|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Given that 2 of the 3 ( France, Germany and Russia) on the UN Security Council appeared to be more concerned about protecting their financial interests in Iraq (some of which are turing out to be of an illicit nature) instead of living up to UN Resolution 1441 (which they agreed to enforce but welched on), they can politely sod off.
I found it sickening that when those three found out they would be barred from bidding on the initial reconstruction contracts after the invasion, they threw a screaming FIT to the UN.
The phrase "gutless, spineless parasites" come to mind, but in the spirit of detente, I'll keep my thoughts (especially towards the joke that passes itself off as the French political system) to myself...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Tell me where I said Saddam didn't have these weapons?
Come on. You've exhibited poor reading comprehension in the past, but damn man, I only wrote 3 sentences. Certainly that's not hard to follow.
Hey sigma, follow this logic... You are an A$shole. There, was that even simple enough for you?
Originally posted by sigma:
Hatred of Bush?
Get off your high horse. I voted for him as Governor, as President, and right now am 50/50 on November.
Get off yours! I included not only you but "there will be some people in this country..." Now even you can see that I was NOT only referring to you when I said that...
Originally posted by sigma:
I was simply presenting what some people thought. It's called learning. I can sit here and effectively argue circles around you all day from any side of any point of any topic. Did I ever say that was my opinion?
Now where in the definition of learning does spitting out other peoples opinions come into play???
Gee, sigma, how can you possibly fit that large head of yours through a normal doorway???
You mearly think that you can argue circles around me, because you think that you know everything about everything! You are a pompous son of a b|tch if I have ever seen one...
Originally posted by simga:
Proof?
Show me where Sarin is considered a WMD?
A chemical weapon, yes. But is it a Weapon of Mass Destruction? I was under the belief that it was not considered to be a WMD because of the concentrations needed to kill.
Now that you've proved it to be a WMD, now you need to prove it was Saddam's WMD...
Show me how old this bomb was. Was it a new bomb? Or was it a remnant from the Iraq/Iran Wars?
If it was a new bomb, was it at least 2 years old, placing it made under Saddam's rule?
If it was at least 2 years old, who made it? Was it made under a government-sanctioned program, or just some guy in the back of his tent working for Al Qaeda or any other group?
LOLOL. Your word twisting never ceases to amaze me sigma! I guess you do have one up on me, word twisting. Okay, here we go...
1)JATO has provided that proof for me...
2)Prove it was Saddam's. Well, I can't do that until we dust for fingerprints and find that Saddam's prints are on every shell casing, test tube, involved...
As for the rest of the things you want me to prove, I can't do that for you. And also as far as your other questions it shows very clearly how you are stretching to find a way to disprove the WMD thing. Your pulling a Clinton, what is the meaning of 'is' with your 'logic'
My logic works like this:
-We know that Saddam was using chemical or biological agents to kill 300,000+ people
-CIA and Brittish agencies have confirmed this
-Saddam has repeatedly disobeyed UN orders to allow inspectors unrestricted access to sites suspected of holding or creating WMD's
-We now have found 2 shells with toxic agents in them
Originally posted by sigma:
It's calling thinking. Using your head and logic rather than 100% reactionary thinking. I tend to think things through before making blind reactions based on what I want to be true.
Again, your head is too large for your body, I think you might tip over if your not careful... As much as you like to think I am stupid, I do think about things before I come to a decision. When I state my opinions they are just that, opinions, which you are more than welcome to disagree with. But when eveidence such as what has been found today, and what has been shown since we first went into Iraq, is provided, you still want to try to make me look stupid by asking assinine questions like how do I know that it was Saddams? All that does is show that you (and I am assuming that you didn't believe the weapons wer real) don't have a leg to stand on anymore. -Nick
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by SpliceVW:
They were supposed to prove they didn't have them anymore, not the other way around. That was one of the original conditions for us leaving Saddam in power after the first gulf war. We had every right to go in.
And the rest of the world probably would have agreed with us if we had furnished more substantial evidence.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by SpliceVW:
They were supposed to prove they didn't have them anymore, not the other way around. That was one of the original conditions for us leaving Saddam in power after the first gulf war. We had every right to go in.
And the rest of the world probably would have agreed with us if we had furnished more substantial evidence.
But we didn't need to.
My only thing is that I don't think we presented our case the right way. I 100% think we should have gone into Iraq, I think we should have done that a LONG time ago.. I just think we tried too much to please hippies when we presented the case, and we shoulda just said "look, we're tired of the BS, bye Saddam". Wouldn't have had all the backlash we're having now from the hippies. They won't be happy regardless, why bother trying...
The Spickle
New Car: Infra Red '04 FSVT
Former Car: Black '98 CSVT, #3137/6535 "The Unluckiest car.. ever"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 397
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 397 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Given that 2 of the 3 ( France, Germany and Russia) on the UN Security Council appeared to be more concerned about protecting their financial interests in Iraq (some of which are turing out to be of an illicit nature) instead of living up to UN Resolution 1441 (which they agreed to enforce but welched on), they can politely sod off.
I found it sickening that when those three found out they would be barred from bidding on the initial reconstruction contracts after the invasion, they threw a screaming FIT to the UN.
The phrase "gutless, spineless parasites" come to mind, but in the spirit of detente, I'll keep my thoughts (especially towards the joke that passes itself off as the French political system) to myself...
Unfortuneatly, none of the above is listed in the by-laws or fine print of the UN Governing Laws as to when and why a country who dissents from a UN ruling can go out and do their own thing. Don't you ever think there has been times when the US has been heavy handed in their tactics on UN rulings, protected our financial or security interests, and we've expected everyone to abide by those very UN rulings?
See..you want it both ways. You want to "cry foul" that the Iraqi's didn't live up to the UN resolution, but then you want to dismiss that very governing body when "things didn't go our way." Sorry..you can't have it both ways. You either play by the rules, or you are a rule breaker, OR you don't play by the rules. Take your pick...
T-red E0 SVT
ATS 17x7.5 Comp Lites, 215/45/17 Falken 512s, Ausi Bar, Boxed subframe, Poli all around, Warmonger's Opt Y, Opt TB, AFE, DMD, NGK's, Bendix Ti, Alpine, Polk, Mobil-1 0W-40, Redline MTL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,960
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,960 |
The find is interesting.
A few questions / points.
- Why aren't we leaning on Syria a lot more if we suspect that is where the majority of WMD's went ? I admit that is a very plausible explanation for the non-findings in Iraq.
- The Iraqi army wasn't the most disciplined army in the world. Even very well disciplined armies 'lose' things or have things stolen from barracks. Theft or poor logistical management could explain this find.
- The linked article mentioned that the shell dates to the first Persian war. Could it be even fired from an artillery piece ?
If you folks have gotten this excited at the finding of one shell, I can't wait to see what you will say if / when we find a big pile !!
Bless our servicemen & women overseas.
L.Cpl Ian Malone, 1st Battalion Irish Guards, R.I.P.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by SpliceVW:
But we didn't need to.
My only thing is that I don't think we presented our case the right way. I 100% think we should have gone into Iraq, I think we should have done that a LONG time ago.. I just think we tried too much to please hippies when we presented the case, and we shoulda just said "look, we're tired of the BS, bye Saddam". Wouldn't have had all the backlash we're having now from the hippies. They won't be happy regardless, why bother trying...
I agree we shouldn't have appeased Hussein - I think not making it a priority was probably Clinton's biggest blunder.
I personally don't care about the anti-war "hippies" in the US - it's our allies in the UN and NATO that I care about.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
...See..you want it both ways.
I'll NEVER claim otherwise, given that we are the "power behind the throne" of the UN and have been for over a half-century.
There are entities in the UN that want to marginalize the US's impact on world politics for their own political and economic reasons. France is DEFINITELY one of them, at least under their current leadership...
As a citizen of this country, I'm held to the belief that we should prevent this as much as possible, especially if that means marching "out of step" on issues that WE consider paramount to our long-term security...
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
You want to "cry foul" that the Iraqi's didn't live up to the UN resolution, but then you want to dismiss that very governing body when "things didn't go our way." Sorry..you can't have it both ways.
The UN's a useful tool, no?  We have had it both ways in the past and hopefully we will in the future when certain governments wish to use the UN as a platform of dissent to further their own wishes against ours.
Don't forget that a not-insignificant portion of the UN broke away and sided with us in this. Some did this to gain favor of the US under the Bush adminsitration, others did this because it was the RIGHT thing to do in their opinion.
Others (some Eastern European countries, for example) did it because they thought it was the right thing to do AND they are SICK and TIRED of the way Germany and France strongarm issues in the EU and are fed up with their "Do as I tell you to do, without question" pompous-ass attitude. They are no strangers to seeing their political and economic strengths get marginalized by France and Germany and their protectionistic policies.
In addition to doing what they believed was right, this was their chance at giving Schroeder and Chirac the middle-finger.
Originally posted by SVT Doood:
...You either play by the rules, or you are a rule breaker, OR you don't play by the rules. Take your pick...
Since we have the power and ability to do all three, this is precisely the position I want the US in. ALWAYS.
It's arrogant, its unfair and it sets us up for not being liked by those that are threatened by it. Tough.
Being on top is never easy, though it's a HELL of a lot easier than being on bottom or even in the middle...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,960
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,960 |
If there is such a disdain for the UN, why don't we leave ?
Bless our servicemen & women overseas.
L.Cpl Ian Malone, 1st Battalion Irish Guards, R.I.P.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by sigma:
Tell me where I said Saddam didn't have these weapons?
Come on. You've exhibited poor reading comprehension in the past, but damn man, I only wrote 3 sentences. Certainly that's not hard to follow.
Hey sigma, follow this logic... You are an A$shole. There, was that even simple enough for you?
Still didn't answer my question.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by sigma:
Hatred of Bush?
Get off your high horse. I voted for him as Governor, as President, and right now am 50/50 on November.
Get off yours! I included not only you but "there will be some people in this country..." Now even you can see that I was NOT only referring to you when I said that...
There you go again displaying that poor comprehension.
I never said you were referring to only me. But you were referring to me. Did I ever say that no one hated Bush? No. I said that I didn't hate Bush, which is what your claim was.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by sigma:
I was simply presenting what some people thought. It's called learning. I can sit here and effectively argue circles around you all day from any side of any point of any topic. Did I ever say that was my opinion?
Now where in the definition of learning does spitting out other peoples opinions come into play???
I was correcting you.
If you hadn't been incorrect in your vast generalization of Liberals, I wouldn't have had to do that.
Quote:
You mearly think that you can argue circles around me, because you think that you know everything about everything! You are a pompous son of a b|tch if I have ever seen one...
I think because I have. Time and time again. Granted, you have made some very good points and sometimes corrected me in the past -- but this is not one of them.
Think that I know everything about everything? Not at all. JaTo regularly run circles around me, and I enjoy the debate.
Quote:
LOLOL. Your word twisting never ceases to amaze me sigma! I guess you do have one up on me, word twisting. Okay, here we go...
1)JATO has provided that proof for me...
2)Prove it was Saddam's. Well, I can't do that until we dust for fingerprints and find that Saddam's prints are on every shell casing, test tube, involved...
As for the rest of the things you want me to prove, I can't do that for you.
My use of "you" was a euphemism. As in the correct way that proving something should occur. Not simply reactionary thinking.
Quote:
And also as far as your other questions it shows very clearly how you are stretching to find a way to disprove the WMD thing. Your pulling a Clinton, what is the meaning of 'is' with your 'logic'
Learn to read, man!
I don't want to disprove it at all. I want it to be proven. Finding a shell is not the slightest bit of proof for all the reasons I mentioned above. An assumption that he has them is better proof than this!
Quote:
My logic works like this:
-We know that Saddam was using chemical or biological agents to kill 300,000+ people
-CIA and Brittish agencies have confirmed this
-Saddam has repeatedly disobeyed UN orders to allow inspectors unrestricted access to sites suspected of holding or creating WMD's
-We now have found 2 shells with toxic agents in them
And it's horrible logic.
Just because you find some shells doesn't mean they were his. There are tons of CBNs all around the US held by the scariest people in the entire world. It doesn't mean the US created or even condones them. It just doesn't know about them. This shell doesn't mean a damn thing unless you can prove that Saddam knew about it.
The case to enter Iraq was not that terrorist groups were creating WMDs without Saddam's consent. The case was that Saddam was creating this WMDs. This does absolutely nothing to prove that case. It's one more thing to add to the assumption list, but it is nowhere near Proof. The trailers that we found were much closer to proof than this.
Brush up on the basic element of law -- The Burden of Proof.
There is a burden of proof here, and I'll give you a hint, it's not on proving that these weren't created by Saddam's government.
Quote:
Originally posted by sigma:
It's calling thinking. Using your head and logic rather than 100% reactionary thinking. I tend to think things through before making blind reactions based on what I want to be true.
Again, your head is too large for your body, I think you might tip over if your not careful... As much as you like to think I am stupid, I do think about things before I come to a decision. When I state my opinions they are just that, opinions, which you are more than welcome to disagree with. But when eveidence such as what has been found today, and what has been shown since we first went into Iraq, is provided, you still want to try to make me look stupid by asking assinine questions like how do I know that it was Saddams? All that does is show that you (and I am assuming that you didn't believe the weapons wer real) don't have a leg to stand on anymore. -Nick
Asinine questions?!
You think that having to prove that these weapons were indeed created under the Hussein government is asinine?
What kind of fascist are you?
All my thinking shows is that despite what has occured to our nation, I still want to uphold the basic tenets that millions of American men and women have fought and died for.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
