finished posting the long winded response to your last set of, as you would say, pap.. I'll not bother responding to what I'm sure are a few more pablum posts from you..

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83840,00.html

OOOOPS!!! Possible mobile bio weapons van found. Driver flees when asked to stop. Lab is designed to be refrigerated and remotely operated to avoid contamination.

Of course it could just be the new 2003 Orkin truck.

I still have not seen anything on the chemical FACTORY being a WEAPONS PLANT.. circumstantial guessing you have here, that's all.. I've not even seen an official statement that it looked like the plant might have been cleaned up.. And, let's ask this question, shall we? If it was a weapons plant, and Saddam used chem weaps on the US in the first conflict, and he is pretty sure the US was gonna kill him no matter what, why clean up the plant?

Another falsehood. The Jerusalem Post was CLEARLY the source which you were shown and shrugged off as unreliable.

And why would someone clean up the plant? How about because being a General it's pretty safe to assume that they were in the military in 1991 and knew the US would mop the desert with the Republican Guards and they didn't want to be tried for war crimes. Or operating without an exterminator's license.

Well.. since he's a liar, him saying verbally he destroyed it won't work for proof, right? And any documents he might produce wouldn't be 'proof' either since.. well, Saddam is an evil liar.. So, I ask you.. how does he prove he no longer has what he's accused of having? HOW.. you tell me since I just don't get it.. I'm pretty sure that no matter what he says he can't prove the chemicals are gone..

This one is so patheticly simple to answer. Let inspectors come and VIEW the destruction. If that's too late take them to the site where they were disposed of. Trace remains are surely there. Videotape it as well. Photographs. Many ways that I can figure this could have been accomplished, but then I am a whole lot smarter than any forest animal I've ever met.

and all symptoms to exposure to industrial strength pesticieds.. your point? They went back in without chem suits, they apparently weren't that worried..

UMMM...I believe they went back in WITH the suits because they WERE worried. By the way exactly what IS an "industrial strength" insect?

Just like I said we don't have proof he had that stuff, ONE example would 'prove' he did.. the only way to 'prove' he actually destroyed all the chemicals would be to.. you guessed it..INSPECT until we felt satisfied that we exhausted all the possible locations they could be..

Now it's logic's turn. SADDAMITE HUSSINSEIN REFUSED inspections. He said so. Tariq Aziz said so. UNSCOM said so. UNMOVIC said so. SO if you CAN'T have free and unfettered inspections and you don't go in and search by force tell me how you find out short of waiting for another use by a madman?

B) we used Agent Orange.. a 'defoilage' in Vietnam.. turns out it's a pretty good chem weapon too.. For some reason I was thinking we used chem weapons in WWII or Nam or something.. but, in any event, we put a foot up the *** of Japan with a NUKE (Weapon of Mass Destruction, much like a burning oil well).. na, the US doesn't do such things.. and in WW-II, we bombed -intentionally- civilian populations to try and get them to resent their government for getting them in a war.. But, lets just ignore those FACTS, shall we?

We used Agent Orange to peel back the jungle so that American helicopters could not be fired upon so easily. I would like to see ONE link to an instance where it was used as a WEAPON with the intent to kill people.

I know of no instance where gas was used in WWII by either side even the Nazis because they didn't want the retaliatory strike. We bombed civilians in Germany and Japan in part because the Luftwaffe bombed citizens in London, The Japanese bombed civilians at Pearl Harbor, both Germany and Japan hid military units and equipment amongst civilians and most of all because the technology for pinpoint accuracy did not exist at that time.

A search for truth examines and takes into account all facts. A search for propaganda takes what fits.

"The most convincing lie is one which contains a single grain of irrefutable truth."-Josef Goebbels Nazi Minister of Propaganda-

As for your 'stats'.. proof is 100%.. always.. NEVER 99.9999%

This is the cop out. I DEFY YOU to prove anything to an absolute 100.0% certainty.

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html

 

WOW! Weapons grade plutonium seems to have been found in Iraq. Now of course we must forget that we stated before going in that we had intelligence stating they were hard at work on this and possibly within months of a nuke.

 

We must forget that we found it where we said it would be and that Iraq said it wasn't there.

 

We must forget that 2 field tests were done and both confirmed it to be weapons grade plutonium.

Ok, I lied.. I hadn't read this post yet.. Here you go again, stating things as FACT when the verbage of your 'support' says different.. You say 'we found it where we said it would', the article says "The discovery of the underground labyrinth of labs and warehouses was unexpected".. Since the title of the article said the materials were found in the 'unexpected' underground caverns, your statement is patently wrong (about knowing where).. We knew it was a nukelear facility.. which, seemingly, is not illegal since it was inspected a few times and no signs of weapons were found.. course, neither were the caverns and labs, but that's not the point... the building wasn't illegal (or so it seems)

Then there is your assertion that it 'is' weapons grade based on the first two tests, but the article's verbage is

"While officials aren't prepared to call the discovery a "smoking gun," two preliminary tests conducted on the material have indicated that it may be weapons-grade plutonium"..

Again, my contention is your willingness to make snap descisions despite your claim to wait to form an opinion until all the FACTS are in.. clearly not what you do.. the word used is MAY be, you say it IS..

Also, you say they were probably close to making a nuke, yet the article points out this..

"You couldn't do scientific work in levels like that. You would die" .. because the radiation levels are so high..

Then there is this quote

"This underground discovery could still test to be perfectly legitimate and offer no proof of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The CIA encouraged international inspectors in the fall of 2002 to probe Al Tuwaitha for weapons of mass destruction, and the inspectors came away empty-handed."

K.. I'm done.. you refuse to understand what I'm trying to tell you.. you are too blinded by what ever it is that has your brain shut off at the moment.. Every time you open your mouth you support my arguments but can't understand that either (if he was working on nukes and we knew where that was, inspecting that location would have been prudent.. get the inspectors to that location, if Saddam gives too much resistence for more than a few days, we might well have had UN and global support.. maybe not though.. no way to find out now)..

You keep looking down at your tiny view of reality with your single line on it drawn there for you by your leaders, I'll keep looking at my huge picture of reality with tons of lines on it that cross and comingle.. I'll keep tracing along many lines of possibilty until I see a true and distinct end before I commit to a thought, you keep jumping up and down screaming how everyone is and doing your little school girl cheerleader chant 'r-e-a-l-i-t-y. reality. good for you good for me. reality'.. I'm sure you look cute in that skirt //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Savant You claimed I try to twist your words and imply things you didn't mean, then post this kind of crap? -I- know you are being sarcastic here, but you don't even try to SHOW you are being facetious..

 

As for my twisting your meaning (earlier, about media and the chem suits.. I'm presuming that's what you meant).. I wasn't trying to twist your meaning.. and you didn't really state in what context suits were taken off, and given that we were starting to talk about the pesticides/sarin (to be determined as I understand it), I thought you meant the report that they were back in those bunkers without suits.. I wasn't trying to twist anything.. And, I was also simply trying to apply logic to a situation with the explination that our troops would NOT be taking off their suits if they found 'chemical weapon' chemicals in barrels.. the entire point of those weapons is that being in their presence harms/kills you... so to be walking around exposed chems like that unprotected just isn't gonna happen.. which, again, supports the idea that what was found might not be anything more than pesticides..

 

If you want to make posts like this one, you really should give some indication that you are being sarcastic..Do you have to? no.. do what you like, but if you aren't willing to make sure you communicate clearly, quit crying when someone has to try and fill in the blanks and does it in a manner you don't like.. *shrug*

Actually I'm giving an argument that some people would make. NO this is not my opinion. If can't tell through my prior post that I'm a conservative, you will never understand politics Savant. (This statement is one that you would make about someone Savant)

**the

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by joshpoints Actually I'm giving an argument that some people would make. NO this is not my opinion. If can't tell through my prior post that I'm a conservative, you will never understand politics Savant. (This statement is one that you would make about someone Savant)

 

**the

Of course some people 'might' make that statement.. and some people might piss on an electrical outlet and kill themselves too.. Posting things like that do nothing to further knowledge or add to the debate, they just show how petty you are being.

I know you are conservative, along with having a hard time communicating in the english language.. And now I know you don't know how to read any better than LWW since I said in there that I know where you stand, but that others might not if they didn't bother to read all the other posts (believe it or not, some people jump in at the end with out getting up to speed with where the thread is).. I was trying, futilely again, to help you understand something.. but, your mind is clearly shut up tighter than a drum.. Try reading and comprehending what people post.. you might not make so many pointless responses then.. though, I'll not hold my breath..

What the hell is "This statement is one that you would make about someone Savant" What is that reffering to? I really hope you aren't implying that your 'i can show the other side' story is something I would come up with. I was all prepared to submit a long response to that, but then figured there would be no point (and isn't).. but, the bottom line is, you and others need to get your head out of your ***** and STOP trying to predict what I would say about various things.. You don't know any more about me than what I have stated here about very specific things, to presume you know all there is to know about me and therefore know what I would say in any given situation makes you either god or totally fukked in the head. No one person can 'know' what someone else will do in all cases, especially after only discussing a few very specific topics. To work on the premise that one could, our leaders would be like Saddam and would do a little profiling on each person and kill anyone they figured 'would be a violent criminal anyway'.. The REASON we made some of the laws we did was to protect our citizens from people that think themselves so superior as to 'know' what someone would think or do..

Anyway, I'm done with you too.. Both of you guys are to the point of being on your high-horses and looking down at the rest of the world.. All I can say is, be careful up there.. if you fall you might break something you need...

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

That said, I have not once implied that 'maybe Saddam has changed' as you would like to imply (there is that pesky doing what you are complaining others do again), I'm saying the FACT is, having the 'means' to do something is NOT the same as doing it. While there are good reasons to think Saddam might want to use them, the FACT is, he has not.. Another FACT is that we have not yet found any chemical weapons (finding partial deliverly systems is not the same thing, that goes to the means/action point). Nor WMD..

I'm just mimicing you. That's what I have started doing. SO don't say I'm a hypocrite, I'm just basically giving an example of what you do to people. Your response to my robber story was perfect, just how most liberals would think of it. I see what you are saying, but being the conservative I would want the person questioned. He is still innocent until proven guilty, but should be taken in for questioning. Applying this to Sadam, some would say we should keep trying to look for the weapons. If the guy with the car said I will not answer your questions and you can not search my house, the liberal may say, well we will let him go about his business, but we will continue to call him on the phone number that we gave him and change his mind through talking. After all, all he really has are the tools. We should keep trying to talk Sadam into letting us into certain areas.

I understand liberals thinking, but I see what I consider flaws in it. It would be the best ideology in a perfect world. But again our world is not.

If you don't think this war was amazing it really is sad. Few human lives were lost and many were saved.

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Here you go again, stating things as FACT when the verbage of your 'support' says different.. You say 'we found it where we said it would', the article says "The discovery of the underground labyrinth of labs and warehouses was unexpected".. Since the title of the article said the materials were found in the 'unexpected' underground caverns, your statement is patently wrong (about knowing where)..

Wrong again Ranger Smith. The story says we had told the inspectors it was a site which needed checked out. They did and found nothing. By all indications they didn't even take a rad sensor. We did. It went nuts. We followed it to the source. The only surprise was that it was underground.

Then there is your assertion that it 'is' weapons grade based on the first two tests, but the article's verbage is
"While officials aren't prepared to call the discovery a "smoking gun," two preliminary tests conducted on the material have indicated that it may be weapons-grade plutonium"..

OK Ranger Smith the only thing that the prelim test could prove was that it isn't something. Both tests confirmed that it was capable of being this. Also someone went to the trouble of building an underground facility and denying it's existence. By any reasonable definition any atomic research facility is potentially dual use. That means it must be disclosed by Saddam and inspection made available. Neither happened. Of course it could be a collection of lightning bugs in an underground vault.

Both of you guys are to the point of being on your high-horses and looking down at the rest of the world

Not the rest of the world Savant just you...and then only because you prefer the gutter. Sad.

And an example of the comparison of what you would say about others is the fact that you crack on someone else's supposed illiteracy and then you can't even spell the number 2. Two. II. Deux. Dos. Zwei.

Oh well admittedly you don't keep up with news although you pontifficate on it and are barely smarter than the average bear so maybe my expectations are TOO high.

If I leave TOday I could be in TUcson or maybe TUpalo by TUEsday and buy a TOUcan with the money I saved by not paying TOO much for a TWO way ticket. Oh man is that TOO much or what?

The bottom line on this is, and MANY people on the forum have commented about it, you come here with a pompous arrogance and a Savant knows better than anybody and everybody and America sucks attitude and in reality you have very meager literacy skills and when it comes to history and/or human nature you don't know dick. Then you try to bluster and intimidate people through your rants hoping that if you bytch longest and loudest you win.

Well just like Saddam as soon as somebody stands up to the bully you wet your panties and get hysterical.

Whats's good for everyone else is good for you Savant. Treat people and their thoughts with respect and you will likely get the same. Ramble and rant and bully and you get the same as well.

R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. REALITY. Good for you. Good for me. Reality. Ahhhhhh.....

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW And an example of the comparison of what you would say about others is the fact that you crack on someone else's supposed illiteracy and then you can't even spell the number 2. Two. II. Deux. Dos. Zwei.

Um.. now I'm a bit confused.. Not only do I not know what you are referring to (a snipit would have been nice) but trying to make a correlation between intelligence and a spelling mistake is.. well, pathetic at best.. We've had this conversation, Mr. MENSA.. and you have made plenty of typos as well.. being illiterate (or, more to the point of your rushing to the defense of your puppet boy Joshpoints, not being able to form coherent sentences) has nothing to do with making spelling mistakes.. it has to do with not being able to read or write.. in that vein, writting very shitty sentences and not being able to get an idea out clearly is much more closly related to intelligence than spelling.. But, whatever.. I just want to know to which to you are referring to ..

If it's this "Both of you guys are to the point ", to as in arrived at a location.. I'm pretty sure that's 'to', not 'too', and certianly not the 'number' two.. *shrug*

 

[Randy Savage 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by joshpoints NO I think you need to use your eyes or ears along with your brain. The U.S. used a tank recker ( tank tow truck) to rip the statue down. I didn't see the people tearing it down with hammers. BOy you have been brain washed.

I think your brain is a little damaged, my friend.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by snova031 I think your brain is a little damaged, my friend.

Alright alright, I was just playing around. The statement about the tank is true, but if I thought like some of the posts that I wrote I would say you are correct. It feels good to know people like you exist that have common sense and weigh an event and see if it's worth it. Yes war kills lives but this war will save more lives than it will kill. Those people hate Sadam, but they are afraid to show their true emotions, until now. It feels good to be a part of a country that cares about others, and betters the lives of people that they don't see. Thank God for Bush. No I'm not using the lords name in vain, I'm serious. He may not be perfect, but he's closer to perfect than Gore would have been.

Welcome to the forum fellow human. You are smarter than the smartest bear!!!!