At least I'm providing the facts and logic to support my statements.:)
What do you have? An endless repetition of "no it doesn't".:)
What was his challenge? I believe I just filled in his "evidence" in the two previous posts. You know the ones? The ones about the sarin round being found?
"Go tell him that. Funny that he hasn't brought that up, niether have I. Seems like something a fanatic would latch on to, no? Ouch."
Hmmmm, maybe you missed the part where you quoted him in your previous post? Here, I'll help you out (you sound as if you need it).
"AnonV: "If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more.""
There, does that ring any bells?:D
Now, since a shell from that time just showed up, then, by definition, Saddam had not (quote)"destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's"(unquote).
Since that was the sole requirement he stated, and it can NEVER be fulfilled, he is, by definition, a fanatic.
Just like you.
Or is it news to you that a binary round was recently found in Iraq?:D
Like I said, he wasn't able to state what evidence he would accept that would convince him that Saddam was not producing and stockpiling NEW weapons.
Oh, wait, he did. Let me see what that was.
"If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more."
There, that's it.
Now, since an old round was recently found, that means that NOTHING will EVER convince him that Saddam was not making NEW weapons.
Have I lost you?
Because Saddam could not account for all of his OLD weapons (case in point, an old round was recently found) -then- He will NOT believe that Saddam was not producing NEW weapons.
Let me shorten that for you: If any OLD rounds turn up, that proves to him that NEW rounds were being manufactured.
An OLD round did turn up, that means that he believes NEW rounds were being manufactured.
Or, as I had stated, he will not accept any evidence that Saddam wasn't making new ones.
Since you cannot state what evidence that you would accept that Saddam was not manufacturing and stockpiling "WMD's", that, by definition, makes you a fanatic.
"If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more."
Yes, the "logic" of the fanatic. You'll find that a lot amongst the Islamic fundamentalists, also.
If someone committed a murder back in 1991.......that means that you will not accept any evidence that he did not kill someone in 2001.
When the "evidence" that you will accept is divorced from the action under discussion, that is more proof that you are a fanatic.
Let me save you some time in the future. Simply say that YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES.
No way. No how.
Evidence, it's not something YOU need.
Have a nice day, you right wing wacko fanatic, you.
One drop can kill, yes. But only if it enters through the eyes or bloodstream. To kill 3,000+ people with 1 gallon of Sarin, you'd have to inject each one or spray it in their eyes.
And Iraq did have binary shells. Here's a report from then that shows it.
And a shell that old would not be "worthless". That's the whole reason for making them "binary". Sarin is very fragile. But in a binary round, it can last many years.
It also references 155mm shells filled with mustard gas.
"But is America safer because of the Liberation of Iraq? Yes. Last year, America experienced the lowest number of terrorist attacks, home and abroad, in 20 years according to the State Department."
Actually, those numbers are rather slanted because they don't count "terrorist attacks" by "terrorists" in Iraq. Despite Bush and Co claiming that many of the attacks against US citizens in Iraq are conducted by "terrorists".
"If he had kept the weapons, it meant that he was intent on having them, and more worrying, having more."
No, you have not established that he was producing more. That is the question. What would it take to convince you that he wasn't producing more?
Again: "If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."
"I have already stated this, but I will state it again. I would back down if it is proven that Saddam destroyed everything he had in 91. Good luck proving that, though, as niether the UN nor the US could do that."
In case you hadn't noticed, this is NOT about the weapons Saddam had back in 1991.
This is about Bush's claims that Saddam had RE-STARTED his "WMD" programs and was CURRENTLY making and stockpiling "WMD's".
I'll ask the question AGAIN: "If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."
I figure that after THREE failures to answer this very simple question I can write you off as another right-wing wacko fanatic.
If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled.
That's all. That should be easy.
Here is MY list, again:
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if the UN inspectors had found some before the invasion.
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found them during the invasion. After all, wouldn't those be the first sites we secured?
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found the production facilities within a few weeks of the invasion. After all, Bush claimed to have exact information about them.
Until you can supply that information, I will remain convinced that you are a fanatic. And, like I said, nothing will every convince a fanatic that he is wrong.
I'm sure the God put those nasty "WMD's" there. Hee hee hee.
It's a rather old book. But it covers this situation extremely well.
He defines "blab words" which have no set definitions and are used to trigger emotional responses instead of intellectual ones.
Of course "left/right|liberal/conservative" are part of those. They are words that mean different things to different people. Just like "patriotism" and "good" and "evil".
The trick is to identify all the "blab words" in a political speech or whatever and then then re-read the speech with those words replaced by "blab". Most of the time you'll find that the speech is 100% content free.
The majority (90%+?) of "political discussion" in the US is "blab words". There is no "discussion". There are only emotionally charged diatribes.
So, I've shown that what you recall is not what actually happened. So you drop to the "it's not worth refuting".
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
"I'd settle for proof that they were disposed of. If you got it, I'm all ears."
So you admit that they weren't produced, but you want proof that the stuff that wasn't produced was disposed of.
Hahahahahahahhaha!
"I don't mind being called a fanatic, NG isn't though. You, however, are most definitely one."
Like I said before, a fanatic will NEVER accept ANY evidence that contradicts his beliefs (like you and NanoGator).
Whereas I would have accepted evidence on three different occasions (before, during and immediately after the invasion). But that evidence was NEVER PRODUCED.
So you think I'm a fanatic because: #1. No "WMD's" were found PRIOR to the invasion.
#2. No "WMD's" or production facilities were found DURING the invasion.
#3. No production facilities were found IMMEDIATELY AFTER the invasion.
Again, by you "logic", anyone who does not believe in the Tooth Fairy is a "fanatic". You have no evidence that they existed yet you demand proof that they were destroyed.
There is no proof that they were destroyed because they did not exist.
"You can prove it by at least trying to understand where my point of view comes from."
Your point of view is that of a fanatic. Before you start talking about proof they were destroyed, you have to show they existed.
"Surely, an objective educated person can be a little more intelligent than you're being right now."
I am the only one introducing any FACTS into this discussion. All you two are doing is claiming that those FACTS are not sufficiently established for you.
You should read some Creation Science sometime. That is EXACTLY the pattern those fanatics follow. That is EXACTLY the pattern EVERY fanatic follows.
Once again, Saddam INITIALLY let the inspectors go ANYWHERE except the presidential palaces. We have the technology to monitor those. Bush claimed EXACT knowledge of where the "WMD's" were manufactured and stored.
He couldn't prove that PRIOR to the invasion.
He couldn't prove that DURING the invasion.
He couldn't prove that AFTER the invasion.
Have fun my little fanatic.:) I'll leave you to your little Creation Science games now.
"Gee, I seem to recall that the inspectors had a very difficult time getting to those places. Iraq didn't exactly have the open door policy that it should have."
It seems you recall wrong. Initially, Saddam refused access to the various presidential palaces. Later, he allowed inspections anywhere. Given all of our technology, we could have monitored the palaces for any traffic in or out of.
"Lame rebuttal."
Do you label EVERYTHING you can't refute as "lame"? That is a very valid extension of your and NanoGator's "logic" in this matter.
"I agree with that."
So, since you agree that we have no evidence that he started making them again, why do you have a problem with the concept that they don't exist? They don't just spontaniously appear. They have to be manufactured.
"At the same time, as you yourself have pointed out, the anti Bush fanatics will not apologize for their accusations that he had lied."
Why should they? The evidence seems to indicate that he did. Either that or he's an idiot dupe. After all, he did say that he had exact knowledge of those "WMD's".
"That, in and of itself, does not mean he believes that the government is right or wrong."
Here is his ORIGINAL statement on that matter: "I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well.
Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
Again, if Bush did not lie, then he was a dupe for his staff (who did lie).
Now, if Bush's staff LIED, then why hasn't Bush cleaned out those liars?
Hmmmmmm.......?
"Demonstratably false != FALSE."
Yes it does.
"Before you nitpick my comment here, consider your own agruments Mr. Tooth Fairy exists because we cannot prove he/she doesn't."
That isn't my argument. That is the extension of your and NanoGator's position.
"Another lame rebuttal." Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it.
"Yet another lame rebuttal." Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it.
"Yet another lame rebuttal." Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it.
"Again with the reoccuring themes here. He started with a brief metaphor to explain the silliness of the anti Bush zealots out there, and now it's being spun as a doesn't understand the difference between fiction and reality."
So, he is attempting to draw an analogy about something that didn't happen to someone that didn't exist that was meant as entertainment?
"It is truely amazing how some people get by in this world by drawing such harsh conclusions without facts to back them up. I imagine you would have been a riot a few hundred years ago. The sun revolves around the Earth!! Burn anybody who disagrees!!"
A fanatic is someone who will NOT be swayed no matter what is presented.
Non-fanatics can be swayed.
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if the UN inspectors had found some before the invasion.
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found them during the invasion. After all, wouldn't those be the first sites we secured?
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found the production facilities within a few weeks of the invasion. After all, Bush claimed to have exact information about them.
It's been months and months and months now. The FIRST US appointed inspector have given up saying he didn't think any would ever be found. The SECOND US appointed inspector still hasn't found anything.
Now, what will have to be shown to YOU and NanoGator before you accept that the "WMD's" do not and did not exist?
Which is why both of you are fanatics and I am not.
"Iraq had plenty of advance notice we were coming. Argument rejected."
Incorrect. Bush and Co could have told the UN inspectors WHO WERE IN COUNTRY about those sites. But they did not.
"You are not operating on facts either. It is not a fact that the WMDs are or are not in Iraq."
By that same "logic", it is not a fact that the tooth fairy does not exist.
We have no evidence that Saddam had started making them again.
We have no production facilities.
We have no "WMD's".
But that will never be enough for any of the "pro-Bush" fanatics.
"I've talked with him about this before. He's saying he can't come to judgement yet, not that he has sided with the government."
But he has sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. That is in his previous post.
"He has a point, if the US tells us how they got information on things such as WMD, then the rest of the world knows how to prevent us from finding out about future BS such as this."
So, the US has to protect the methods by which they get demonstratably FALSE information so other people won't be able to prevent the US government from obtaining demonstratably FALSE information?
Riiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttt........
"This is one of the dumbest responses I have ever read. The amusing thing is that mathematicians have proven that 1 + 1 = other numbers before."
Which proves I know more than you do.
"Ummm, his point was that if it were about revenge, Saddam would not be alive in US custody. Argument rejected."
Revenge == Death? Only in your simplistic world view.
"I think you do too."
So you admit that the US is trying to capitalize on Iraq's oil? That's a start.
"Also, he was accusing the anti Bush people of making things out to be too much like Star Trek."
Excuse me, but HE was the one that started with the Star Trek analogy. And once someone starts with those, there's really no point in discussing the subject any more. That person has already proven himself to be unable to differentiate between a TV show written by fiction writers and reality.
"Sorry to be all technical here, but it cannot be proven that he didn't have them, only that we didn't find them."
Nice try. Bush and Co claimed that they had exact knowledge of what was where and why it was a threat to the US.
We invade. We don't find the what at the where. We don't find the what anywhere.
Conclusion: Bush and Co did NOT have exact knowledge.
"This is bullshit. Though I am pretty much convinced that they weren't armed in such a way that we were in danger, I do feel pretty strongly that they would have been safe haven for Al Qeada (sp?) or similar groups."
Yes, the nefarious "similar groups".
By "similar groups" do you mean "groups that have attacked US citizens in the US"? If so, then you are WRONG!
The closest thing anyone has ever been able to tie Iraq with is Saddam's attempt to have Bush Sr. assassinated. That's all.
Iraq was NOT a threat.
"I also feel that Saddam would, if so inclined, pay them to do 9-11 part 2. (Note: I did NOT say they had anything to do with 9-11.) For that reason, I'm pretty comfortable with Saddam being out of the picture. If it does turn out that the US didn't have strong enough WMD reason to go in, that does miff me. (In case it's difficult to tell, I'm not pro-Bush here, I'm sitting on the fence not really sure which side to lean on.)"
Well, I'm sure you believe it is good to be so in touch with your feelings. Don't let those pesky facts get in the way.
Yes, you are "pro-Bush". That is the EXACT same "logic" that he followed. All belief and no facts.
"I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well."
Again, I cannot convince anyone as "pro-Bush" as you are that he lied. He went on national TV and talked about the "yellow cake" incident AFTER it was discredited.
Ah, but that wasn't HIM telling a lie. It was his STAFF that gave him incorrect information.
Your defense of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is that he didn't lie, he's a dupe.
"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
That is a side. You've sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. Even when their public claims have been proven to be FALSE.
So, if I say 1+1=5, then you'd believe me because I know things you don't know.
"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
"evil"? There is no "evil". There are just different agendas and values. As I've pointed out, Bush lied when he said he had exact information about "WMD's". Now, if there had been "WMD's" in Iraq, then Bush's lie would never have been exposed.
"Both Saddam and Bush Sr are still alive right now, so vengence doesn't seem like a likely motive."
Ummm, Saddam is in US custody. Bush Sr is not.
"US soldiers are not building a pipeline funneling oil into Bush's house to sell, so I'm not convinced it's about oil."
Then you need to look at how the US government is handling Iraq's oil wells.
"I doubt a politician would bet his re-election on an invasion of a country that isn't directly threatening us."
Why not? He gets to take out a "bad man" (his words) and show the world how tough the US is AND the US gets a US friendly government with lots of cheap oil. That sounds like an assured re-election to me.
"Everybody thinks Bush is an idiot, you'd think they'd rule out the whole "big Romulan'esque plot" theories, yet they don't. Etc."
Okaaaaaaaaay. Well, it's been nice chatting with you. I'll let you get back to Dr. Spock and Kirk now. Don't hurt yourself.
#2. Bush believed this even when evidence contradicting it was shown (the UN inspectors, in Iraq, at those sites).
#3. Bush then LIED about "information" he had that "proved" Saddam had "WMD's".
I believe that Bush lied because he did believe that "WMD's" would be found. When they were found, then his lies would have been "truth".
The problem is, he was wrong. Saddam was not making "WMD's". Saddam had not been making them since the first Gulf War.
Iraq was not a threat to the US.
Bush lied to justify an optional war against a country that was no threat to the US. He might have believed that Saddam had "WMD's", but he lied about the "proof" he had.
US forces will NOT be bound by the Iraqi legal process. The US forces will NOT be required to get a search warrant before searching anyone or busting into any building/home.
Iraqi nationals "captured" by US forces will NOT be allowed one phone call to their attourney.
If an Iraqi national is killed by US forces, there will NOT be an investigation (unless pictures get leaked to the US media).
So, the US forces can go anywhere, anytime to arrest or kill anyone without any Iraqi court oversight.
And people wonder why the Iraqi people think we're occupying their country instead of "liberating" it.
First off, "WMD's" do not grow themselves. Someone has to make them.
That means there has to be someplace where they are made. This recalls the "mobile factories" that Powell was claiming before the UN. Which are now discredited.:)
You see, moving the production facilities is a LOT MORE COMPLICATED than moving the finished product. Since Bush and Co claimed they had EXACT KNOWLEDGE of these activities, it should have been very simple for them to locate and control those production facilities during the first week of the war.
They did not.
They still have not been able to turn up a single production facility.
So, when the cache of "WMD's" is found, it will be difficult to "prove" they were made by Saddam.
Which brings up the point that the "WMD's" have STILL NOT BEEN FOUND. Again, Bush and Co claimed to have EXACT KNOWLEDGE of these. Again, they should have been able to take those caches within the first week of the war. They didn't.
Then Bush and Co resorted to all kinds of weird stories for WHY they hadn't been able to turn up anything.
The simple facts are: #1. Bush and Co picked the "information" they wanted to believe.
#2. Bush and Co NEVER verified that "information".
#3. Bush and Co lied about this "information" to the US public and the UN.
#4. Bush and Co then rushed into an optional war without anything more than a fantasy about dealing with Iraq AFTER the invasion.
What "conundrum" is that?
Bush and Co need to find a "WMD" production facility (less than 10 years old) AND a cache of "WMD's" (less than 5 years old) to "prove" their "information" was "correct".
That is what Bush and Co claimed to have knowledge of. That is what Bush and Co have to find.
They can't be killed by poison gas. They can't even be hit by robots shooting at them. They won't be stopped by huge steel doors. They can even control minds.
With that much going for each individual Jedi, how is it possible to destroy almost every last one of them?
That could be a great story. That could be a trilogy by itself.
Instead, that will be a tiny part of a single movie that will be focused on stupid tricks like lava surfing.
You see, Annie has just built this really cool ship and lists it on eBay in an attempt to get some cash to buy a wedding ring.
Frank Solo is the top bidder. Frank meets Annie to pick up the ship and Annie says that he hasn't named it yet. Right then, a falcon flies over head.
Frank then takes off on a trip to the planet WookieMonster where Frank earns his citizenship by marriage to Princess Baka who later delivers him twin boys.
"It doesn't matter if it's a distro from "Joe's Baitshop and Linux Consulting" or Redhat. If something is sold with the expectation that it will work and it doesn't, it's not the buyer's fault."
And if it does NOT work, then he can complain about THAT SPECIFIC DISTRIBUTION.
But the did not limit himself to that. He said he had found "Linux's Achilles Heel".
So he moved from complaining about a specific distribution to complaining about Linux. That's the problem.
I can say that SuSE does not support my sound card even though my sound card is listed as being supported and that SuSE wasn't able to get it working but it worked with Windows.
That's legitimate.
But I can't say that Linux sucks because Linux doesn't even support the sound cards that it says it supports.
Slashdot Mirror
is
:)
:)
is not
is
is not
is
is not
At least I'm providing the facts and logic to support my statements.
What do you have? An endless repetition of "no it doesn't".
What was his challenge? I believe I just filled in his "evidence" in the two previous posts. You know the ones? The ones about the sarin round being found?
hahahahahahhahaha!
You said: "Go tell him that. Funny that he hasn't brought that up, niether have I. Seems like something a fanatic would latch on to, no? Ouch."
o ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=216&mode=thread&pid=9227828 #9227979
:D
So I filled in the facts that you seem to be unaware.
Since the facts will not change, his position is that he will never accept that Saddam was not producing new "WMD's".
Which is what I stated many, many posts ago.
Here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108503&thresh
Again, the only way he would accept that Saddam was not producing NEW "WMD's" would be Saddam had accounted for all of his old "WMD's".
Since that has recently been established to be FALSE, then he will NEVER accept that Saddam was not producing NEW "WMD's".
The facts just keep getting in the way of you fanatics.
Now, suppose that Saddam actually was NOT producing new "WMD's".
Then Anonvmous Coward would never accept the FACTS. In some circles, this is refered to as "delusional". It is an attribute of many fanatics.
Haahahahahahahahahaha.
But why would I be arguing logic with a fanatic? You'll never accept the logic OR the facts. That is the definition of the fanatic.
"Go tell him that. Funny that he hasn't brought that up, niether have I. Seems like something a fanatic would latch on to, no? Ouch."
:D
:D
Hmmmm, maybe you missed the part where you quoted him in your previous post? Here, I'll help you out (you sound as if you need it).
"AnonV: "If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more.""
There, does that ring any bells?
Now, since a shell from that time just showed up, then, by definition, Saddam had not (quote)"destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's"(unquote).
Since that was the sole requirement he stated, and it can NEVER be fulfilled, he is, by definition, a fanatic.
Just like you.
Or is it news to you that a binary round was recently found in Iraq?
Like I said, he wasn't able to state what evidence he would accept that would convince him that Saddam was not producing and stockpiling NEW weapons.
Oh, wait, he did. Let me see what that was.
"If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more."
There, that's it.
Now, since an old round was recently found, that means that NOTHING will EVER convince him that Saddam was not making NEW weapons.
Have I lost you?
Because Saddam could not account for all of his OLD weapons (case in point, an old round was recently found)
-then-
He will NOT believe that Saddam was not producing NEW weapons.
Let me shorten that for you:
If any OLD rounds turn up, that proves to him that NEW rounds were being manufactured.
An OLD round did turn up, that means that he believes NEW rounds were being manufactured.
Or, as I had stated, he will not accept any evidence that Saddam wasn't making new ones.
By definition, a fanatic.
Just like you.
No wonder you two get along so well.
Since you cannot state what evidence that you would accept that Saddam was not manufacturing and stockpiling "WMD's", that, by definition, makes you a fanatic.
...that means that you will not accept any evidence that he did not kill someone in 2001.
"If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more."
Yes, the "logic" of the fanatic. You'll find that a lot amongst the Islamic fundamentalists, also.
If someone committed a murder back in 1991....
When the "evidence" that you will accept is divorced from the action under discussion, that is more proof that you are a fanatic.
Let me save you some time in the future. Simply say that YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES.
No way.
No how.
Evidence, it's not something YOU need.
Have a nice day, you right wing wacko fanatic, you.
One drop can kill, yes. But only if it enters through the eyes or bloodstream. To kill 3,000+ people with 1 gallon of Sarin, you'd have to inject each one or spray it in their eyes.
s iy ah_ii_refs/n15en156/970409_cia_72668_72668_13.html
And Iraq did have binary shells. Here's a report from then that shows it.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/khamisiyah_ii/khami
And a shell that old would not be "worthless". That's the whole reason for making them "binary". Sarin is very fragile. But in a binary round, it can last many years.
Here's a .mil url to that info.
s iy ah_ii_refs/n15en156/970409_cia_72668_72668_13.html
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/khamisiyah_ii/khami
It also references 155mm shells filled with mustard gas.
"But is America safer because of the Liberation of Iraq? Yes. Last year, America experienced the lowest number of terrorist attacks, home and abroad, in 20 years according to the State Department."
Actually, those numbers are rather slanted because they don't count "terrorist attacks" by "terrorists" in Iraq. Despite Bush and Co claiming that many of the attacks against US citizens in Iraq are conducted by "terrorists".
Yes, a gallon of Sarin COULD kill over 3,000 people, but you would have to carefully administer it to each and every person.
That's like saying a hunting knife is enough to kill more people than died on 9/11. Technically correct, but the reality is very different.
From everything I've read, this appears to be an old shell from Gulf War I. This does not support Bush's claim that Saddam was making new weapons.
"If he had kept the weapons, it meant that he was intent on having them, and more worrying, having more."
No, you have not established that he was producing more. That is the question. What would it take to convince you that he wasn't producing more?
Again:
"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."
"I have already stated this, but I will state it again. I would back down if it is proven that Saddam destroyed everything he had in 91. Good luck proving that, though, as niether the UN nor the US could do that."
In case you hadn't noticed, this is NOT about the weapons Saddam had back in 1991.
This is about Bush's claims that Saddam had RE-STARTED his "WMD" programs and was CURRENTLY making and stockpiling "WMD's".
I'll ask the question AGAIN:
"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."
I figure that after THREE failures to answer this very simple question I can write you off as another right-wing wacko fanatic.
You have TWO chances remaining.
If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled.
That's all. That should be easy.
Here is MY list, again:
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if the UN inspectors had found some before the invasion.
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found them during the invasion. After all, wouldn't those be the first sites we secured?
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found the production facilities within a few weeks of the invasion. After all, Bush claimed to have exact information about them.
Until you can supply that information, I will remain convinced that you are a fanatic. And, like I said, nothing will every convince a fanatic that he is wrong.
I'm sure the God put those nasty "WMD's" there. Hee hee hee.
By Stuart Chase.
It's a rather old book. But it covers this situation extremely well.
He defines "blab words" which have no set definitions and are used to trigger emotional responses instead of intellectual ones.
Of course "left/right|liberal/conservative" are part of those. They are words that mean different things to different people. Just like "patriotism" and "good" and "evil".
The trick is to identify all the "blab words" in a political speech or whatever and then then re-read the speech with those words replaced by "blab". Most of the time you'll find that the speech is 100% content free.
The majority (90%+?) of "political discussion" in the US is "blab words". There is no "discussion". There are only emotionally charged diatribes.
So, I've shown that what you recall is not what actually happened. So you drop to the "it's not worth refuting".
:)
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
"I'd settle for proof that they were disposed of. If you got it, I'm all ears."
So you admit that they weren't produced, but you want proof that the stuff that wasn't produced was disposed of.
Hahahahahahahhaha!
"I don't mind being called a fanatic, NG isn't though. You, however, are most definitely one."
Like I said before, a fanatic will NEVER accept ANY evidence that contradicts his beliefs (like you and NanoGator).
Whereas I would have accepted evidence on three different occasions (before, during and immediately after the invasion). But that evidence was NEVER PRODUCED.
So you think I'm a fanatic because:
#1. No "WMD's" were found PRIOR to the invasion.
#2. No "WMD's" or production facilities were found DURING the invasion.
#3. No production facilities were found IMMEDIATELY AFTER the invasion.
Again, by you "logic", anyone who does not believe in the Tooth Fairy is a "fanatic". You have no evidence that they existed yet you demand proof that they were destroyed.
There is no proof that they were destroyed because they did not exist.
"You can prove it by at least trying to understand where my point of view comes from."
Your point of view is that of a fanatic. Before you start talking about proof they were destroyed, you have to show they existed.
"Surely, an objective educated person can be a little more intelligent than you're being right now."
I am the only one introducing any FACTS into this discussion. All you two are doing is claiming that those FACTS are not sufficiently established for you.
You should read some Creation Science sometime. That is EXACTLY the pattern those fanatics follow. That is EXACTLY the pattern EVERY fanatic follows.
Once again, Saddam INITIALLY let the inspectors go ANYWHERE except the presidential palaces. We have the technology to monitor those. Bush claimed EXACT knowledge of where the "WMD's" were manufactured and stored.
He couldn't prove that PRIOR to the invasion.
He couldn't prove that DURING the invasion.
He couldn't prove that AFTER the invasion.
Have fun my little fanatic.
I'll leave you to your little Creation Science games now.
"Gee, I seem to recall that the inspectors had a very difficult time getting to those places. Iraq didn't exactly have the open door policy that it should have."
It seems you recall wrong. Initially, Saddam refused access to the various presidential palaces. Later, he allowed inspections anywhere. Given all of our technology, we could have monitored the palaces for any traffic in or out of.
"Lame rebuttal."
Do you label EVERYTHING you can't refute as "lame"? That is a very valid extension of your and NanoGator's "logic" in this matter.
"I agree with that."
So, since you agree that we have no evidence that he started making them again, why do you have a problem with the concept that they don't exist? They don't just spontaniously appear. They have to be manufactured.
"At the same time, as you yourself have pointed out, the anti Bush fanatics will not apologize for their accusations that he had lied."
Why should they? The evidence seems to indicate that he did. Either that or he's an idiot dupe. After all, he did say that he had exact knowledge of those "WMD's".
"That, in and of itself, does not mean he believes that the government is right or wrong."
Here is his ORIGINAL statement on that matter:
"I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well.
Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
Again, if Bush did not lie, then he was a dupe for his staff (who did lie).
Now, if Bush's staff LIED, then why hasn't Bush cleaned out those liars?
Hmmmmmm.......?
"Demonstratably false != FALSE."
Yes it does.
"Before you nitpick my comment here, consider your own agruments Mr. Tooth Fairy exists because we cannot prove he/she doesn't."
That isn't my argument. That is the extension of your and NanoGator's position.
"Another lame rebuttal."
Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it.
"Yet another lame rebuttal."
Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it.
"Yet another lame rebuttal."
Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it.
"Again with the reoccuring themes here. He started with a brief metaphor to explain the silliness of the anti Bush zealots out there, and now it's being spun as a doesn't understand the difference between fiction and reality."
So, he is attempting to draw an analogy about something that didn't happen to someone that didn't exist that was meant as entertainment?
"It is truely amazing how some people get by in this world by drawing such harsh conclusions without facts to back them up. I imagine you would have been a riot a few hundred years ago. The sun revolves around the Earth!! Burn anybody who disagrees!!"
A fanatic is someone who will NOT be swayed no matter what is presented.
Non-fanatics can be swayed.
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if the UN inspectors had found some before the invasion.
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found them during the invasion. After all, wouldn't those be the first sites we secured?
I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found the production facilities within a few weeks of the invasion. After all, Bush claimed to have exact information about them.
It's been months and months and months now. The FIRST US appointed inspector have given up saying he didn't think any would ever be found. The SECOND US appointed inspector still hasn't found anything.
Now, what will have to be shown to YOU and NanoGator before you accept that the "WMD's" do not and did not exist?
Which is why both of you are fanatics and I am not.
"Iraq had plenty of advance notice we were coming. Argument rejected."
Incorrect. Bush and Co could have told the UN inspectors WHO WERE IN COUNTRY about those sites. But they did not.
"You are not operating on facts either. It is not a fact that the WMDs are or are not in Iraq."
By that same "logic", it is not a fact that the tooth fairy does not exist.
We have no evidence that Saddam had started making them again.
We have no production facilities.
We have no "WMD's".
But that will never be enough for any of the "pro-Bush" fanatics.
"I've talked with him about this before. He's saying he can't come to judgement yet, not that he has sided with the government."
But he has sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. That is in his previous post.
"He has a point, if the US tells us how they got information on things such as WMD, then the rest of the world knows how to prevent us from finding out about future BS such as this."
So, the US has to protect the methods by which they get demonstratably FALSE information so other people won't be able to prevent the US government from obtaining demonstratably FALSE information?
Riiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttt........
"This is one of the dumbest responses I have ever read. The amusing thing is that mathematicians have proven that 1 + 1 = other numbers before."
Which proves I know more than you do.
"Ummm, his point was that if it were about revenge, Saddam would not be alive in US custody. Argument rejected."
Revenge == Death?
Only in your simplistic world view.
"I think you do too."
So you admit that the US is trying to capitalize on Iraq's oil? That's a start.
"Also, he was accusing the anti Bush people of making things out to be too much like Star Trek."
Excuse me, but HE was the one that started with the Star Trek analogy. And once someone starts with those, there's really no point in discussing the subject any more. That person has already proven himself to be unable to differentiate between a TV show written by fiction writers and reality.
"Sorry to be all technical here, but it cannot be proven that he didn't have them, only that we didn't find them."
Nice try. Bush and Co claimed that they had exact knowledge of what was where and why it was a threat to the US.
We invade. We don't find the what at the where. We don't find the what anywhere.
Conclusion: Bush and Co did NOT have exact knowledge.
"This is bullshit. Though I am pretty much convinced that they weren't armed in such a way that we were in danger, I do feel pretty strongly that they would have been safe haven for Al Qeada (sp?) or similar groups."
Yes, the nefarious "similar groups".
By "similar groups" do you mean "groups that have attacked US citizens in the US"? If so, then you are WRONG!
The closest thing anyone has ever been able to tie Iraq with is Saddam's attempt to have Bush Sr. assassinated. That's all.
Iraq was NOT a threat.
"I also feel that Saddam would, if so inclined, pay them to do 9-11 part 2. (Note: I did NOT say they had anything to do with 9-11.) For that reason, I'm pretty comfortable with Saddam being out of the picture. If it does turn out that the US didn't have strong enough WMD reason to go in, that does miff me. (In case it's difficult to tell, I'm not pro-Bush here, I'm sitting on the fence not really sure which side to lean on.)"
Well, I'm sure you believe it is good to be so in touch with your feelings. Don't let those pesky facts get in the way.
Yes, you are "pro-Bush". That is the EXACT same "logic" that he followed. All belief and no facts.
"I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well."
Again, I cannot convince anyone as "pro-Bush" as you are that he lied. He went on national TV and talked about the "yellow cake" incident AFTER it was discredited.
Ah, but that wasn't HIM telling a lie. It was his STAFF that gave him incorrect information.
Your defense of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is that he didn't lie, he's a dupe.
"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
That is a side. You've sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. Even when their public claims have been proven to be FALSE.
So, if I say 1+1=5, then you'd believe me because I know things you don't know.
"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
"evil"? There is no "evil". There are just different agendas and values. As I've pointed out, Bush lied when he said he had exact information about "WMD's". Now, if there had been "WMD's" in Iraq, then Bush's lie would never have been exposed.
"Both Saddam and Bush Sr are still alive right now, so vengence doesn't seem like a likely motive."
Ummm, Saddam is in US custody. Bush Sr is not.
"US soldiers are not building a pipeline funneling oil into Bush's house to sell, so I'm not convinced it's about oil."
Then you need to look at how the US government is handling Iraq's oil wells.
"I doubt a politician would bet his re-election on an invasion of a country that isn't directly threatening us."
Why not? He gets to take out a "bad man" (his words) and show the world how tough the US is AND the US gets a US friendly government with lots of cheap oil. That sounds like an assured re-election to me.
"Everybody thinks Bush is an idiot, you'd think they'd rule out the whole "big Romulan'esque plot" theories, yet they don't. Etc."
Okaaaaaaaaay. Well, it's been nice chatting with you. I'll let you get back to Dr. Spock and Kirk now. Don't hurt yourself.
#1. Bush believed that Saddam had "WMD's".
#2. Bush believed this even when evidence contradicting it was shown (the UN inspectors, in Iraq, at those sites).
#3. Bush then LIED about "information" he had that "proved" Saddam had "WMD's".
I believe that Bush lied because he did believe that "WMD's" would be found. When they were found, then his lies would have been "truth".
The problem is, he was wrong. Saddam was not making "WMD's". Saddam had not been making them since the first Gulf War.
Iraq was not a threat to the US.
Bush lied to justify an optional war against a country that was no threat to the US. He might have believed that Saddam had "WMD's", but he lied about the "proof" he had.
If I may add to your post.
US forces will NOT be bound by the Iraqi legal process. The US forces will NOT be required to get a search warrant before searching anyone or busting into any building/home.
Iraqi nationals "captured" by US forces will NOT be allowed one phone call to their attourney.
If an Iraqi national is killed by US forces, there will NOT be an investigation (unless pictures get leaked to the US media).
So, the US forces can go anywhere, anytime to arrest or kill anyone without any Iraqi court oversight.
And people wonder why the Iraqi people think we're occupying their country instead of "liberating" it.
In the article, it states that the robot has no "up" side. In those pictures, it does.
They both wear the same clothes.
They both speak the same language.
Look at the Palestinians. Women and children become suicide bombers.
The ONLY way to tell an insurgent from a civilian is whether s/he is attacking you or not. This robot will not do anything in that case.
First off, "WMD's" do not grow themselves. Someone has to make them.
:)
That means there has to be someplace where they are made. This recalls the "mobile factories" that Powell was claiming before the UN. Which are now discredited.
You see, moving the production facilities is a LOT MORE COMPLICATED than moving the finished product. Since Bush and Co claimed they had EXACT KNOWLEDGE of these activities, it should have been very simple for them to locate and control those production facilities during the first week of the war.
They did not.
They still have not been able to turn up a single production facility.
So, when the cache of "WMD's" is found, it will be difficult to "prove" they were made by Saddam.
Which brings up the point that the "WMD's" have STILL NOT BEEN FOUND. Again, Bush and Co claimed to have EXACT KNOWLEDGE of these. Again, they should have been able to take those caches within the first week of the war. They didn't.
Then Bush and Co resorted to all kinds of weird stories for WHY they hadn't been able to turn up anything.
The simple facts are:
#1. Bush and Co picked the "information" they wanted to believe.
#2. Bush and Co NEVER verified that "information".
#3. Bush and Co lied about this "information" to the US public and the UN.
#4. Bush and Co then rushed into an optional war without anything more than a fantasy about dealing with Iraq AFTER the invasion.
What "conundrum" is that?
Bush and Co need to find a "WMD" production facility (less than 10 years old) AND a cache of "WMD's" (less than 5 years old) to "prove" their "information" was "correct".
That is what Bush and Co claimed to have knowledge of. That is what Bush and Co have to find.
Look at episode 1.
They can't be killed by poison gas.
They can't even be hit by robots shooting at them.
They won't be stopped by huge steel doors.
They can even control minds.
With that much going for each individual Jedi, how is it possible to destroy almost every last one of them?
That could be a great story. That could be a trilogy by itself.
Instead, that will be a tiny part of a single movie that will be focused on stupid tricks like lava surfing.
He is a goof.
So WHY is this goof allowed to have any say in ANYTHING?
Simply put: It's "movie logic". He's the comic relief. The comic relief exists SOLELY for reasons like that.
And that is why those movies sucked. Too many movie devices and not enough creativity.
But FRANK Solo shows up.
You see, Annie has just built this really cool ship and lists it on eBay in an attempt to get some cash to buy a wedding ring.
Frank Solo is the top bidder. Frank meets Annie to pick up the ship and Annie says that he hasn't named it yet. Right then, a falcon flies over head.
Frank then takes off on a trip to the planet WookieMonster where Frank earns his citizenship by marriage to Princess Baka who later delivers him twin boys.
"It doesn't matter if it's a distro from "Joe's Baitshop and Linux Consulting" or Redhat. If something is sold with the expectation that it will work and it doesn't, it's not the buyer's fault."
And if it does NOT work, then he can complain about THAT SPECIFIC DISTRIBUTION.
But the did not limit himself to that. He said he had found "Linux's Achilles Heel".
So he moved from complaining about a specific distribution to complaining about Linux. That's the problem.
I can say that SuSE does not support my sound card even though my sound card is listed as being supported and that SuSE wasn't able to get it working but it worked with Windows.
That's legitimate.
But I can't say that Linux sucks because Linux doesn't even support the sound cards that it says it supports.
That is what Fred is doing.