Newsweek Lied, People Died

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why are the libs afraid to define "supporting your country in time of war?"

Because they have an alternate agenda - losing the war, overthrowing the government and toppling the wealthy, to steal the power they don't have.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

...

You stated that Saddam refused to cooperate. I stated you can not provide any evidence that he did refuse to cooperate. Your argument here is simply that he refused to show us where stuff that didn't exist was. Hardly an argument to his non cooperation. Rather it is an argument about setting an impossible standard then accusing someone of failing to cooperate because they couldn't do the impossible.

I asserted Saddam failed to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors ... Parados defended Saddam (by arguing in support of his actions, or by arguing against the claim I was making) and asserted that Saddam did not refuse to cooperate...

June 1997- Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

June 21, 1997- Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

June 21, 1997- The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

September 13, 1997- An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

September 17, 1997- While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

etc.

Source

cjhsa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why are the libs afraid to define "supporting your country in time of war?"

Because they have an alternate agenda - losing the war, overthrowing the government and toppling the wealthy, to steal the power they don't have.

The question you need to ask yourself, is what would Franklin Roosevelt have done with these fools for printing the same sort of story in 1942?

I mean, you don't even have to ask, do you?

Parados defended Saddam in our argument regarding whether Saddam cooperated with UN weapons inspectors. An "apologist" is someone who argues in defense or justification of something. In this case, since Parados defended Saddam or his policies, he is an apologist for Saddam. Feel free to point out my error.

And point out where I called him "pro-Hussein" while you're at it.

cjhsa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why are the libs afraid to define "supporting your country in time of war?"

Because they have an alternate agenda - losing the war, overthrowing the government and toppling the wealthy, to steal the power they don't have.

The question you need to ask yourself, is what would Franklin Roosevelt have done with these fools for printing the same sort of story in 1942?

I mean, you don't even have to ask, do you?

gungasnake wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why are the libs afraid to define "supporting your country in time of war?"

Because they have an alternate agenda - losing the war, overthrowing the government and toppling the wealthy, to steal the power they don't have.

The question you need to ask yourself, is what would Franklin Roosevelt have done with these fools for printing the same sort of story in 1942?

I mean, you don't even have to ask, do you?

The question is why even someone so far right as Gunga would dream of comparing now to 1942.

The question you need to ask yourself, is what would Franklin Roosevelt have done with these fools for printing the same sort of story in 1942?

Ticomaya wrote:

Nah - I will never sink that low, I decide, Tico. You do yourself a grave disservice by doing so.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It wasn't a lie.

Newsweek is just trying to do the right thing and calm the situation down.

Funny how you're not angry, Gunga, about how Bush's WMD lies led to thousands of deaths in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

Funny how you can claim Newsweek didn't lie, but Bush did.

Some discernment, please.

Bush did lie...

Tico wrote:

Quote:

Parados defended Saddam in our argument regarding whether Saddam cooperated with UN weapons inspectors. An "apologist" is someone who argues in defense or justification of something. In this case, since Parados defended Saddam or his policies, he is an apologist for Saddam. Feel free to point out my error.

And point out where I called him "pro-Hussein" while you're at it.

Still waiting for you to point to where I apologized for Saddam. or defended him or justified him or anything else.

Or is this just another claim that you feel you don't have to provide any evidence for?

Gunga:

Quote:

The question you need to ask yourself, is what would Franklin Roosevelt have done with these fools for printing the same sort of story in 1942?

He never would have had the problem, as we had more honor as a nation then and didn't rely on Torture to get our foul ends done.

Cycloptichorn

careful with that axe, tico , wouldn't see you cut yourself.

Sorry ... my limit today for explaining my reasoning is twice. I'm sorry you aren't able to follow my logic, but once you asserted that Saddam was cooperating because there was no WMD found when the US invaded, that pretty much illustrated the parameters of your thinking on this issue as far as I'm concerned.

Your protestations that you aren't a Saddam apologist have caused you to sound like the image in your avatar. You should face up to the fact that you are defending Saddam's policies and practices -- plain and simple. You apparently don't like this being pointed out to you, but your dismay at learning this about yourself doesn't alter the reality.

And where are all these items? There were not tens of thousand of unaccounted for warheads. Geez.. Go read the Unscom reports. There was no mobile lab for biological weapons. This turned out to be made up stuff. Hardly a reason to go to war.

You stated that Saddam refused to cooperate. I stated you can not provide any evidence that he did refuse to cooperate. Your argument here is simply that he refused to show us where stuff that didn't exist was. Hardly an argument to his non cooperation. Rather it is an argument about setting an impossible standard then accusing someone of failing to cooperate because they couldn't do the impossible.

Yeah, and? where are those WMD that were claimed?
The document presented had lots of nice rhetoric about Saddam had to truthfully declare his WMD or be invaded. Saddam claimed he had none. It appears that Saddam fulfilled his requirements.

Which part of his not cooperating are you claiming? I don't see any evidence yet that he didn't do so.

I guess Saddam didn't cooperate when he failed to turn over items that didn't even exist. Wow. Is that your lack of cooperation? Saddam didn't cooperate because he failed to do the impossible.

Ticomaya wrote:

Sorry ... my limit today for explaining my reasoning is twice. I'm sorry you aren't able to follow my logic, but once you asserted that Saddam was cooperating because there was no WMD found when the US invaded, that pretty much illustrated the parameters of your thinking on this issue as far as I'm concerned.

Your protestations that you aren't a Saddam apologist have caused you to sound like the image in your avatar. You should face up to the fact that you are defending Saddam's policies and practices -- plain and simple. You apparently don't like this being pointed out to you, but your dismay at learning this about yourself doesn't alter the reality.

I see. Another misrepresentation of what I have said. Kindly point out in my statements where I asserted Saddam was cooperating because no WMD were found. My statements follow to make the job easier for you.


I am making this as simple as possible for you Tico. You only need to bold the statement that I made that matches your claims. So far you have claimed I have justified and defended Saddam and now you have a new claim.

Quote:

And where are all these items? There were not tens of thousand of unaccounted for warheads. Geez.. Go read the Unscom reports. There was no mobile lab for biological weapons. This turned out to be made up stuff. Hardly a reason to go to war.

You stated that Saddam refused to cooperate. I stated you can not provide any evidence that he did refuse to cooperate. Your argument here is simply that he refused to show us where stuff that didn't exist was. Hardly an argument to his non cooperation. Rather it is an argument about setting an impossible standard then accusing someone of failing to cooperate because they couldn't do the impossible.

Quote:

Yeah, and? where are those WMD that were claimed?
The document presented had lots of nice rhetoric about Saddam had to truthfully declare his WMD or be invaded. Saddam claimed he had none. It appears that Saddam fulfilled his requirements.

Which part of his not cooperating are you claiming? I don't see any evidence yet that he didn't do so.

Quote:

I guess Saddam didn't cooperate when he failed to turn over items that didn't even exist. Wow. Is that your lack of cooperation? Saddam didn't cooperate because he failed to do the impossible.

Ticomaya said:
Sorry ... my limit today for explaining my reasoning is twice.

cjhsa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why are the libs afraid to define "supporting your country in time of war?"

Because they have an alternate agenda - losing the war, overthrowing the government and toppling the wealthy, to steal the power they don't have.

try not going to war for nothing, not being forced to behave like murderous profiteering bullies for the exclusive enrichment of a few, and going on about our business without a bunch of pious hypocritical jackasses sticking their noses and their stupid ideaology in our business.

Short of that, I like the Anarchy approach pretty well.

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It wasn't a lie.

Newsweek is just trying to do the right thing and calm the situation down.

Funny how you're not angry, Gunga, about how Bush's WMD lies led to thousands of deaths in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

Funny how you can claim Newsweek didn't lie, but Bush did.

Some discernment, please.

Bush did lie...

Prove it. (Your hunches don't count, BTW. )

parados wrote:

Tico wrote:

Quote:

Parados defended Saddam in our argument regarding whether Saddam cooperated with UN weapons inspectors. An "apologist" is someone who argues in defense or justification of something. In this case, since Parados defended Saddam or his policies, he is an apologist for Saddam. Feel free to point out my error.

And point out where I called him "pro-Hussein" while you're at it.

Still waiting for you to point to where I apologized for Saddam. or defended him or justified him or anything else.

Or is this just another claim that you feel you don't have to provide any evidence for?

Sorry ... my limit today for explaining my reasoning is twice. I'm sorry you aren't able to follow my logic, but once you asserted that Saddam was cooperating because there was no WMD found when the US invaded, that pretty much illustrated the parameters of your thinking on this issue as far as I'm concerned.

Your protestations that you aren't a Saddam apologist have caused you to sound like the image in your avatar. You should face up to the fact that you are defending Saddam's policies and practices -- plain and simple. You apparently don't like this being pointed out to you, but your dismay at learning this about yourself doesn't alter the reality.