1
   

Iraq: The Missing Billions

 
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 12:16 pm
Thanks for the advice Anon. Lord knows I never have my facts straight and that I loved being uniformed. Sorry, but I don't have time to read every link that every poster I argue with ever posts. Plus, why are you so sure your link has true info? Maybe they're the ones who are not informed. Maybe they should get their facts straight and try again. I've never been one to buy the "I have a link so I'm right" argument.

I did notice though you didn't retort to any of my comments; you just told me to go read some link and come back again when my facts are straight (ie when I agree with that link). But that in itself speaks volumes.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 12:21 pm
That's how works around here, sometimes, CQ... You make a statement, then if anyone tries to refute it, or in any way disagrees with it, you merely brush them aside as they couldn't possibly have the intelligence to wipe their own ass, much less have an intelligent discussion.


Edited with a smaller brush.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 12:27 pm
Please don't paint with too broad a brush.
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 12:40 pm
McGentrix and Constant:

No, we just ask that you participate in your own education. We obtain those links in order to substantiate and prove points.

You would do well to help yourself become informed instead of making hysterical, emotional and incorrect assertions such as Constants.

The reason that I didn't retort Constants points is that it's nothing but emotional drive and inaccuracies

IF you had read the link, you would be better informed. It is your decision to remain in the dark!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 12:46 pm
Anon,

If you use "we" please make sure you don't include me. I think you hurt the arguments against the war more than help.
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 12:56 pm
Craven:

Sorry Craven, you are not included in we!

In what way do you think I'm hurting ??

Anon
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 01:05 pm
Irreconcilable differences in ratiocination and style. Prolly not worth going over.
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 01:14 pm
Nothing in my posts denote any emotionalism or hysteria unless you consider disagreement with Anon to equal emotionalism and hysteria.

So Anon, please explain the drivel and hysteria in my retorts to your six "lies". Or are my retorts so stupid and so beyond intellectual contempt that a brilliant foreign policy expert such as yourself should not even waste his precious time with them (thus proving McGentrix right)?

Craven has represented the anti-war side quite well in my humble opinion. And he didn't even have to use a link (at least none that I noticed).
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 01:24 pm
Well, I was gonna say pretty much the same thing you just said, CdK. There is a vast difference between partisan harangues and documented evidence. Neither side has a monopoly on that particular oversight. I'm forced to note, however, that some are more given to it than are others. Opinions are not findings, nor are annecdotes proof, nor are unsupported allegations valid indictments. The "Hate Bush" crowd are trapped in their own tail-biting routine, IMHO.
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 01:51 pm
Timber:


And the Love-Bush crowd can only do that. Mental activity ceases after that one thought!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 01:52 pm
Goes both ways. Hate and love are not based upon reason, they are emotions.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 02:09 pm
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
Anon wrote:

1. Saddam has WOMD's. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
2. Saddam bought Nuclear Material from Niger. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
3. Saddam was buying aluminum tubing for Nuclear Uses. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
4. Saddam was a direct danger to the U.S. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
5. Saddam was a direct danger to it's neighbors. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
6. Saddam has involved in 9/11. (A Bush Administration Lie!)




1) I bet the Kurds he gassed would disagree with you.
The Kurds were gassed under Bush I's administration, with products purchased from the US. Products that may have been destroyed since.
2) Not a lie. The worst one could accuse him of is believing false info: British Intel, who by the way still claim that this is true.
But there are indications that this allegation was thought false long before it ended up in a speech.
3) Those weren't aluminum tubes that were dug up in the backyard of one his scientists? Maybe he thought by burying them he could grow aluminum plants? Why else were they there?
Centrifuge parts (parts (parts(parts))) that are buried for over a decade are not WMDs. No, they were not aluminium tubes, either. get your misinformation straight, please.
4) See point 6.
Bush and c. implied that
a) Hussein was capable of launching UAVs that were capable of reaching US soil. False.
b) Iraq was involved in international terrorism. False. Iraq had not been involved in international terror excercises since the early 1990s.

5) I bet Kuwait, the Kurds and the bodies in the mass grave disagree with you.
The gassing of the Kurds took place when we were friends with Iraq. The mass graves were filled with Iraqis, so technically this doesn't suppport your claim that he was a threat to his neighbors. In fact, it was only Iran that felt Hussein was a threat, and that has more to do with Persian/Arab animosity than with terrorism. As for Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie pretty much goaded Hussein into attacking by guarunteeing the US would do nothing.
6) He never claimed Iraq was involved with 9/11. He said there was evidence to suggest that Iraq and Al Queada had a relationship. That is not the same as claiming he helped with 9/11. And such a relationship IS a threat to the US.
The strongest evidence was supposed to be evidence of a meeting between one of the hijackers and an Iraqi agent in Praugue. That meeting, per US intelligence, never happened. Al-Quaeda, a fundamentalist Islamic organization, had nothing but contempt for Hussein, a secular marxist dictator. Osama bin-Laden frequently called for the ouster of Hussein from power. Ironically, with the chaos in Iraq, al-Quaeda has likely moved in, and Bush made it possible.
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 02:20 pm
Hobbit:

Thank you ... I wasn't into wasting any more of my time!!

By the way ... In Constants numbers 1 and 5, the question was not .. did Saddam have WOMD's in 1990 ? ... The question was ... did he have WOMD's in 2002-2003 ?

The link I gave also goes well into all the items.

Anon
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 02:27 pm
All emotion aside, no evidence has been produced that any of the alledged lies were in fact lies. Spin is spin, whatever its direction. I have no love for Bush, and fault him for much. I find no evidence of mendacity or venality, however. Plenty of rhetoric, but no substantiating evidence. Neither, it would appear, does either the populace at large nor the Judicial Branch see any validity to the claims. If there is a case to be made, file suit or obtain indictments through grand jury proceedings and prevail in the prosecution thereof. The Opposition appears disinclined to shut up though unable to put up. Frankly, the incessant pounding on the theme serves merely to distance The Opposition from The Electorate. Go for it. Please.
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 02:32 pm
Timber:

You obviously have not read the link either! You elimate it automatically without knowing. This link happens to be an interview on 60 Minutes (2), which was with Georgies lead Iraqi Weapons expert! In this interview, he does a lot to clear up the argument ... zip zip.

Isn't hilarious that whenever one of Georgies top people turn against him, they become unbelievable!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 02:59 pm
By The Way


WHERE DID THE MISSING BILLIONS GO ?? (The Topic!)

My Answer ... The Bush Crime Syndicate!!


Anon
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 03:05 pm
I read the link, Anon, and in fact saw the 60 minutes piece. I just don't see that the article, or the TV interview, validate any of your assertions. All that is proven is that Thielman espouses a point of view with which you agree.

Of particular note are the last few paragraphs of the article:
Quote:
(Powell says) "That's nonsense. I don't think I used the word 'imminent' in my presentation on the 5th of February. I presented, on the 5th of February not something I pulled out of the air. I presented the considered judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America -- the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America," said Powell, according to a transcript of the interview released by the State Department.

"The investigation continues. There is an individual, I guess, who is going on a television show to say I misled the American people. I don't mislead the American people and I never would. I presented the best information that our intelligence community had to offer."

When the BBC interviewer pointed out that Thielmann was considered the leading expert for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in his department, Powell replied: "I have many experts in my department, and there are many differences of opinion, among any group of experts. And it's quite easy for a television program to get this individual and then they complain. But to try to turn it around and say that 'Secretary Powell made this all up and presented it, knowing it was false,' is simply inaccurate."

Powell again refuted the charges in an Oct. 16 interview with National Public Radio.

"It wasn't hyped. It wasn't overblown," said Powell, in a transcript released by the State Department. "I would not do that to the American people, nor would I do that before the Security Council, as a representative of the American people and of the President of the United States."


Oh, and heres some inconvenience for the "Missing Billions" theory. Here's some More. And here, from the Coalition Provisional Authority, is more DETAIL.

Where are the evidentiary documents, not opinions, commentaries, or editorial pieces, to support your allegations?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 03:59 pm
Timber
Timber wrote: "If there is a case to be made, file suit or obtain indictments through grand jury proceedings and prevail in the prosecution thereof."

Timber, please advise me how it is possible to sue the Government or the President. I seem to recall that both are immune to lawsuits under the Law.

BBB
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 04:05 pm
Not so, BBB, both civil suits and criminal actions may be brought against either, subject to standard rules of evidentiary proceedure. Just ask Dick Nixon, Bill Clinton, The Defense Department, The FAA, The FCC, The Department of Transportation, or The ICC, or The Environmental Protection Agency, to name a few. What is more difficult, though by no means impossible, is to initiate such actions frivolously.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 08:41:12