Post #92,428
3/28/03 10:37:15 AM
|
Once the truth comes out
and Saddam reveals his hand in chemical weapons, then the skeptics will believe.
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #92,476
3/28/03 1:11:03 PM
|
Shouldn't that be "Once the 'truth' comes out"?
After all, I've linked to an article that gives a very detailed and in depth look at the facts and circumstances surrounding Iraq's attempt to get nuclear material from Niger.
The only proof is prediction.
Go ahead. Predict when Saddam will use the weapons you claim he has.
Saddam won't use any "WMD's" (even if you don't know what they are).
But, after the "war" is "over", lots of them will be "found".
But the reasons that they were never used will always remain a subject of speculation.
At least, it will amongst those who think they have some understanding of the situation.
The only proof is prediction.
|
Post #92,506
3/28/03 3:10:36 PM
|
Convieniant isn't it?
Brandioch Point 1.) The supply lines are slow.
Brandioch Point 2.) The evidence will be found AFTER we take the places.
Brandioch Point 3.) Predictions are Proof.
I think I am seeing you points very well indeed. Yep.
The reason we haven't found anything yet... supply hasn't gotten there yet to "supply the proof" for the lies we are making up... Yep that's what you are saying, I gather.
Now, why do you suppose those refugees trying to get out of Basra... getting targetted and shot at by the Iraqi Military in Basra... *WHY* was that not 1st Page, 1st Headline news?
Now, let's just change that *JUST* a bit... and let's suppose it was like this:
The refugees trying to get out of Basra... getting targeted and shot by British and American forces.
How many days do you think *THAT* would get Headline news in an ARAB paper ... or maybe a "US" Paper... how many Former Military Heads would be talking about this on CNN or MSNBC... how many HOURS of TV coverage would it get? Kind of a Galcial Hypocrisy there donchya think?
b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints. |
|
Post #92,510
3/28/03 3:24:08 PM
|
Can anyone translate this into English?
The reason we haven't found anything yet... supply hasn't gotten there yet to "supply the proof" for the lies we are making up... Yep that's what you are saying, I gather. The reason we haven't found anything yet is that there isn't anything to find. Once we have "won" this "war", the "evidence" will be planted and "found". Now, why do you suppose those refugees trying to get out of Basra... getting targetted and shot at by the Iraqi Military in Basra... *WHY* was that not 1st Page, 1st Headline news? I'm not sure what planet you're posting from, but this is what is on CNN's front page: UK: Basra civilians fired on | Video So, it seems that you're wrong, again. And for some reason, you still haven't gotten used to that. Now, let's just change that *JUST* a bit... and let's suppose it was like this:
The refugees trying to get out of Basra... getting targeted and shot by British and American forces. Okkkkaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy. How many days do you think *THAT* would get Headline news in an ARAB paper ... or maybe a "US" Paper... how many Former Military Heads would be talking about this on CNN or MSNBC... how many HOURS of TV coverage would it get? Kind of a Galcial Hypocrisy there donchya think? Probably for a long time. Are you saying that Saddam's "WMD's" are being carried by the civilians trying to get out of Basra?
|
Post #92,521
3/28/03 3:40:49 PM
|
It just means he's setting up for my prediction to come true
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
|
Post #92,511
3/28/03 3:27:39 PM
3/28/03 3:30:03 PM
|
contra Brandioch
There's been so much propaganda, distortion and fabrication coming from Washington to justify what amounts to an international mugging that the signal-to-noise ratio can impair our ability to evaluate falsehoods and truths for what these are. Should the wicked foe (displaying inhuman perfidy) fail to trot out chemical weapons, I'm inclined to think that the administration will cheerfully (and clandestinely) provide these once hostilities have abated. On the other hand, given that Iraq is known to have produced and used them in the past, given that the Top Foe is not Mister Rogers, given that "coalition" forces are coming with the stated intention of toppling what Hussein regards as his life's work...well, really, the only downside to deploying nerve and mustard gases is the PR hit the regime takes (and corresponding post facto justification for Buschenfeld's crusade), whereas the prospect of taking out a fraction of the frontline troops, and significantly impeding the rest, might seem a rather attractive alternative to playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules and being clobbered. I'm accordingly unable to share Brandioch's confidence that stockpiles have not been salted away for a rainy day in some discreetly-placed bunker as yet undiscerned by western eyes and will not be used if the perceived alternative is Baghdad's being overrun.
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Edited by rcareaga
March 28, 2003, 03:30:03 PM EST
|
Post #92,516
3/28/03 3:31:07 PM
3/28/03 3:46:40 PM
|
Re: contra Brandioch
Vomit uncontrollably if you like, but I agree. (excepting the usual points about mugging, propaganda & the like, but we've already established disagreement on those points)
Edited by cybermace5
March 28, 2003, 03:46:40 PM EST
|
Post #92,554
3/28/03 4:32:43 PM
|
nice save...
You had me worried for a moment.
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #92,562
3/28/03 4:41:20 PM
|
Vomiting's OK, but I didn't want you to have a heart attack!
|
Post #92,518
3/28/03 3:33:32 PM
|
Thank you very much!
b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints. |
|
Post #92,605
3/28/03 5:42:47 PM
|
I agree.
The only part I have issue with is how Saddam will NOT use those hidden weapons because of, what amounts to, world opinion. Which is directed at Bush, not yourself.
If he can be controlled by world opinion, he was NOT the threat that Bush and Co claimed he was.
(But so many of their other claims have proven false, so what's one more?)
Hence my focus on prediction.
#1. He doesn't have them so he can't use them.
#2. He has them, but is so influenced by world opinion that he won't use them.
In either case, he is not the threat Bush and Co claimed.
And you are completely correct that, once the "war" is "over", we will "find" whatever we need to "find" to "prove" that our's was the just cause.
|
Post #92,608
3/28/03 5:48:13 PM
|
Re: I agree.
Aha! We have forced a bipolar nature to the Prediction! I think your resolve is wearing thin!
Saddam has used chemical weapons in the past, and did not care about public opinion then.
Saddam is a sadistic pervert who ENJOYS the idea of gassing thousands of American troops. And the inspectors who left Iraq in 1998 said that chemical weapons production could be back up within 8 months.
If chemical weapons are not used, the only reason will be the fact that our military did its job.
|
Post #92,624
3/28/03 6:55:03 PM
|
Haven't you been reading?
If chemical weapons are not used, the only reason will be the fact that our military did its job. Bzzzzzttttt!!!!!! THAT is where PREDICTION comes into play. You can claim ANYTHING after the fact. Saddam has used chemical weapons in the past, and did not care about public opinion then. That is correct. Saddam is a sadistic pervert who ENJOYS the idea of gassing thousands of American troops. So, now you claim to be psychic? And the inspectors who left Iraq in 1998 said that chemical weapons production could be back up within 8 months. But no one has yet found that production to have been put into action. You miss the most obvious solution: Saddam does not have nuke/chem/bio weapons. Which is why I can predict this war and YOU cannot. /me takes a bow.
|
Post #92,646
3/28/03 9:11:06 PM
|
Re: Haven't you been reading?
Finally, I have you exactly where I want you.
I have cornered you into taking the position that Saddam does not have chem/bio weapons.
Now you have chosen your path, instead of vacillating between he doesn't have them/he wouldn't use them.
Also, what's up with claiming PROOF since the second day of the war? You think Joe 19-y/o has time to poking around suspicious buildings and sealed hatches?
Since you've chosen your path, you have nowhere to hide. And it's pretty likely that Saddam does indeed have WMD.
|
Post #92,647
3/28/03 9:19:28 PM
|
What's this, then?
And it's pretty likely that Saddam does indeed have WMD.
Would this be the same Saddam whom you've been assuring us for days was killed on that first night?
Doug, I hope you nailed down that bet.
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #92,661
3/28/03 10:10:57 PM
|
Re: What's this, then?
Good point, you guys must be getting through to me.
I say again, anyone heard from ol' Saddam recently?
|
Post #92,668
3/28/03 10:23:16 PM
|
I think he killed one of his Look-a-likes
like the Dubya Dummies, Saddam has his own look-a-likes too. :)
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #92,658
3/28/03 10:07:51 PM
|
And that's the BEST shot you have?
Since you've chosen your path, you have nowhere to hide. And it's pretty likely that Saddam does indeed have WMD. And you STILL can't make a prediction. The BEST you can do is say that it is "pretty likely" that you're right. I don't think there's any one here who wouldn't say that even if Saddam does NOT use them, they will be "found" after the war. And the BEST you can do is that it is "pretty likely" that he has them. Nothing like hedging your bets, eh?
|
Post #92,662
3/28/03 10:14:09 PM
|
Re: And that's the BEST shot you have?
YEAH.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps I am not self-delusional, and I do not pretend to know exactly what the future holds?
In your case, it does not matter. Whatever the outcome, that layer separating you from the real world will help you believe you were right anyway.
|
Post #92,667
3/28/03 10:20:46 PM
|
We are invading Iraq because it is "pretty likely"?
If the BEST you have it is "pretty likely" that Saddam has "WMD's", then WHY are we invading Iraq? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps I am not self-delusional, and I do not pretend to know exactly what the future holds? And that is why..... The Only Proof Is Prediction! "Self-delusional" is disproven when I demonstrate an ability that you cannot. You don't like that because it conflicts with your world-view. So, when a demonstratable fact conflicts with your world-view..... That fact is WRONG! :D The only proof is prediction.
|
Post #92,674
3/28/03 10:30:48 PM
|
Re: We are invading Iraq because it is "pretty likely"?
By "pretty likely" I mean that the military and intelligence agencies are awfully convinced he has them. By "pretty likely" I submit the most authoritative comment that I as a civilian am qualified to make. I believe that Saddam would make those weapons if he could (and he could). I also believe that Saddam would not destroy his most potent weapons in order to look nice to the international community.
I challenge you to provide demonstratable proof, drawn from your considerable experience in military intelligence and chemical weapons in the middle east, that there are no WMD in Iraq, and none will be found.
|
Post #92,691
3/28/03 10:49:04 PM
|
And ANOTHER slamdunk!
By "pretty likely" I mean that the military and intelligence agencies are awfully convinced he has them. Actually, our intelligence agencies have recently complained because our current regime was demanding that said agencies provide "proof" that Saddam had them. When no "proof" was to be had. So, our current regime had to resort to things like the claim that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material from Niger. A claim that has since been proven to be completely false. :D By "pretty likely" I submit the most authoritative comment that I as a civilian am qualified to make. "Civilian" has nothing to do with this. Blix is a civilian. I believe that Saddam would make those weapons if he could (and he could). So, Saddam HAS those weapons (would if he could and he could). Basic English may be a bit beyond you. I also believe that Saddam would not destroy his most potent weapons in order to look nice to the international community. Believe whatever you will. I know other kids that believe in Santa Claus. I challenge you to provide demonstratable proof, drawn from your considerable experience in military intelligence and chemical weapons in the middle east, that there are no WMD in Iraq, and none will be found. I guess you FAILED basic logic. :D The only proof is prediction. As I have stated. You cannot "prove" a negative.
|
Post #92,679
3/28/03 10:37:07 PM
|
yup sure is
So, when a demonstratable fact conflicts with your world-view.....
That fact is WRONG! that is why were going to have a brandiochian stand off. For my prediction to fail you have to admit the error of yours. Interesting conumdrum :-) thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
|
Post #92,686
3/28/03 10:42:38 PM
|
Here are free clues.
that is why were going to have a brandiochian stand off. For my prediction to fail you have to admit the error of yours. Interesting conumdrum :-) #1. Try reading the entire thread. #2. I don't care about whatever your fantasies are. #3. I made my prediction before any of this started and it is STILL proven correct.
|
Post #92,688
3/28/03 10:43:39 PM
|
yup gonna be a toughie all right :-)
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
|
Post #92,689
3/28/03 10:43:47 PM
|
No Proof yet... just your stupid "ASS"umptions! Loser!
b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints. |
|
Post #92,693
3/28/03 10:50:28 PM
|
No solid proof either way
that Saddam has or has not have any WOMD.
All we have is speculation, US Military Intelligence suggests that he does have them, but is not using them currently.
Brand's comment about planting them, is not proved either, he is just guessing that the US troops will plant them. Saddam will claim this if they are found, even if he hid them and they found them. There is proof that he purchased nerve gas, mustard gas, etc in the past, and the destruction of those agents have not been accounted for yet. They could be on the moon (unlikely) for all we know! :)
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #92,701
3/28/03 11:06:24 PM
|
That's because YOU don't understand what a prediction is.
No solid proof either way
that Saddam has or has not have any WOMD. No one can prove that Saddam does not have nuke/chem/bio weapons. Even if he never uses them against US troops. Maybe the elves are moving them when no one is looking. The only thing you CAN prove is that he has them and the easiest way to prove this is when HE uses them. Brand's comment about planting them, is not proved either, he is just guessing that the US troops will plant them. If I told you, today, what the next winning lottery number would be. And I told you that I was predicting it. And I was right. That would still be just a "guess" to you, wouldn't it? When the facts don't match your world-view, then those facts are wrong. The winning lottery number. Over a week in advance. As a public prediction. You still don't get it, do you? Do you have any idea how many individual, distinct events had to happen so my prediction would be accurate? If one were to listen to you and Marlowe... #1. An advance strike kills Saddam (how did I know there'd be an advance strike?) #2. Saddam had, previously, ordered all the chemicals removed from the warheads (how did I know that the warheads would be empty?) #3. The initial strikes take out the chemical weapons without causing any chemical hazards (how did I know that the rounds would be safe but that the weapons would be vulnerable?) And so on. If one were to listen to you and Marlowe, I'd have to have guessed right OVER and OVER and OVER. Any single error and my prediction would have been proven wrong.
|
Post #92,708
3/28/03 11:18:23 PM
|
yup ed zachery my prediction is coming true as we post
for example you goaded me into a prediction. I made one. You are working very hard to make it come true. In case you forgot, here it is. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=91631|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=91631] In case you havnt noticed his defence will be no matter what is found it wasnt acceptable proof to him. I made that knowing you will prove it out for me. You are already intimating that anything found after the war will not be accepted as proof so my prediction WILL come true, yours MIGHT. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
|
Post #92,710
3/28/03 11:21:51 PM
|
Nice.
|
Post #92,716
3/28/03 11:33:33 PM
|
Incorrect (as usual), Saddam can launch a chem attack.
That would be "proof" that I couldn't deny. So, as long as my prediction is 100% accurate, you can say that I won't accept any "proof" that counters it. Once again, Saddam will NOT use any nuke/chem/bio weapons. The reason for this is because he does NOT have them. So, to counter my prediction, all that has to happen is for Saddam to USE them. And you find this concept too difficult to comprehend? You are already intimating that anything found after the war will not be accepted as proof so my prediction WILL come true, yours MIGHT. Incorrect. If my prediction does NOT come true, then that means that Saddam will have used nuke/chem/bio weapons. As such was the "proof" needed to disprove my prediction, your prediction would, likewise, be disproven. So, if my prediction is correct, so is your's. -and- If my prediction is proven false, so is your's. In other words, your "prediction" is a derivative of my prediction. Original thought isn't big in your family, is it?
|
Post #92,731
3/29/03 12:14:16 AM
|
like I predicted brandiochan stand off thanx for affirming
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
|
Post #92,738
3/29/03 12:55:52 AM
|
A prediction is just guessing
prove me wrong by gussing the winning Powerball Lottery numbers for next week. We shall read the numbers and see if you are correct, Mr. Nostrodamus. Only then will I accept that you can predict the future.
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #92,746
3/29/03 3:38:18 AM
|
Tell that one to the Rapturin-out groupies..
|
Post #92,818
3/29/03 12:49:02 PM
|
Amen to that, brother!
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #92,814
3/29/03 12:24:01 PM
|
Your sense of self-importance is vastly over rated.
So, a prediction is a "guess".
Believe whatever you want to.
One of us can predict how this war will unfold.
One of us cannot even "guess" at it but merely offer excuses on why things happen.
I have done what you cannot do and you still refuse to accept the facts.
|
Post #92,832
3/29/03 1:32:17 PM
|
You should certainly know.
|
Post #92,877
3/29/03 4:46:44 PM
|
Do what now? Come again, do what?
We cannot predict how the war will unfold, only guess. Your best guess is as good as mine.
What excuses? Provide some examples. Maybe I can figure out what you are yammering about.
What did you do that I could not do?
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #93,001
3/30/03 2:28:32 AM
|
You can't tell the difference between a rocket and a "WMD".
We cannot predict how the war will unfold, only guess. Your best guess is as good as mine. In your dreams, maybe. Here, let me [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=92922|link] you to your own stupidity. I am still learning about this conflict, and I am trying to learn the facts and keep the fluff out of it. But your guess is as good as mine? hahahahhahahahahahaha Maybe to YOU it is. Meanwhile, I can predict (with 100% accuracy) how this war will unfold. You cannot. But your guess is as good as mine. hahahahahahahahahaha Go ahead. "Guess" when Saddam will use nuke/chem/bio weapons. "Guess" what the Iraqi's next battlefield tactic will be. ahahahhahahahahahahahaha I am a GOD!
|
Post #92,666
3/28/03 10:19:21 PM
|
He used them in the past
couldn't this be used as a possibility that he could still have them?
Will he use them once we get closer to Baghdad? Or will he save them for last?
What if he really dis disarm all chemical weapons? He still has the extended range SCUDs he could have used them in that had traces of the chemicals in their empty warheads.
Even if he doesn't have any chemical weapons, what about the human rights violations, the bad leadership, and the attempt to drive him out of power? Will conditions really improve Post-Saddam in Iraq, or will we create yet another monster that we will have to face sometime in the future?
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #92,682
3/28/03 10:38:56 PM
|
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Will he use them once we get closer to Baghdad? Or will he save them for last? Chem/bio weapons are nearly INEFFECTIVE against troops on the move. That's because they LEAVE THE CONTAMINATED AREA soon after the weapons hit. I know I've said this before, but it seems that SOME PEOPLE'S CHILDREN have trouble comprehending it. Chemical weapons are used: #1. To channelize attackers. #2. To soften hardened targets. #3. To degrade combat performance by forcing troops to button up. Now, we are converging on a point target (Baghdad). #1. Would not apply because we are already channelized. #2. Would not apply because we are NOT hardened targets. #3. Could apply, but doing that would invoke #2 against the defenders in the city. In other words, if Saddam used chemical weapons against troops attacking Baghdad, the chemicals would settle in the places where the DEFENDERS are most likely to be and KILL THE DEFENDERS. Great, Saddam would use chemical weapons to kill his own troops so the US troops have an easier time taking the city. Why that makes PERFECT sense. The CORRECT time to have used them was when the US troops were in Kuwait. What if he really dis disarm all chemical weapons? He still has the extended range SCUDs he could have used them in that had traces of the chemicals in their empty warheads. IF he has those SCUD's, the "traces of the chemicals" would do LESS damage than a conventional warhead. So, why not just load them up with CONVENTIONAL explosives and toss them? Hmmmm, makes you wonder, doesn't it? Even if he doesn't have any chemical weapons, what about the human rights violations, the bad leadership, and the attempt to drive him out of power? Will conditions really improve Post-Saddam in Iraq, or will we create yet another monster that we will have to face sometime in the future? What the fuck does THAT have to do with ANYTHING? North Korea's dictator is just as bad as Saddam AND has and active nuclear weapons program. Once you get past the bullshit about Saddam's "WMD's" you see that this "war" is worse than stupid. It is pissing off the rest of the world and wasting resources that should be applied to North Korea.
|
Post #92,690
3/28/03 10:44:48 PM
|
Are you saying we should have attacked NK instead of Iraq?
NK< does, after all, have Nukes, which last time I checked are WOMD.
Maybe Saddam doesn't want to use chemical weapons to gain political support from his neighbor countries against the Colitation forces? That way he can claim not to have them, and that the whole thing was wrong. Seems to make sense when they have Iraqi troops waving a white flag of surrender and then start shooting soon after the US troops lower their weapons, or Iraqi soldiers dress up as US Troops and start shooting civilians, or use bombs to attack civilians and then blame it on the US Troops. Saddam figures he cannot win via technology or brute force, so he is playing mind games. He sure seems to have fooled you.
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #92,707
3/28/03 11:17:19 PM
|
Okay, predict the lottery numbers for next week.
Maybe Saddam doesn't want to use chemical weapons to gain political support from his neighbor countries against the Colitation forces? Maybe. But, if so, then I had to correctly guess Saddam's motivation IN ADVANCE of the attack. I am a God. Saddam figures he cannot win via technology or brute force, so he is playing mind games. Maybe. But, if so, then I had to correctly guess Saddam's motivation IN ADVANCE of the attack. I am a God. He sure seems to have fooled you. Here's a free clue. Usually, it is not the one who predicts the outcome that is the fool. If we play cards and I take all your money, who's the fool? If we bet on a game and I take all your money, who's the fool? And so on.
|
Post #92,736
3/29/03 12:52:19 AM
|
But you didn't
correctly predict Saddam's motivation in advance of the attack. You may have made a prediction, but you haven't been proven right yet.
So what is his motivation then?
This is not a game of cards, and I am not playing the game whatever it is. I am mearly stating reasons why Saddam didn't use the chemical weapons yet.
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #92,816
3/29/03 12:32:17 PM
|
By your logic, I did.
But you didn't
correctly predict Saddam's motivation in advance of the attack. You may have made a prediction, but you haven't been proven right yet. And when it is proven correct, by your logic, I would have had to correctly guess Saddam's motivation. Along with a host of other correct guesses. So what is his motivation then? At least try to follow the conversation. You are the one saying that Saddam hasn't used nuke/chem/bio because of excuse#1 and excuse#2 and excuse#3 and excuse#4 and excuse#5. Now, I made my prediction PRIOR to any of those events. Which means that I had to CORRECTLY "guess" the outcome of EACH of those events DAYS PRIOR to those events happening. Because (here's where you keep getting lost) at ANY ONE OF THOSE EVENTS my prediction would have been falsified had I "guessed" wrong. The more excuses you make for why things aren't happening the way they "should" be happening -means- the more events I had to "guess" correctly DAYS and WEEKS in advance. I take it you do not have any experience with statistical analysis.
|
Post #92,879
3/29/03 4:52:42 PM
|
When or ever?
When it is proven correct? How do you know it won't be seen as false? You are pretty darn well sure of yourself. What if Saddam launches a chemical attack on Kuwait tomorrow, will you eat crow then? Or will you claim it was the US faking the attack to make Saddam look bad?
I took statisical analysis in college, I had to in order to get my associates. For some things, like human behavior, you cannot apply math to it all of the time. I have given valid reasons why Saddam isn't using WOMD, and you call them excuses. They are not excuses, they are guesses why he hasn't used them. Valid guesses, because Saddam wants to get support from his neighbors against the US.
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #92,935
3/29/03 9:56:26 PM
|
Class failed you.
There are some things for which there is insufficient evidence - in fact, most things.. that people concern themselves about, BTW.
As to this game? Sorry there is no set of answers that will explain why logic is not enough. Some days ya just have to bite a cat. Cats like to play a lot, too..
Ashton
|
Post #93,000
3/30/03 2:26:22 AM
|
No, they are excuses.
A prediction has to be PRIOR to the action (or non-action). An excuse is what YOU give when something does NOT happen the way you think it will. What if Saddam launches a chemical attack on Kuwait tomorrow, will you eat crow then? Hmmm, then my prediction will have been proven false. But, I will RIGHT NOW predict that tomorrow (Sunday) there will NOT be any chemical attack on Kuwait launched by Saddam. Now, if I am proven right ONCE AGAIN (100% accuracy so far), will YOU eat crow? No, you won't. Because you didn't say there WOULD be an attack did you? Which brings us back to YOU offering nothing but EXCUSES when things don't happen the way you think they should. While I can PREDICT the events with 100% accuracy. 100% accuracy. No chemical attack on Kuwait on Sunday launched by Saddam. 100% accuracy. Pucker up and kiss my ass. For some things, like human behavior, you cannot apply math to it all of the time. Read BF Skinner. I have given valid reasons why Saddam isn't using WOMD, and you call them excuses. That is because they are excuses. They are not excuses, they are guesses why he hasn't used them. No, they are excuses for why something that you think SHOULD happen has NOT happened. Valid guesses, because Saddam wants to get support from his neighbors against the US. No, that is a specific excuse for why he hasn't used them. Otherwise, you would be able to predict that Saddam WOULD NOT use nuke/chem/bio weapons -because- he wants the support of his neighbors which he would not get if he used them. There. That is a prediction. Now, what happens when Saddam USES nuke/chem/bio weapons? Well, your PREDICTION is proven WRONG. Then you have to make EXCUSES for why you were WRONG. I took statisical analysis in college, I had to in order to get my associates. You are so stupid that you can't tell a "WMD" from a rocket and you insisted that I was spelling "Niger" wrong. hahahahahahhahahahahaha Your college education seems to be lacking in many areas.
|
