Actually he has faith in US intelligence resources to be more believable than Saddamite Hussinsein.
The only reason I can agree with this is because it's in contrast to Saddam.. In general, I trust some bum on the street more than the US Intelligence groups.. why? They report what's needed to satisfy agendas and are smart enough to make very good lies.. the bum can be seen through pretty easily.. After all, it's not like our government hasn't lied to us before.. and potentiall often..
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.
But did you read the article that has a statement from a CIA official that dismisses the claims? that says the connections are so loose as to not even be reasonable for circomstantial?
Actually he sees that Saddam started the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, and refused every chance to avoid this.
Actually, the Gulf war was started by the US, in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.. that is, Saddam invaded Kuwait and asked us to help.. so we engaged in the 'gulf war'.. it wasn't the "Gulf War" until we got into it, yet it was happening BEFORE we got into it.. so, if anything, Kuwait 'started' the war for us, by asking for our help.. not that I suspect you could suspend disbelief of what 'started' implies and look at it from a stricktly definitional aspect..
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.
Actually, it's more like saying a Ford Tempo is not a Mercury .. crap, forget the twin platform.. you get the idea.. mostly the same cars, different names with minor mods.. And, you are again falling unreasonably far from acceptable.. you stated the estimated distance traveled by the missle was 102 Km at MOST, the legal limite imposed on Iraq is 150 Km.. it was a LOT shorter than the legal limit, and as I have pointed out in the other threads and posts, going 7 Km over the 'rated limit of 95 Km for a Silkworm' is explainable by too many things to leave only the '150 Km range' missle as the alternative.. not to mention, you also showed a 140 Km ranged variant that would be PERFECTLY legal if it was that.. *shrug* you seem to keep supporting my points over and over but don't realize it.. amazing..
Actually I did engage in this to some degree to give Savant a taste of his own medicine.
This I take offense to. The name calling I engaged in was only after YOU entered the picture. Then it was to (accurately I might add) call you a moron, not play continous 'school yard' games in trying to have a debate.. Trying to drum up support by implying I like Saddam or think he's ok, or by trying to imply that I couldn't possibly support troops while still thinking Bush fukked up is NOT the kind of thing I have EVER done.. Yes, I've called you a moron, and I stand behind that, as evidenced by your complete lack of comprehension and problem solving skills.. but calling someone a name directly is totally different than using false logic and bogus associations to gain sympathy to your position by those incapable of following higher levels of conversation.. And, it is also the action of those that themselves know they can't keep up with the hightend level of debate. I ask for substantiation of your claims of proof and you say I have no right to 'impose rules'? WTF? perfect example..
Actually there was never compliance...merely a stall.
potato pota'to.. He was called out on the Al Samoud missles, he was destroying them.. how is that a stall? what was he stalling for? He certianly wasn't getting ahead with anything, he's still likely dead and his country still in ruins.. Do I believe he could have posed more of a threat if we waited 2 months pushing diplomatic issues? not even close.. all he could do was slide downhill, not be building up.. not with close scrutiny going on..
[Actually we who observe fact have never had any doubt. All evidence says yes. Saddam's WORTHLESS WORD was the only evidence against.
again, we ask for 'proof' to which there can be none other than our own personal satisfaction AFTER inspecting to our heart's content.. we didn't do that.. therefore, a conundrum is set up..
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.
Again, there are supposed doctored photos for the Nukelear plant, and the CIA has dismissed the Sept. 11th link.. If you count the Bush admin to include Bush I (and I think that's a reasonable thing given that they are family) then the first war was pushed down our throat with lies too.. doctored photo and a blantant lie about incubators in Iraqi Hospitals.. As far as Saddam being 'correct', he was destroying missles that the UN said were too longed ranged after testing to verify.. that act was Saddam being 'correct'.. so, in at least some tiny, perhaps trival manner, he has shown at least some 'correct'.. if you ask me (and yes, you did.. by posting to this forum)
No actually he has stated that DENYING proof supports Saddam. SUpport does not have ton be intentional to be effective.
and to that, we still have not seen acceptable 'proof', only statments of 'maybe' and 'could be' and such.. and conflicting reports about other things like the Sept. 11th connection.. show me something that is unrefutable and I won't deny it.. just like I did NOT deny Clinton purgering himself once you supplied proof (or something at least reasonable there to) that it happened.. what I will deny is anything that sounds fishy that there is nothing reasonable to substantiate it with..
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.
problem here is, that's how most un or underdeveloped countries change LIGITIMATE governments.. If the US felt he wan't the legal leader, then why did Rumsfeld shake his hand when he took office, with a smile no less? Why didn't we force him to step down during the first war (don't give me some crap about the UN either.. we accepted him as the rightful leader, shitty human being or not).. Just because we don't like him, just because he's vile, just because he offends our sense of what constitutes a human being does NOT mean he is not the legal and rightful leader of the country, has it been taken by violence or not.. if you recall, we took this country by force too.. does that mean that our President isn't our leader because we started our government with violent origins?
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.
You called for examples later in this post? here are 2.. You were NOT called racist, that was your own failing of perception.. You were not called **********, that was something YOU tossed in during your rant about racism.. BOTH made up by you, but now you are saying you were 'called' these things.. you were not.. yet, you have convinced yourself that you were.. which is the implication for this particular response.. no one is saying you are 'hypnotized', they are saying you are so willing to follow Bush based on his political background and your adoration of this war that you are refusing to stop and actually think about any of this, you seem to be taking Bush's word as gospel instead of scrutinizing all the data.. At least, that's what I got from it..
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.
Shall I get out the MANY times you implied I stated bottle rockets and sparklers were running rampant in Iraq? When in FACT, I never said anything remotely close to your implications? We even had a discussion about this.. you wanted to play a word game based on the present (or lack of) an 's'?? But in context, you had no reasonable reason to mention 'bottle rocket' or 'bottle rockets' again in context to me.. yet, you said MANY times that "I" implied bottle rockets were being fired on the troops, and the buring oil fields were just sparklers (that's really rich, since that is word that was NEVER mentioned by me until those rebuttles.. but is a PERFECT example of how you expanded one of your false contexts to try and even further your school-yard tactics.. namecalling, false associations, out of context statements, putting words in someone's mouth, all because you have no solid ground to stand on)..
