Out of curiousity...

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW An example of regurgitated pap:

Had you mentioned the variant and showed any substantiation to believe it was the variant, then you might have had a point.. but the way it was presented

 

AN example of truth:

 

[The extended range Silkworm C201 has a range of exactly 150KM which skates exactly to the limit

 

And this is an example of how you have no concept of truth or detail or comprehension.. The "extended range Silkworm" is NOT A SILKWORM, it's a SADSACK.. You said 'silkworm', the exteneded be dammed.. that's totally irrelivant. What I was refereing to with you not mentioning or offering proof of it being the 'extended range' variant was that CNN has NOT reported it as a Sadsack, it was reported as a Silkworm. NOT a long range variant.. AND, based on a 'guess', it was barely outside of the range of the normal silkworm, does that mean it didn't come from a few miles farther south of the city? was the measurement being guessed at from the city core or the very edge? Since we don't know where it was actually launched from , and all evidence pointed to SILKWORM not SADSACK, you again manage to show how dense you are and twist the truth and your fight into something less than reasonable to anyone that can actaully pick through your 'pap', to use one of your words..

some day you might learn how to argue. and I might learn to stop wasting my time trying to show you how you refuse to accept the real facts over your 'twisted for your own ends' facts.. I, unlike you, am willing to see fact as fact. I don't have a reason to twist things as I'm not trying to justify things.. Making the test results 'look' a certian way to get what you want is a failing of crappy scientests, being able to see what is actually there in front of you and not adding to it or twisting it, even if it's not what you want to see is the mark of a good scientist.. I don't make leaps and presumptions based on what I want, you do.. Chem sensors going off is 'proof' of chem weapons used, according to you.. Perfect example of how you don't care that we have NOT found any chemicals in the air yet so there is NO proof of chem weapons used.. Again, fact isn't something you truely understand, only bastardized variants and 1/2 statements and misleading statements.. You should run for president.. you could convince the bulk of the ignorant people of this country that you actaully have a point..

Well I did say that and the maps on CNN of the trajectory claimed a distance of 100KM-105KM. Sorry I forgot that only proof ehich backs your pap counts my apologies.

You didn't mention anything about 'supposed' distance.. and if the 'limit' is 95 Km and it was guessed to barely make 100, does that imply the farther reacing variant? not since it splashed out before hitting anything.. A good tail wind could account for that.. As could the ~1 mile difference I bet you can get from town center of the proposed launch site and the city edge..

OOOPS!!! Here comes truth again. The Ba'ath party seized power at the barrel of a gun. They executed the LEGITIMATE govt on TV and displayed the bodies publicly. Saddamite Hussinsein then through murder and beatings seized power from a relative (I believe his uncle) and insurrections have been ongoing since and being brutally repressed.

How many places in the world have that happen? ALL OVER.. and those are considered to be ligitimate governments.. WE EVEN SHOOK HIS HAND when he took office.. if we thought he was such an illigitimate leader, why the hell did we support his taking office?? And, there have been elections, as offensive to our way of thinking as they may be.. there is nothing that says Saddam is not the rightful leader of Iraq.. Do you hnonestly believe he would be in office for over 12 years as an illigitimate leader? Don't tell me you are gonna try to play that game now.. I would think that even below you..

In the face of the TRUTH you support Saddam as a legitimate natl leader yet say you don't support him. INTERESTING???

Again, I'm not the one that put him in office. I don't support him, he's an evil vile person.. That doesn't change the FACT that he's been running Iraq for 12 years and there a plenty of Iraqi people that accept him as their leader, all of his military included..

Dude listen to yourself. SADDAM HAS NEVER COMPLIED!!!. Bush I said it. Bush II said it. The UN said it. UNMOVIC said it. UNSCOM said it. Hans Blix said it. Clinton said it. Gore said it. Even France said it.

He was in discompliance of the original 16 resolutions.. and started to ignore the 17th.. until US troops showed up? But, when Bush said it was too late and that we were going in, SADDAM WAS DESTROYING MISSLES, INSPECTORS WERE ROAMING AROUND LOOKING FOR THINGS.. sorry, that, by definition, means he was complying.. perhaps not willingly, or not as fast as we wanted, but in the strictest sense, he was complying when we invaded.. Just because Bush said he wasn't doesn't mean crap.. Bilx, as I understand it, was reporting of progress however slow.. Clinton and Gore are moot points as well.. They aren't in office nor are they involved with this conflict or anyone/anything about it.. The fact that you bring them up though, shows you don't have any regard for the FACT that anything before last November when the 17th resolution (or there abouts) was passed is the ONLY thing that matters, the past 12 years are moot.. Not that I expect you can understand that either..

Your veil has been pulled back. This is all about political ideology. If Commander and Thief Willy Jeff Clinton or Vice Perpetrator Al Bore were in office and doing the same thing I guarantee you would be hailing them as the second coming of the messiah. And for the record I supported the Slickmeister when he was going to handle this in 98. Sadly being a draft dodger he could not politicly survive a boots on the ground operation and new it. Politics and ideology over national interest and human rights.

Once again, you are illuminated with your own ignorance.. I SUPPORTED BUSH I in 91 in helping Kuwait fight Saddam.. explain to me how that shows I'm stuck in dogma as you would like to believe? It doesn't, but that goes against your twisting of truth to fit your own needs, so I'm pretty sure you will now just say I'm lying.. If Clinton went about this conflict as fukked up as Bush did, I'd be just as against it.. Had Bush done this in a responsible manner, I'd be less resistant to it..

Oh, shall I take a page from the LWW's book of how to with an invalid argument with bullshit?.. here..

Sadly being a draft dodger he could not politicly survive a boots on the ground operation and new it.

As opposed to 'old' it?

how about this..

Sorry I forgot that only proof ehich backs

had a caugh? ehich? or is that like an internet Hick, ... eHick.. ?

See how stupid it is when you do that kind of crap? I'd really appriciate it if you would try to stick to merrits and stop on the spelling crap.. It's as annoying as your girly chant about reality.. Though, if you insist.. it's a free country, do as you feel you must..

Liberal pablum repuked in it's purest form IMHO.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif nevermind that I don't qualify as a Liberal with a lot of my beliefs.. but you keep on singing how that's the evil mantra.. doesn't bother me //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Actually with the low trajectory used only the long range variant should have made that distance. And by your own admission if these can exceed there stated ranges then they are being under rated to skate the cease fire terms. Glad to see that you again agree that Saddamite Hussinsein is not nor ever has been in compliance. You are coming along quite well my student although your insolence when wrong is disturbing.

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW Actually with the low trajectory used only the long range variant should have made that distance. And by your own admission if these can exceed there stated ranges then they are being under rated to skate the cease fire terms. Glad to see that you again agree that Saddamite Hussinsein is not nor ever has been in compliance. You are coming along quite well my student although your insolence when wrong is disturbing.

 

PEACE

LOL

That's funny //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Anyway, even if they are a tad under-rated, the SILKWORM is rated WAY under the limit. Which, means, in any context, having them is STILL in no way-shape-or form a violation of any of the resolutions. And, just because the Silkworm is 'under-rated' doesn't mean the SadSack might not be over-rated //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif And, the only reason the Al-Samoud-II missles were being destroyed (ordered to be destroyed anyway) was that they 'tested' farther than 150 Km.. I still have not found out what 'significantly farther' than 93 miles means, but that is how I heard them refered to during the order to destroy them.. Oh, he WAS destroying them, remember? Which implies complying to the 17th resolution .. *shrug*

And, since they are Chinese missles that I'm sure have been around simce 1970, the ratings have been well established for a long time, not just fabricated by Saddamite Hussinsein to 'skirt the cease fire terms'..

Oh, and tail-winds can affect things on the ground, so something 20 - 30 ft above would/could be affected too..

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Actually the low to the ground approach is what shortens the distance capable. Everything was being knocked down by Patriots otherwise. With altitude and a high arc missiles can traverse much greater distances...which is why it's done.

Ina ny event it doesn't matter whether Saddam started to comply with ONE portion of the cease fire. It was 12 yrs TOO LATE. It was ONLY with a gun to his head. It was ONLY after being busted again. It was ONLY when he needed the mirage of compliance.

I will ask again. Does ANYONE truly believe that if he was let slide this time we wouldn't be right back to the crisis point in a few years? Would he be MORE heavily armed then? How many MORE Iraqi innocents would have been killed? How many MORE Americans would have been killed.

Also consider this. Saddam's head of security meets in Europe with the head 9/11 thug. Saddam has Anthrax...we sold it to him under the ruse of medical research. Saddam has weaponized Anthrax. Weaponized Anthrax first show up in the USA days after 9/11. The first infected American works at a publishing company. The owner of the publishing company has a house he rents to 2 Arab flight school students. One of them sees a Dr for an infection which resembles Anthrax but does not come back for tests because he commits mass murder on 9/11. The other tenant is the same one who met with Saddam's boy in east Europe. Our govt has been back tracking this for well over a year. Do you accept the fact that maybe this isn't all just an odd group of occurences? Or has our intelligence through sources not yet released known of the Saddam-Anthrax killer-9/11 link for quite some time and can't release it for jeopordizing lives of informants within the regime?

Granted this is all circumstantial but certainly enough for any prosecutor to get a search warrant. And what happens when the police come to the door with a search warrant and the suspect says "screw you...we ain't got no stinking eveidence in here man"?

WAKE UP AND FOLLOW THE CLUES to where they lead. They lead to Baghdad. The truth will come out. The guilty will pay. If it's Dubya then so be it. If it's Saddam then so be it. Put your 401K on it being Saddam.

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW Actually the low to the ground approach is what shortens the distance capable. Everything was being knocked down by Patriots otherwise. With altitude and a high arc missiles can traverse much greater distances...which is why it's done.

Only, in this case, the missle is DESIGNED to FLY close to the ground.. it's an anti-ship missle and is designed to avoid radar.. thus the big wings on it.. Yes, you can 'fall' farther if you have a bigger arc (up to a limit, actually.. then you get into the straight up - straight down action).. So, if it was FLYING with the wind (the big wings it has on it are for 'flying', unlike most missles/rockets that only have small stabilizers), it could easily go a 'bit' farther than max rated range.. certianly by an extra mile or so.. But, given that you haven't taken those pesky 'required' courses for your degree, like PhyEd, and I'm guessing Physics/Chemistry/etc etc.. you might not realize that..

Ina ny event it doesn't matter whether Saddam started to comply with ONE portion of the cease fire. It was 12 yrs TOO LATE. It was ONLY with a gun to his head. It was ONLY after being busted again. It was ONLY when he needed the mirage of compliance.

Actually, it DOES matter.. and it wasn't with ONE, the inspectors were in, that's the second part of the resolution PASSED IN NOVEMBER (refering to the previous resolutions saves typing, but doesn't mean those 'deadlines' apply, otherwise you could NOT have any other resolutions after the FIRST 45 DAYS.. but since we DID...)... The FIRST part of that was the disclosure document.. he supplied one, then we didn't like it.. he supplied another almost identical document.. The 3rd part was the 60 update, they had that.. At some point we said "you have illegal weapons here (note: only after testing to verify they were a tad over the 93 mile limit), destroythem".. he started doing just that.. The FACT that he had a GUN to his HEAD is MOOT.. image of compliance when you are doing what you are being told to do is compliance.. The inspectors should have been left to do their job WITH the TROOPS on the border and a GUN to his HEAD.. Invading was not the just thing to do at that point.. As far as 12 years too late, get over it.. that is NOT a valid statement.. Last November there was another 'resolution', dates of which supercede all other resolutions.. If you can't understand that then I'm sorry for your lack of congnative skills..

I will ask again. Does ANYONE truly believe that if he was let slide this time we wouldn't be right back to the crisis point in a few years? Would he be MORE heavily armed then? How many MORE Iraqi innocents would have been killed? How many MORE Americans would have been killed.

If not pressed, I agree.. he would have NO REASON to do anything.. That's the empty thread CarAudioAddict was talking about.. Do I think we would have continued to disarm Saddam had the US stayed on the border and left the inspectors do their jobs? More so than we did, and in a better manner than having our troops dodging those weapons we might have had destroyed.. And, again, I agree that leaving him in power would mean many more Iraqi lives, but that is NOT OUR PROBLEM.. sad as that might seem.. He's been killing people for 12 years, we did nothing.. If the Iraqi people have such a problem with him, they could remove him by force with a civil war.. but since a LOT of them feel he's the rightful leader, we have no right to remove him either..

Also consider this. Saddam's head of security meets in Europe with the head 9/11 thug. Saddam has Anthrax...we sold it to him under the ruse of medical research. Saddam has weaponized Anthrax. Weaponized Anthrax first show up in the USA days after 9/11. The first infected American works at a publishing company. The owner of the publishing company has a house he rents to 2 Arab flight school students. One of them sees a Dr for an infection which resembles Anthrax but does not come back for tests because he commits mass murder on 9/11. The other tenant is the same one who met with Saddam's boy in east Europe. Our govt has been back tracking this for well over a year. Do you accept the fact that maybe this isn't all just an odd group of occurences? Or has our intelligence through sources not yet released known of the Saddam-Anthrax killer-9/11 link for quite some time and can't release it for jeopordizing lives of informants within the regime?

 

Granted this is all circumstantial but certainly enough for any prosecutor to get a search warrant. And what happens when the police come to the door with a search warrant and the suspect says "screw you...we ain't got no stinking eveidence in here man"?

Here's a thought.. We are going to KILL SADDAM.. right? Get them out, divulge the info, PROVE we have a good reason to be there.. But, since we don't, it isn't gonna happen.. Yes, there may be some circumstantial evidence, and perhaps even enough to get a warrent and have the police come in and search.. BUT.. by YOUR analogy, that would be the UN agreeing there was evidence and LETTING US GO IN.. not telling us we don't have a right to go in.. If the cops came to serve a warrent and started shooting things in your house, they would be wrong and crimially charged.. that's not allowed during a serving of a warrent.. just like the 'searching on the warrent' would be the same as the 'inspectors searching Iraq'.. To your analogy, the cops felt like they 'should' have a warrent issued, the Judge said 'not yet, I dont see enough evidence', and the cops kicking in your door and rummaging around your house on their own.. Again, not that I expect you to be able to see the differences..

WAKE UP AND FOLLOW THE CLUES to where they lead. They lead to Baghdad. The truth will come out. The guilty will pay. If it's Dubya then so be it. If it's Saddam then so be it. Put your 401K on it being Saddam.

Here is another trail of clues.. Let's see what happens at the end of that trail..

Bush is a warmongering oil tycoon.. Iraq is supposed to have 10 times as much oil in reserves as Saudi Arabi (the #1 oil reserve in the world with 25% of all the worlds oil, until the Iraq survey).. Bush - I was part of a plot by Saddam, and Bush - II is a cowboy looking to avenge his daddy's name (he IS from Texas, afterall).. The US is planning on 'occupying' Iraq until a 'US friendly' government is established, yet Iraqi people say they will attack US troops if they do not leave IMMEDIATELY after Saddam is killed/removed/chased out.. This would be the FIRST and most likely LAST time the US STARTED a war for humanitarian, and it's even more suspect for me since it's a Republican party doing 'humanitarian' work when they are the ones AGAINST humanitarian programs for it's own people..

Yeah, I agree.. follow the clues and see where they lead.. we all know Saddam is a bad man, but most people don't want to admit that most American leaders in the past 30 years are bad people too.. not as bad as Saddam, obviously, but far from reproach with their back-door deals and subversion of foreign governments..

the other MAIN problem now is, all the Arab nations are starting to get a serious disdain for America.. While most American's will say "who cares", there are several BILLION Arabs compared to the 250 million Americans.. and some of these countries have NUKES.. Just something to think about when thinking the US doesn't need to worry about the GLOBAL COMMUNITY when making descisions about illegally invading a country..

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW Also consider this. Saddam's head of security meets in Europe with the head 9/11 thug. Saddam has Anthrax...we sold it to him under the ruse of medical research. Saddam has weaponized Anthrax. Weaponized Anthrax first show up in the USA days after 9/11. The first infected American works at a publishing company. The owner of the publishing company has a house he rents to 2 Arab flight school students. One of them sees a Dr for an infection which resembles Anthrax but does not come back for tests because he commits mass murder on 9/11. The other tenant is the same one who met with Saddam's boy in east Europe. Our govt has been back tracking this for well over a year. Do you accept the fact that maybe this isn't all just an odd group of occurences? Or has our intelligence through sources not yet released known of the Saddam-Anthrax killer-9/11 link for quite some time and can't release it for jeopordizing lives of informants within the regime?

Found this article.. Something to think about..

BUSH SPEECH "SKIMMED ALONG EDGES OF REALITY," PARTICULARLY RE SADDAM AND AL QUEDA "As far as the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is concerned, one of the most prominent authorities on the deadly terrorist group remains unimpressed by the evidence offered up to date - including Bush’s stab at connecting those dots in the State of the Union, during which he insisted that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." Peter Bergen, author of Holy War, Inc. (Free Press, 2001) and a fellow at the New America Foundation, told me after the speech that the Saddam/Osama connection "is really [the administration’s] default mode, isn’t it?" Bergen pointed me to his December article in the Nation, in which he pooh-poohs the Iraq/Al Qaeda link as "somewhere between tenuous and nonexistent." "Al Qaeda members live in 60 countries around the globe," Bergen wrote in the Nation, "so by the law of averages a few of them will show up in Iraq. Indeed, intelligence estimates suggest there are some 100 Al Qaeda members at large in the United States, although that is not an argument to start bombing Washington." " 02.03.03

And this one..

U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENTS PUZZLED BY BUSH, POWELL CLAIMS OF SADDAM-AL QUEDA CONNECTION "Intelligence officials said they are puzzled by the administration's new push. "To my knowledge, there's nothing new," said a senior U.S. intelligence official who asked not to be identified. The expectation within the CIA regarding Powell's speech, the source said, "is that it's going to be more comprehensive than bombastic and new." Intelligence officials have discounted if not dismissed other information believed to point to possible links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The CIA said it can find no evidence supporting post-Sept. 11 reports that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers in the attacks, met with an Iraqi agent in the Czech capital, Prague, in 2001. Similarly, intelligence officials described reports that Hussein is funding an Al Qaeda-connected extremist group in northern Iraq as "wildly overstated." There is no evidence so far to confirm that Iraq is arming, financing or controlling the group, known as Ansar al-Islam, one official said. "There isn't a factual basis for such assertions," the official said. " 02.03.03

And this is rich..

"Useful In Mobilizing Public Opinion"
In the fall of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah.

In the girl's testimony before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book "Second Front" and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave 312 babies "on the cold floor to die."

Seven US Senators later referred to the story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were like "Hitler revisited."

But just weeks before the US bombing campaign began in January, a few press reports began to raise questions about the validity of the incubator tale.

Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait hospital.

She had been coached – along with the handful of others who would "corroborate" the story – by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.

"We didn't know it wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview with the London-based Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful in mobilizing public opinion." --CSM, Sept. 6, 2002

"It Was A Pretty Serious Fib"

– When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.

But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

"It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story.

The White House is now making its case. to Congress and the public for another invasion of Iraq; President George W. Bush is expected to present specific evidence of the threat posed by Iraq during a speech to the United Nations next week.

But past cases of bad intelligence or outright disinformation used to justify war are making experts wary. The questions they are raising, some based on examples from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, highlight the importance of accurate information when a democracy considers military action....

That [iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," says Heller. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified....

"My concern in these situations, always, is that the intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than the policy being driven by the intelligence," says former US Rep. Lee Hamilton (D) of Indiana, a 34-year veteran lawmaker until 1999, who served on numerous foreign affairs and intelligence committees, and is now director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. The Bush team "understands it has not yet carried the burden of persuasion [about an imminent Iraqi threat], so they will look for any kind of evidence to support their premise," Mr. Hamilton says. "I think we have to be skeptical about it." --CSM, Sept. 6, 2002

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Hey, LWW.. notice these..

The Ethics of Persuasion: Some Guidelines

by Edward L. Bernays

1. Do Not Use False Evidence

2. Do Not Use Illogical, Unsupported Reasoning

3. Do Not Falsely Represent Yourself

4. Do Not Conceal Your Purpose or Interest

5. Do Not Cover Up Consequences

6. Do Not Use Baseless Emotional Appeals

7. Do Not Oversimplify Complex Situations

8. Do Not Pretend Certainty

Notice # 6 and 7.. 6 -> "you support that evil guy" is not a reasonable way to get your point across.. 7-> "chem sensors went off, therefore he's using chem weapons"..

etc etc etc..

Just so you know it's not just ME that says there are 'rules' to play by.. but, do as you wish..

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

Savant. I suggest you give up, I have, and I usually argue until I'm blue in the face.

LWW will not/can not accept that his govt could do wrong.

He cannot accept that this is a new war, as with all other wars ceasefire = end of war.

He cannot accept that UN inspectors not finding anything means only that, they have not found them, doesn't prove they don't exist, doesn't prove that they do.

He cannot fathom that because UN inspectors were restricted means raised suspicions(sp?), and is not proof that he has these weapons.

He cannot understand that the UN wanted proof 45 days after the ceasefire that he was destroying weapons, not proof that they were all distroyed (this is stated in the UN quotes supplied by LWW, yet he cannot see it).

He doesn't want to believe that because Saddam has lied before doesn't mean he always lies.

Lww cannot realize that had the UN set a specific date for Saddam to have all of his weapons disarmed/destroyed the US would have had solid grounds for the invasion.

He doesn't believe that circumstantial evidence is not proof

He doesn't understand that because bush kept bouncing between reasons for war as each lost support is proof that the war is unjust (he's not in compliance, no wait, he has the weapons, no theres a link to the 9/11 attacks, no, we're in there to liberate)

He can't see that Saddam wasn't pushing a war while bush was, thus making the US the agressors(sp?)

He cannot comprehend that a silkworm has a range of only 95KM, and is NOT a Sadsack with a range of 150KM, which is still legal

He doesn't see that his childish games are a sign of losing an argument

He can't understand that unwilling compliance is still compliance

He fails to understand that we do not KNOW that Saddam has these weapons, We only KNOW that he HAD them. He says they were destroyed, and until we can prove otherwise, WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE.

LWW somehow figured out that chem plant=chem weapons, when in FACT chem plants are used for alot more than constructing weapons.

He somehow arrived at the conclusion that you cannot trust one liar (Saddam) but you can trust another (Bush)

He, for some unknown reason, equates that wanting proof=supporting Saddam

He doesn't even try to see that at this moment Saddam Hussien IS the legitimate leader of Iraq. No one else has legal right to that title. Does that mean he has to be a good or a righteous leader? NO.

I get from LWW's posts that if Bush said "all americans should walk off a cliff", he would be the first to fall in line

He twists what people say to arrive at his point. He takes things out of context, and uses partial quotes to support himself. eg. If I say "under no cirumstaces, do I believe that Saddam should stay in power". He would take it as "blah, blah, blah, I believe that Saddame should stay in power" WHICH WOULD NOT BE WHAT I SAID.

Savant, we should just give up, and let LWW live in his fantasy world where children play, and name calling is how you deal with things.

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

*applause*

VERY well put..

I agree completely with your observations.. I'm still a bit miffed as to why I let myself get goaded.. though, I'm sure this 6-pack has something to do with it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

And, with that, I do believe (having posted a few very good links to the demise of the Bush administration, certianly as diminishing as anything LWW could hope to have used to smear the now POINTLESS position of Clinton).. I shall retire from this board..

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Bush is a warmongering oil tycoon.. Iraq is supposed to have 10 times as much oil in reserves as Saudi Arabi (the #1 oil reserve in the world with 25% of all the worlds oil, until the Iraq survey).. Bush - I was part of a plot by Saddam, and Bush - II is a cowboy looking to avenge his daddy's name (he IS from Texas, afterall)..

Ahhh...the big lie and the big puke in one quote. Bush II made his big money in.....BASEBALL. OOOPS!!!

George is from Texas hence a cowboy hence a redneck hence shooting for the heck of it YAHOOO!!!. When you can't support an argument call names...YAHOOO!!!

The only liberal pap you haven't pulled out yet is you oppose war "for the children" and how the war will "cut social security".

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Also I just wanted to point out that when the hit on Bush I DIDN'T work with your argument it wasn't credible and was only "alleged". Now that it fits your point it becomes fact. Another inconsistency, of many, which is why I can't give you any credibility Savant.

PEACE

 

[nswartley 5,000+ posts]

i dare to say.......but......is this arugment......OVER???????!!!!!!!!!! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eek.gif.771b7a90cf45cabdc554ff1121c21c4a.gif

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

NEVER I SAY NEVER SHALL I ALLOW THE FORCES OF EEEEVILLLL TO TRIUMPH OVER THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF TRUTH JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY!!! DUBYA FOREVER!!! SADDAMITE HUSSINSEIN NEVER!!!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/banghead.gif.8606515f668c74f6de0281deb475b6fd.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

I suggest you give up, I have, and I usually argue until I'm blue in the face.

A confession perhaps?

LWW will not/can not accept that his govt could do wrong.

Absolutely wrong, but in this case it has not. Others cannot see that America does the RIGHT thing more than any nation on Earth hence this pap.

He cannot accept that this is a new war, as with all other wars ceasefire = end of war.

Actually he understands that OUR side was the only one that thought the war was over. Saddam has been firing on Allied planes for 12 yrs.

He cannot accept that UN inspectors not finding anything means only that, they have not found them, doesn't prove they don't exist, doesn't prove that they do.

Actually he understands that in round 1 they DID find evidence and were tossed.

He cannot fathom that because UN inspectors were restricted means raised suspicions(sp?), and is not proof that he has these weapons.

Actually he understands that a leader facing destruction would have no reason for trickery if they were telling the truth.

He cannot understand that the UN wanted proof 45 days after the ceasefire that he was destroying weapons, not proof that they were all distroyed (this is stated in the UN quotes supplied by LWW, yet he cannot see it).

Even by this bogus interpretation Saddam failed.

He doesn't want to believe that because Saddam has lied before doesn't mean he always lies.

He understands that once someone proves they can't be trusted...they can't be trusted. DUH!

Lww cannot realize that had the UN set a specific date for Saddam to have all of his weapons disarmed/destroyed the US would have had solid grounds for the invasion.

Actually he understands that they did and he didn't.

He doesn't believe that circumstantial evidence is not proof.

Actually he has faith in US intelligence resources to be more believable than Saddamite Hussinsein.

He doesn't understand that because bush kept bouncing between reasons for war as each lost support is proof that the war is unjust (he's not in compliance, no wait, he has the weapons, no theres a link to the 9/11 attacks, no, we're in there to liberate).

Actually he followed the news and was aware of the Iraq/WTCI bombing/WTCII bombing/Oklahoma City bombing/Al Qaeda links. He also understands that as a sovereign nation the US needs nobodys approval to remove an enemy. An attempt to get the UN to actually enforce it's own rules was futile.

He can't see that Saddam wasn't pushing a war while bush was, thus making the US the agressors(sp?).

Actually he sees that Saddam started the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, and refused every chance to avoid this.

He cannot comprehend that a silkworm has a range of only 95KM, and is NOT a Sadsack with a range of 150KM, which is still legal.

Actually he understands that 1 is a variant of the other to the point of having the same model designation. Kind of like saying a Z28 isn't a Camaro. He also realizes that byn using a spec EXACTLY at the limit China can make a sale without much heat. He also realizes that the missile in question exceeded the allowable limit AND THE REASON IT DID IS IRRELEVANT.

He doesn't see that his childish games are a sign of losing an argument.

Actually I did engage in this to some degree to give Savant a taste of his own medicine.

He can't understand that unwilling compliance is still compliance.

Actually there was never compliance...merely a stall.

He fails to understand that we do not KNOW that Saddam has these weapons, We only KNOW that he HAD them. He says they were destroyed, and until we can prove otherwise, WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE.

Actually we who observe fact have never had any doubt. All evidence says yes. Saddam's WORTHLESS WORD was the only evidence against.

LWW somehow figured out that chem plant=chem weapons, when in FACT chem plants are used for alot more than constructing weapons.
He somehow arrived at the conclusion that you cannot trust one liar (Saddam) but you can trust another (Bush).

Actually he realizes that on the war issue Saddam has never been shown to be correct while Dubya has never been proven to be wrong.

He, for some unknown reason, equates that wanting proof=supporting Saddam.

No actually he has stated that DENYING proof supports Saddam. SUpport does not have ton be intentional to be effective.

He doesn't even try to see that at this moment Saddam Hussien IS the legitimate leader of Iraq. No one else has legal right to that title. Does that mean he has to be a good or a righteous leader? NO.

Actually he studied the historical fact to understand that Saddam seized control of the Ba'ath party thru violence. The Ba'ath party seized control of Iraq by violence. Entrenched yes. Legitimate no. In reality even Hitler took power thru legal Democratic means.

I get from LWW's posts that if Bush said "all americans should walk off a cliff", he would be the first to fall in line.

And here is the big lie again. One side marches in lock step to the liberal mantra while anyone who studies facts and comes to a different conclusion is an automaton when the truth is that this is your own flaw. First I was racist. Then homophoboc. Now I'm hypnotized.

He twists what people say to arrive at his point. He takes things out of context, and uses partial quotes to support himself. eg. If I say "under no cirumstaces, do I believe that Saddam should stay in power". He would take it as "blah, blah, blah, I believe that Saddame should stay in power" WHICH WOULD NOT BE WHAT I SAID.

Again an accusation with no reference to back it up. Show me a single instance of this and I will retract it. Since you have taken the time to accuse me...and without evidence...I assume you can't.

Now that chem weapons have actually been found and laid hands on, Al Qaeda camps busted, chem weapons plants found, chem weapon antidotes and suits...bought from France no less to protect Iraqis from weapons we don't possess and they deny...have been found, illegal missiles used, POW's murdered, civilians used as human shields, and numerous other war crimes committed...

THE SILENCE FROM THE LEFT ON THIS ARGUMENT IS DEAFENING

and I take no glee in their having been made fools of. Actually I am saddened that in an age of instant information there are people who have been led to believe that the US is so evil that they will ignore any and all evidence to the point of aiding and abetting...willingly or foolishly take your pick...the most evil person on the world stage since 1945. Sad...truly sad.

PEACE (thru truth justice and American might)

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

Again an accusation with no reference to back it up. Show me a single instance of this and I will retract it. Since you have taken the time to accuse me...and without evidence...I assume you can't.

Should I really. There areso many. Ok Ill take the first one I see

Savant said:

what eats me is that the human race allows people like you to survive.. If we were in the wild living by the true laws of nature, idiots like you would be eaten by wild animals or killed by someone stronger than you because you would do something stupid and try to use false logic to sneak out.. Society is falling into the shitter ever faster, and it's being fueld by people like you and Bush.. Reports are showing the the oil fields in Iraq MAY BE THE BIGGEST IN THE WORLD, 10 TIME MORE THAN SAUDI ARABI .. Combine with that the RUSHED way we went to war, combine that with the FACT that there is NO PROOF of WOMD, Chem, Bio weapons in Iraq, combine that with the FACT that the US HAS NEVER STARTED A FOEGEIN CONFLICT FOR HUMANITARIAN reason, combie that with the FACT that it's illegal to change a sovereign forgein government for PERSONAL INTEREST (I believe it's in general, so for personal interest would be on top of that).. you start to get a pretty clear picture of the FACT that this is an unjust war run by an unjust oil monger ... Did Dubya make sure we are NOT using depleted uranium bullets? Those are causing HORRIFIC travesties on the Iraqi people from the 1991 conflict.. Conservatives don't give a shit about people, they care about money.. So why is it then that the Conservatives, for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY started a war to liberate forgein people? couldn't be the oil, couldn't be that Iraq is the cheapest place in the world to process oil.. couldn't be a coincedence that the leader of the free world is one of the biggest oil tycoons in the country.. na, none of that matters.. right? Reality.. try some.. ... well, you better not, the shock of it all might kill you..

Then you took a small fragment of a sentence and used that to back your point:

->for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY started a war to liberate forgein people?There you go. I knew you could do it. YAY!

no, you don't twist words.

I'm outta here, I can't reason with the unreasonable.