Post #92,537
3/28/03 4:09:57 PM
|
I didn't think you would be man enough.
Nope, no apology. That's right. You'll attempt to disprove my predictions, but you don't have what it takes to make your own. Nor will you apologize when you are shown to be wrong. I've already stated that the U.S. goal in striking when it did, was to amputate the leadership that could have launched chemical weapons. Yes, you stated that. AFTER the strikes happened. That is why it is an "excuse" instead of a "prediction". They are also systematically destroying troops and weapons capable of obtaining and deploying chemical weapons, and removing the communications network to avoid a synchronized chemical attack. But the chemical attack could not be launched because the people who could launch it were hit with the initial strikes. Again, you are making excuses, not predictions. If chemical weapons ARE launched, that is a failure of our armed forces to do their intended mission. A prediction? Care to make one? No. If things work out one way, it's because you said they would. If things work out the other way, it's because you said they would. :D Yep, that's definately the description of an "excuse" rather than a "prediction". You have taken the wimp's way out of this by stating that Saddam will not use WMD. *raises eyebrows* Really? Despite all the evidence that he has them and that he'd use them? Personally, I'd think that, from the "facts" presented, the easy "prediction" would have been that at least ONE weapon would have been used. :D hahahahahahhahahahaha If you really believed in your own words, you would instead predict that there are no chem/bio weapons. You have said that, but if chem weapons are found, you will fall back on the prediction that they would not be used. I'm sure you can come up with something better than that. I've been VERY CLEAR in my predictions.
|
Post #92,539
3/28/03 4:14:00 PM
|
Fun game.
Anyone making a prediction that WMD will be found will immediately be told that these weapons were planted...and that God was correct in his prediction that Iraq had none.
Talk about your loaded dice.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #92,542
3/28/03 4:18:51 PM
|
I don't think so.
It's just that we don't all believe everything Fox News tells us.
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #92,577
3/28/03 4:55:22 PM
|
Glad I don't watch it then.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #92,581
3/28/03 4:59:27 PM
|
Really? I thought you were Editor At Large (in Chief?)
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #92,544
3/28/03 4:24:29 PM
|
I predict...
It won't matter anyway... Brandioch will be right either way anyhow... because he said he was right... right? Lest we not forget: "Always" let "Losers" have thier "Words" 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 #92,590
3/28/03 5:26:52 PM
|
It's funny because it's hurting you so much.
:D
Because I made a prediction that YOU could not have believed before and now it is coming true.
Despite being ever so easy to disprove.
Just one nuke/chem/bio weapon fired by Iraqi troops.
Just one.
One.
hahahahahahahhahahaha
And it is eating you up that you fell for the lies when I did not.
|
Post #92,600
3/28/03 5:36:04 PM
|
I always let losers have thier words.
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 #92,543
3/28/03 4:21:08 PM
|
Re: I didn't think you would be man enough.
I hate to break this to you, but your predictions are pretty lame.
The goal was stated WELL in advance of any war, that we needed to attack Iraq before it could use WMD, thus preventing it from doing so. Ok, so predict that Iraq will not use WMD. Essentially you are taking a 500 pound gorilla (America) saying that they will win.
Also you stated that troops will be there for a long time. Well, guess what. Everyone else thought so too. Most troops over there had orders for one year.
|
Post #92,589
3/28/03 5:24:36 PM
|
It's called a "dictionary". I'll send you one.
I hate to break this to you, but your predictions are pretty lame. If by "pretty lame" you mean "100% accurate" you would be correct. The goal was stated WELL in advance of any war, that we needed to attack Iraq before it could use WMD, thus preventing it from doing so. Ok, so predict that Iraq will not use WMD. Essentially you are taking a 500 pound gorilla (America) saying that they will win. Not in the least. What I am saying is that Iraq will not use nuke/chem/bio weapons. This is substantially different than "we must kill them so they don't use them". Our goal is also to kill them before they kill our troops. Yet such does not seem to be happening.
|
Post #92,604
3/28/03 5:42:16 PM
|
Re: It's called a "dictionary". I'll send you one.
You are saying this: a fully chemical/biological capable Iraq, with canisters loaded in the mortars, Saddam Hussein fully in control after an attempt on his life, and Iraqi leadership also intact after having been targeted, would refuse to use chemical weapons under any circumstances. Note that they have indeed used such weapons before, on their own people, who posed a minor threat, and did not care about the international PR then.
You are an utter moron.
|
Post #92,606
3/28/03 5:45:58 PM
|
No, actually he's saying something quite different
He's saying "Iraq is not going to use chem/bio weapons in this war." The rest of the stuff is your window dressing. For example, one could just as easily say "Iraq is not going to use chem/bio weapons in this war because the last twelve years of sanctions and on-and-off weapons inspections worked and he no longer has WMD, and therefore doesn't have them to use them" and still fit just as well in what he actually DID say.
In short, don't stuff words.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #92,614
3/28/03 5:56:29 PM
|
Re: No, actually he's saying something quite different
Then he should change his prediction to "No WMD will be found in Iraq."
Because that's a much more straightforward way of saying it, if that's what he's trying to say. Also, minutes ago in another thread, Brandioch stated as one of two options that Saddam is so influenced by world opinion that he wouldn't use WMD. He has stated that opinion before. But naturally, since I (with the unexpected help of rcareaga) have practically destroyed that argument, he is forced to claim that there are no WMD.
Now, Brandioch is not exactly plugged in to the intelligence community (I mean that in multiple ways), so I don't think he can qualitatively say there are no WMD in Iraq.
|
Post #92,619
3/28/03 6:47:39 PM
|
Don't you ever read?
Then he should change his prediction to "No WMD will be found in Iraq." They will be "found" after the "war" is "over". Not the use of quotation marks around the word 'found'.
|
Post #92,709
3/28/03 11:20:09 PM
|
Re: Don't you ever read?
Yes, your subconscious will kick in, and preserve you from suicide by asserting that you were right all along, and the U.S. military (even though you accuse them of being bungling fools) is capable of fabricating an entire chemical weapons stock, manufacturing, and deployment infrastructure.
|
Post #92,725
3/29/03 12:02:38 AM
|
I did not say the military was "bungling fools".
Bush and Co are. The military was over-ruled by Bush and Co on how to run this operation. Bush pushed the attack BEFORE all the units had landed and WITHOUT Turkey's support. ...is capable of fabricating an entire chemical weapons stock, manufacturing, and deployment infrastructure. They don't have to. All they have to do is "find" some "warheads" with "chemical agents" in them. Exactly what the UN inspectors had to do. They don't even need to "find" the "warheads". Just find a tank of "chemical agents".
|
Post #92,729
3/29/03 12:10:20 AM
|
Re: I did not say the military was "bungling fools".
Just a tank of "chemical agents" is not going to work. Everything they find will be subject to massive investigation by the UN as to its authenticity and origin.
|
Post #92,813
3/29/03 12:19:21 PM
|
So the US is subordinate to the UN now?
Funny, I wasn't aware of that.
Well, make your prediction and I'll make mine.
Now.
Then we'll see who's prediction proves accurate.
The only proof is prediction.
|
Post #92,830
3/29/03 1:31:06 PM
|
Did I say that? No.
But the UN will definitely be investigating.
BTW there's quite a bit of support in the UN for the actions right now. It's a good thing that a few opposed countries can't halt the majority opinion.
|
Post #92,858
3/29/03 3:13:22 PM
|
The UN will investigate only if the US allows them to.
Haven't you been following ANYTHING? The US claimed to have "secret information" about Saddam's nuke/chem/bio weapons that we would NOT share with the UN inspectors. Why? Well, we never said why. We just wouldn't share it. And the same thing will happen after the "war" is "over". We will claim information and NOT let anyone else examine it. BTW there's quite a bit of support in the UN for the actions right now. It's a good thing that a few opposed countries can't halt the majority opinion. You have "minority" and "majority" mixed up. Still having trouble with reading English?
|
Post #92,867
3/29/03 3:36:00 PM
|
Re: The UN will investigate only if the US allows them to.
WTF, are you even following the war? UN troops and officials are in Iraq right now.
|
Post #92,902
3/29/03 7:29:03 PM
|
Now the presumptions within that little piece of flummox
..beggars even the 4-second Readers Disgust crossword (the one with Big Letters so you can use pencil)
Trolling ain't any fun when the throwaway lines are from Disneyland.
I'll pass on the deconstruction. Rather watch golf.
Or paint peeling.
{sheesh}
Ashton
|
Post #92,908
3/29/03 7:45:04 PM
|
Coherent. Sentences. Focus!
|
Post #92,966
3/29/03 11:44:58 PM
|
What part of my previous post did you not read?
WTF, are you even following the war? UN troops and officials are in Iraq right now. So, they will go where they want, even if the US doesn't want them to go there? No? Well, that's what you just said. And that is what you said earlier when I asked if the US troops were under UN control. There's a difference between "being in Iraq" -and- "inspecting 'WMD sites' that the US claims to have 'found'". Now, I say that the US will NOT allow the UN inspectors to go to those "sites" until AFTER the US has finished prep'ing those "sites". You can claim whatever you want to.
|
Post #92,988
3/30/03 1:09:32 AM
|
Re: What part of my previous post did you not read?
You may act as confident as you wish, but that makes you no less of an idiot.
|
Post #92,996
3/30/03 2:05:52 AM
|
So, because I'm 100% accurate, I'm an idiot?
With you, reality is just something that happens to other people, right?
I'm still 100% accurate!
And going strong!
|
Post #93,010
3/30/03 2:55:49 AM
|
You are 100% accurate...
...in the same way that you were getting a straight 'A' at the beginning of every class.
|
Post #93,019
3/30/03 3:14:14 AM
|
How many days into this war are we?
And you STILL think it hasn't started yet?
hahahahahahahahhaahaaa
|
Post #93,074
3/30/03 1:42:10 PM
|
Re: How many days into this war are we?
It is nowhere near over.
As someone else in the thread once said, territory is not won until you put a 19-year-old American with a gun on every street corner.
|
Post #93,098
3/30/03 3:12:54 PM
|
I didn't ask if it was over. I asked how many days into it.
|
Post #93,111
3/30/03 4:03:00 PM
|
Re: I didn't ask if it was over. I asked how many days into
And now you're the expert on how long it should take them to find (well-hidden) WMD, when they are more worried about getting killed? The search doesn't begin in earnest until all resistance is quashed. Last thing we need is some guys rolling out a SCUD packed with VX, and some clown launches an RPG.
|
Post #93,123
3/30/03 4:35:14 PM
|
That's the fact!
And now you're the expert on how long it should take them to find (well-hidden) WMD, when they are more worried about getting killed? Here's the [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49385-2003Mar29.html|article]. Our troops have BEEN checking sites. The search doesn't begin in earnest until all resistance is quashed. No, that will be the "search". That is when the "weapons" will be "found". That is AFTER the search of the sites that our intelligence has identified as being the ones where we believe Saddam is keeping them has proven fruitless. hahahahahahhahaha Last thing we need is some guys rolling out a SCUD packed with VX, and some clown launches an RPG. Why? Wouldn't the desert be a BETTER place than a mall in Kuwait? Far fewer initial casualties and far easier to decon. Oh, that's right. You thought that only high temp fire could decon a site. That was until I told you that VX could be decon'ed with hypochlorites. hahahahahahahahahha That's the difference between a prediction and your excuses. hahahahahahahahahaaa
|
Post #93,147
3/30/03 7:31:28 PM
|
Ummm
I already knew that decon teams can use bleach to ~neutralize VX. Actually, it just converts the agent to salts, which aren't as easily absorbed but still toxic.
And bleach decon happens after the fact.
And it requires a heckuva lot of bleach.
Once the VX is burning, it becomes a sol.
You can't catch smoke.
|
Post #93,168
3/30/03 10:18:11 PM
|
Fire can be extinguished.
Soaking the area in a hypochlorite solution would put out your mythical fire.
Again, the current reports say that US forces ARE checking out suspected chemical sites.
You said that they should not.
You made an excuse for them not finding anything.
That excuse was the scenario you presented. With the fire and the VX and so forth.
Yet the fact is that the US troops are doing EXACTLY what you said they should NOT do.
And they are NOT encountering your mythical fire.
Strange.
|
Post #93,228
3/31/03 12:36:36 PM
|
Re: Fire can be extinguished.
They are looking as far as necessary to establish an immediate risk level. If there is a sealed bulkhead and it's not going anywhere, they will not poke around just for fun.
The real investigation starts when there is no risk of chemical or bio agents being accidentally released.
|
Post #93,256
3/31/03 1:55:57 PM
|
So they did hire you?
They are looking as far as necessary to establish an immediate risk level. If there is a sealed bulkhead and it's not going anywhere, they will not poke around just for fun. That's strange because the article referenced elsewhere did not indicate this. It seemed to indicate that the US military was looking for the presence of nuke/chem/bio at those sites. Of course, this might not contradict your claim of "risk level", but it does say that the "risk level" they have found is "no nuke/chem/bio weapons found". Strange how that works. They aren't going to "poke around" but they are able to establish that there aren't any nuke/chem/bio weapons.
|
Post #93,272
3/31/03 2:56:08 PM
|
Re: So they did hire you?
As they secure positions, and the battle front moves away from those positions, they are then performing inspections.
They are not performing in-depth inspections of positions that are still in the middle of a battle.
|
Post #93,325
3/31/03 7:36:38 PM
|
That would be the cities?
As they secure positions, and the bitva front moves away from those positions, they are then performing inspections. And that would be...... everywhere except in the cities. So, the only places where, by your logic, we are NOT inspecting would be the cities (currently held by the Iraqis). They are not performing in-depth inspections of positions that are still in the middle of a bitva. That would be because those are still occupied by Iraqis. But that does NOT explain why they have NOT found the chemical weapons you claim Saddam has. Unless those are only hidden inside the cities. And, as each of those cities fall, you'll come up with another excuse as to why no chemical weapons were found.
|
Post #92,607
3/28/03 5:46:44 PM
|
It's called "reading with comprehension".
You are saying this: a fully chemical/biological capable Iraq, with canisters loaded in the mortars, Saddam Hussein fully in control after an attempt on his life, and Iraqi leadership also intact after having been targeted, would refuse to use chemical weapons under any circumstances. No. I'm saying he doesn't have those nuke/chem/bio weapons. Haven't you been paying attention?
|
Post #92,610
3/28/03 5:50:20 PM
|
Re: It's called "reading with comprehension".
Then change your prediction to "No chemical weapons will be found."
A lot of evidence points to the contrary, but you've already demonstrated that you'll never believe any of it.
|
Post #92,613
3/28/03 5:55:10 PM
|
Why would he do that?
He thinks they will be found. I happen to believe that too... whether or not they need to be brought with them. I am willing to entertain they might be there, but not used, but I'm also willing to entertain that the US will bring the evidence with them, because they have to find them. So, we'll never know for sure.
It's not like the US has never manufactured evidence before in such situations.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #92,615
3/28/03 5:57:54 PM
|
Re: Why would he do that?
Names, dates, and places. Please.
|
Post #92,620
3/28/03 6:48:52 PM
|
Nuclear material from Niger that Iraq tried to buy.
Complete fabrication.
It has even been questioned as to HOW anyone could have "fallen" for such a claim.
|
Post #92,622
3/28/03 6:50:08 PM
|
Gulf of Tonkin
1968. MacNamera.
--\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #92,630
3/28/03 7:49:11 PM
|
Re: Why would he do that?
Kuwait, 1990.
Iraqi soldiers hurling teeny preemies from incubators.
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #92,641
3/28/03 8:55:09 PM
3/28/03 8:59:14 PM
|
Your examples
Your examples are, at best, rooted in the words of one or a few people. Their actions can hardly be attributed to "the government" as a whole.
Manufacturing evidence of WMD in Iraq requires just that: evidence. Not only would they have to manufacture banned agents, they would also have to transport them, and they would also have to construct facilities in Iraq that allegedly created the banned agents. They would also have to remove all traces of evidence pointing back to the U.S., and they would have to work very hard at aging and placing the evidence in a way that implies it was there beforehand. All reports of WMD will be scrutinized with microscopic detail by the world community.
Such a massive effort is much more complex than simply telling a lie. The conspiracy would have to involve thousands of government officials, soldiers, weapons inspectors from various countries, news reporters, private corporations, and any country with spy satellites.
To assume an effort of this magnitude is even possible is patently ludicrous.
Edited by cybermace5
March 28, 2003, 08:59:14 PM EST
|
Post #92,644
3/28/03 9:05:44 PM
|
Manufacturing evidence in the Gulf of Tonkin incident
is clearly laughable. They had to find a bunch of Soviet made weapons, a junk, and then they had to transport them to the Gulf, then they had to shoot it up, and then they had to find a naval vessel to find the junk.
Such a complex series of events is clearly ludicrous.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #92,651
3/28/03 9:41:18 PM
|
Re: Manufacturing evidence in the Gulf of Tonkin incident
I'm surprised you would state as fact, something that has never been proven. Here's the Navy's account: [link|http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/dd731-k.htm|http://www.history.n...nsh-m/dd731-k.htm] And here's the article that was all over in 1997, claiming new evidence. [link|http://www.geocities.com/hal9000report/hal70.html|http://www.geocities...report/hal70.html] Interesting excerpt:
In one of their more current official histories, the Communist Vietnamese claim responsibility for the initial attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, but say that the second was an American fabrication to justify airstrikes on August 5. In an older history, they not only claim the second attack on August 4-5, 1964, but declare that date as their navy's anniversary or "tradition day," proclaiming it the day "when one of our torpedo squadrons chased the destroyer Maddox from our coastal waters, our first victory over the U.S. Navy."
About this assertion, Douglas Pike, the foremost U.S. authority on the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), notes, "If the Gulf of Tonkin Incident is a myth created by the Pentagon, as some revisionist historians claim, the PAVN navy is now part of the conspiracy."
Isn't it a little disingenuous to discount events both governments claim, or may have been an honest mistake, yet believe one man's assertation that it was all a big conspiracy (Daniel Ellsberg)? This issue is by no means proved or resolved. Please tell the aliens to be gentle with me when they arrive.
|
Post #92,784
3/29/03 8:38:38 AM
|
Re: Manufacturing evidence in the Gulf of Tonkin incident
I'm surprised you would state as fact, something that has never been proven. Here's the Navy's account: \r\n\r\n http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/dd731-k.htm \r\n\r\n And here's the article that was all over in 1997, claiming new evidence. \r\n\r\n http://www.geocities.com/hal9000report/hal70.html \r\n\r\n Well, if you want to do duellinglinks, here's mine: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/54/106.html \r\n\r\n I quote: \r\n In his recent book, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, McNamara admits that the United States "may have provoked a North Vietnamese response in the Tonkin Gulf," albeit innocently. He maintains, however, that "charges of a cloak of deception surrounding the Tonkin Gulf incident are unfounded. The idea that the Johnson administration deliberately deceived Congress is fake." Many disagree. Coincidentally, on the very day McNamara was in Hanoi, American veterans, historians and scholars met in Washington, D.C., for a conference sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans Institute. One of the conference's many prominent guest speakers was Daniel Ellsberg, the former Johnson administration member who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press. In his presentation, Ellsberg addressed the question of whether the Johnson administration deliberately misled Congress: "Did McNamara lie to Congress in 1964? I can answer that question. Yes, he did lie, and I knew it at the time. I was working for John McNaughton....I was his special assistant. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He knew McNamara had lied. McNamara knew he had lied. He is still lying. [Former Secretary of State Dean] Rusk and McNamara testified to Congress...prior to their vote....Congress was being lied into...what was to be used as a formal declaration of war. I knew that....I don't look back on that situation with pride." \r\n\r\n Further in that paper: \r\n\r\n The result of whatever actually did or did not happen in the Tonkin Gulf was that, by overwhelmingly approving the resolution, the U.S. Congress ceded to the president the power that America's Founding Fathers endowed only Congress--the power to declare war. According to McNamara, herein lies the significance of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution: "The fundamental issue of Tonkin Gulf involves not deception, but rather, misuse of power bestowed by the resolution. The language of the resolution plainly granted the powers the President subsequently used and Congress understood the breadth of those powers....But no doubt exists that Congress did not intend to authorize, without further, full consultation, the expansion of U.S. forces in Vietnam from 16,000 to 550,000 men, initiating large scale combat operations with the risk of an expanded war with China and the Soviet Union, and extending U.S. involvement in Vietnam for many years to come." \r\n\r\n Just like the current administration. How about that. \r\n\r\n Isn't it a little disingenuous to discount events both governments claim, or may have been an honest mistake, yet believe one man's assertation that it was all a big conspiracy (Daniel Ellsberg)? This issue is by no means proved or resolved. \r\n\r\n That's right, it's not "proved or resolved" in the sense of a court of law. Guess what, they never will be, any more than the ones that the Russians have done over the past fifty years to justify intervention in some country or other in the eastern block is ever likely to be "proved or resolved" either. Do you think they don't exist either because they haven't beren "prove[n] or resolved"? I used one... do you think there is only one? There have already been forgeries put forth by the coalition forces in this conflict in an attempt to justify this war. The example I used was only one, one of many that have occurred over the years. \r\n\r\n Please tell the aliens to be gentle with me when they arrive. \r\n\r\n ... and an asshole to boot. When you haven't got a leg to stand on, insult. My estimation of you is sinking pretty fast, boyo. --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #92,843
3/29/03 2:33:52 PM
|
Re: Manufacturing evidence in the Gulf of Tonkin incident
You seem to miss the important fact that you are quoting from the identical article that I posted. It's not exactly a crushing blow, and you are working on (1) book that claims an innocent mistake, and (1) man who says it wasn't true.
And "only one, one of many that have occurred over the years" does not hold any weight. Sounds like wild speculation, and you haven't mentioned anything else that even suggest to me there are "many" examples.
Just because you can't prove something either way, doesn't make it true. Of course you can go off believing it if you like. If you hang out around Roswell enough, you might be able to sneak onto an alien spacecraft and leave this desolate planet behind.
|
Post #92,847
3/29/03 2:42:44 PM
|
Still trolling I see.
Personal attacks are so effective.
The Maine. Uranium shipments from Niger. Complaints from the UN inspectors that US intel info was worse than useless for actually trying to find WMD on the eve of war. Complaints from the FBI and CIA that the admin wanted them to find evidence, instead of find the truth.
Keep on trolling, it will go a long way to show people how much weight to give your statements.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #92,849
3/29/03 2:47:58 PM
|
Re: Still trolling I see.
Ok, so far you have (1) event so long ago no one can ever know what happened, (1) mistake caused by foreign officials and quickly corrected, and (2) cases of people whining without facts to back their stories up.
Keep making your case, you have a long way to go.
|
Post #92,850
3/29/03 2:54:47 PM
|
Re: Still trolling I see.
What are you talking about? In the very article you quoted is a section that talks about a gov't official basically saying 'we lied to congress, we wanted a war and were going to get one whether we it was right or not.' Every single piece of intel given to the weapon's inspector's was wrong, and one of the biggest pieces was a fake, but was widely publicised as evidence as to why the US should go to war.
Looks to me more that you don't want to see the forest for the trees. Either that, or you're hoping that other people will miss the forest if you concentrate on the trees.
You're also quite gifted at larding your posts with gratuitous insults. While that may be somewhat justified with the other posters here, I don't think I'm one of them.
You've even admitted your here to "feed the trolls"; ie- your here to fan flames. I'm not interested; if I want flame wars, I can go find them on usenet with people that make you look like a rank amateur.
Goodbye.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #92,854
3/29/03 3:01:00 PM
|
Re: Still trolling I see.
Um, so what you're saying is that the entire government will lie to you to fulfill their own agenda, but it's safe to trust the words of one government official (who of course has NO agenda WHATSOEVER)?
I am on the verge of losing all respect for your logical abilities.
|
Post #92,860
3/29/03 3:16:35 PM
|
Does "Niger" ring a bell?
Um, so what you're saying is that the entire government will lie to you to fulfill their own agenda, but it's safe to trust the words of one government official (who of course has NO agenda WHATSOEVER)? It seems that our current regime WOULD lie to fulfill its own agenda. The MOST RECENT example of this is the faked documentation about Iraq purchasing nuclear material from Niger.
|
Post #92,866
3/29/03 3:32:45 PM
|
Re: Does "Niger" ring a bell?
And who are you saying faked it?
|
Post #93,005
3/30/03 2:42:57 AM
|
I said our government used faked documents.
Fakes that were done so badly that anyone familiar with the situation would have been able to see they were fakes.
Our government used faked documents to support their case.
Where did I lose you?
:D
hahahahahahahahahhahahahaa
|
Post #93,112
3/30/03 4:03:55 PM
|
Re: I said our government used faked documents.
Uh, yeah, that's what some guy with a Muslim name says. I'm glad you're willing to swallow anything you hear as long as it goes with what you want to hear.
|
Post #93,127
3/30/03 4:40:37 PM
|
"what some guy with a Muslim name says"?
hahahahahahahaha You've COMPLETELY lost it. Now you're seeing Muslim conspiracies everywhere. hahahahahahahahahaa I'm glad you're willing to swallow anything you hear as long as it goes with what you want to hear. Did you miss the part about Niger? Oh, that's right, you didn't know where Niger was or why it was important.
|
Post #93,149
3/30/03 7:35:49 PM
|
Re: "what some guy with a Muslim name says"?
You are willing to believe the statements of some foreign "expert" about something, when we are launching an attack in that area.
I knew exactly where Niger was, I misread it as Nigeria (and also wanted to make a 419 joke). Can you draw the map of Africa complete with major cities and rivers?
|
Post #93,156
3/30/03 7:52:21 PM
|
a lot of us can, as a group we are geographically capable
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 #92,880
3/29/03 4:55:18 PM
|
Please it is Nigeria
please get the spelling right, the way you are spelling it is offensive to African-Americans. At least here in the USA it is offensive.
"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 #92,881
3/29/03 5:04:14 PM
|
Re: Please it is Nigeria
Shush now, please get a map (or read an article).
I appreciate you trying to help, but you are underinformed and will be shredded by these guys.
|
Post #92,922
3/29/03 8:58:16 PM
|
Well I admit
I didn't read whatever article it was, I missed that part of the conversation.
I am still learning about this conflict, and I am trying to learn the facts and keep the fluff out of it.
If there is a country named that, I apoligize, I thought wrongly. My Geography lessions didn't cover that country. I wonder why?
"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 #92,997
3/30/03 2:09:00 AM
|
This is my butt! Pucker up 'cause you'll be kissing it.
It's Niger. N I G E R Niger. please get the spelling right, the way you are spelling it is offensive to African-Americans. At least here in the USA it is offensive. Why? I suspect that most of them are better educated on the matter than you are. But why should that surprise me? You couldn't even tell the difference between a "WMD" and a rocket. I have a question for you. How many times will you have to be proven wrong before you'll realize that you don't have a FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about?
|
Post #93,009
3/30/03 2:53:09 AM
|
Re: This is my butt! Pucker up 'cause you'll be kissing it.
He already realized his mistake. You could at least recognize that he admitted he was wrong, and then post whatever crude posturings you prefer after his capitulation. Ignoring it just makes you look like you missed it entirely.
|
Post #93,021
3/30/03 3:16:41 AM
|
The question is "do I care"?
You BOTH made that SAME MISTAKE.
He's an idiot. You are an idiot.
hahahahahahahahahaha
You can BOTH kiss my ass!
hahahahahahahaha
No tongue though.
|
Post #93,076
3/30/03 1:44:26 PM
|
Re: The question is "do I care"?
Lame.
It wasn't you who pointed out any errors, so why gloat about it? It doesn't make you look any smarter.
|
Post #93,102
3/30/03 3:17:37 PM
|
"smarter"?
It doesn't make you look any smarter. That would depend upon how you define "smarter". It doesn't make me look any smarter than I looked before. But, let's be honest, that's rather difficult when I am a GOD! hahahahahahahahahahahaha On the other hand, it most certainly DOES make me look "smarter" than YOU! Because I was right and YOU were WRONG! hahahahahahahahahahahahaahaa
|
Post #93,114
3/30/03 4:06:43 PM
|
Re: "smarter"?
I always know you're in retreat when you break out with the "hahahaha."
I look forward to it in every thread, because I know my point has been made and understood.
|
Post #93,122
3/30/03 4:29:15 PM
|
Oh, so you weren't wrong on Niger?
That's funny. Because you WERE wrong.
hahahahahahahahahaha
Oh, am I in retreat now?
hahahahahahahhahahaha
I was right on Niger and you were wrong
-and-
I am the one in retreat.
I think the polarity on your dictionary is reversed.
You're confusing "right" with "wrong" and "retreat" with "kicking your ass".
|
Post #93,230
3/31/03 12:40:14 PM
|
Re: Oh, so you weren't wrong on Niger?
You weren't "right" per se, it wasn't you who brought my microscopic blunder to my attention.
So, I don't know why you should be gloating. As far as I know, you could have thought it was Nigeria until someone else pointed it out.
I never insisted that it was Nigeria, there was never an argument about it, and you weren't involved.
|
Post #93,251
3/31/03 1:45:33 PM
|
Now THAT is funny.
So, I don't know why you should be gloating. As far as I know, you could have thought it was Nigeria until someone else pointed it out. Ouch! What a come back. hahahahahahahahahahhahaahaaa Yes, I COULD have thought that. But, like the rest of your fantasies, you have no proof but that won't stop you from suggesting it.
|
Post #93,277
3/31/03 3:03:48 PM
|
Re: Now THAT is funny.
The fantasy is that you ever thought we were arguing about Nigeria/Niger. I saw my error and was corrected before you even saw my original error.
|
Post #93,405
4/1/03 12:28:50 AM
|
The point was you did not know the situation.
You had to be told of it HERE for the FIRST TIME.
|
Post #93,309
3/31/03 5:57:32 PM
|
I admit, I was wrong
I was misinformed, the country is right above Nigeria. Happy now?
"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 #93,318
3/31/03 6:21:44 PM
|
One fact accomplished.
Only a few thousand left to go.
Well, maybe I've managed to get TWO facts through your head. That is, if you can tell the difference between a rocket with a conventional warhead and a "WMD".
But I wouldn't bet on it.
:D
The question remains, how many times do you have to be proven wrong before you'll admit that you have no idea what is happening in this situation?
|
Post #93,320
3/31/03 6:39:09 PM
|
SLMRK, LMRKC has one...
Silly Lucky Magic Rabbit King, Lucky Magic Rabbit King Cereal has one in every box...
Those rhetorical questions only work on those that read them for what they are...
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://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops 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 checkpoints. |
|
Post #93,331
3/31/03 8:09:15 PM
|
Conventional warheads on long-range rockets
are a violation of UN Resolution 678. I thought that constituted as a WOMD because it violated the resolution. But by using your definition, not the UN Resolution 678's definition, it isn't a WOMD. I see that much.
"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 #93,346
3/31/03 9:31:24 PM
|
Resolution 678 addresses weapons
some of which are considered WMD. Conventional warheads on long range missiles is not one of those weapons.
--\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #93,347
3/31/03 9:41:59 PM
|
WMD is shorthand. 687 addresses the 150 km limit.
US media, and politicians who want their sound-bite in the US media, these days can't take the time to say that missiles having range greater than 150 km are proscribed to Iraq, just as biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and production facilities are proscribed. They all get lumped under "WMD". It's just unfortunate short-hand for the weapons and weapons-systems that the UN has said Iraq is forbidden to have. [link|http://www.un.int/usa/02_068.htm|Here]: [link|http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/687e.pdf|UN Security Council resolution 687] of April 3, 1991 will remain in force. Not only does the resolution require Iraq to destroy its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and limit the range of Iraq's ballistic missiles to 150 km. The resolution also prohibits the sale or supply to Iraq of all arms and related materials. This includes dual-use products and technologies related to military purposes as well as training and technical support. There will be no easing of restrictions on Iraq's rearmament. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #93,362
3/31/03 10:51:09 PM
|
Ok I admit they are not WMD
even if they are covered under 678 as Iraq not supposed to have them.
"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 #93,348
3/31/03 9:46:45 PM
|
That was never a UN definition.
Certain weapons were forbidden to Iraq. One category of those weapons were "WMD's". Another category were "rockets with range beyond X kilometers". They are NOT THE SAME. I messel that constituted as a WOMD because it violated the resolution. And THAT is the reason I consider you to be an idiot. You do NOT know what a "WMD" is. Instead, you demonstrate your IGNORANCE and think that ANY forbidden weapon is a "WMD". That behaviour is the behaviour of an idiot. Therefore, you are an idiot. Instead of spouting your ignorance on the subject, why not try READING about the subject? Or would that be too much effort? Just keep swallowing the propaganda and lies. They're all bite-sized, sugar-coated and pre-digested for you.
|
Post #92,648
3/28/03 9:23:53 PM
|
Re: Your examples
Your examples are, at best, rooted in the words of one or a few people. Their actions can hardly be attributed to "the government" as a whole
There is to such implacable naivete a kind of grandeur, don't you think?
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #92,764
3/29/03 7:16:28 AM
|
Such actions are ALWAYS rooted to a few individuals....
as the government itself would NEVER commit such treasonous acts.
Yet they always seem to occur.
|
Post #92,829
3/29/03 1:28:30 PM
|
Re: Such actions are ALWAYS rooted to a few individuals....
Ehm..."they always seem to occur" oh man, how could I have been so fooled!
Your incontrovertible statement has changed me, made me a new man. I don't need any facts, I trust you fully.
|
Post #92,776
3/29/03 7:49:34 AM
|
CYBERMACE5 rapidly degenerating debate to Marlowe level
Just what we needed - two of the same
Sheesh.
Spectres from our past: Beware the future when your children & theirs come after you for what you may have been willing to condone today - dsm 2003
Motivational: When performing activities, ask yourself if the person you most want to be would do, or say, it - dsm 2003
|
