4
   

Remind Me Again... We're Staying In Iraq Why?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 08:31 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
we are absolutely certain that no US or western city will ever be obliterated by a WMD from Iraq.


This statement, Brandon, is clearly a lie. Why do you lie to us?

A moment ago, upon seeng BPB's objection, I admitted that the post was in error and re-stated it correctly. By what means do you conclude that every person who is incorrect is lying? That is, in and of itself, a characteristic of liars.


I did not say that "every person who is incorrect is lying". I asked why you were lying. Why do misstate what I said? It seems you cannot build an argument countering what I really said. Instead, you have to mischaracterize my statement. A simple "I was wrong" would have sufficed.

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the actual point I was making about WMD. It seems you cannot build an argument regarding the actual point, and, therefore, have to function on the level of distraction.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 08:16 am
your post has been commented on Brandon and the concensus seems to be it's ****, un thought out, unprovable and actaully pretty stupid.


some things you cannot stiffen your neck and just argue your way out of honey. Even your deity bush can't do that.

Keep trying though. In some childish way we enjoy seeing both your asses twisting out in mid air
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 09:38 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
your post has been commented on Brandon and the concensus seems to be it's ****, un thought out, unprovable and actaully pretty stupid.


some things you cannot stiffen your neck and just argue your way out of honey. Even your deity bush can't do that.

Keep trying though. In some childish way we enjoy seeing both your asses twisting out in mid air

One wishes you would be mature enough once in awhile to comment on a differing opinion without reference to the poster. In fact, only my initial formulation of the statement has been commented on seriously, and I agreed with your comment. I then re-formulated the statement into what I believe is a correct form. I assert that the following good was accomplished by the invasion of Iraq. Prior to the invasion, it was known that Saddam Hussein had been conducting research into nuclear and biological weapons. At the time of the invasion, no one really knew whether these programs had stopped, or were merely continuing in secret. Had the latter possibility been true, we would probably have eventually had to face nuclear and/or biological weapons controlled by Iraq. Had that been the case, it is not so unlikely that one might have been used, most likely against the West. One nuclear weapon of the size Iraq would most likely have developed could kill hundreds of thousands of people in one blow.

The good accomplished by the invasion is that we now know for certain that Saddam Hussein's former weapons development programs will not one day result in the obliteration of a western city. Had we not invaded, we would almost certainly still be wondering.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 10:35 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
your post has been commented on Brandon and the concensus seems to be it's ****, un thought out, unprovable and actaully pretty stupid.


some things you cannot stiffen your neck and just argue your way out of honey. Even your deity bush can't do that.

Keep trying though. In some childish way we enjoy seeing both your asses twisting out in mid air

One wishes you would be mature enough once in awhile to comment on a differing opinion without reference to the poster. In fact, only my initial formulation of the statement has been commented on seriously, and I agreed with your comment. I then re-formulated the statement into what I believe is a correct form. I assert that the following good was accomplished by the invasion of Iraq. Prior to the invasion, it was known that Saddam Hussein had been conducting research into nuclear and biological weapons. At the time of the invasion, no one really knew whether these programs had stopped, or were merely continuing in secret. Had the latter possibility been true, we would probably have eventually had to face nuclear and/or biological weapons controlled by Iraq. Had that been the case, it is not so unlikely that one might have been used, most likely against the West. One nuclear weapon of the size Iraq would most likely have developed could kill hundreds of thousands of people in one blow.

The good accomplished by the invasion is that we now know for certain that Saddam Hussein's former weapons development programs will not one day result in the obliteration of a western city. Had we not invaded, we would almost certainly still be wondering.


again you state with certainty that no weapons from Saddams program will ever target a Western country.

Okay Brandon, first do what you and no one else has been able to do. Prove there are weapons capable of that from Saddams weapons program or ever were.

then, if you're so godddam sure that there were WMD's and they got hidden somewhere and are still around, prove that they won't be dug up at some point and used against us or a Western Country.

You can't. You're statement is bullshit. Live with it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 05:02 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
your post has been commented on Brandon and the concensus seems to be it's ****, un thought out, unprovable and actaully pretty stupid.


some things you cannot stiffen your neck and just argue your way out of honey. Even your deity bush can't do that.

Keep trying though. In some childish way we enjoy seeing both your asses twisting out in mid air

One wishes you would be mature enough once in awhile to comment on a differing opinion without reference to the poster. In fact, only my initial formulation of the statement has been commented on seriously, and I agreed with your comment. I then re-formulated the statement into what I believe is a correct form. I assert that the following good was accomplished by the invasion of Iraq. Prior to the invasion, it was known that Saddam Hussein had been conducting research into nuclear and biological weapons. At the time of the invasion, no one really knew whether these programs had stopped, or were merely continuing in secret. Had the latter possibility been true, we would probably have eventually had to face nuclear and/or biological weapons controlled by Iraq. Had that been the case, it is not so unlikely that one might have been used, most likely against the West. One nuclear weapon of the size Iraq would most likely have developed could kill hundreds of thousands of people in one blow.

The good accomplished by the invasion is that we now know for certain that Saddam Hussein's former weapons development programs will not one day result in the obliteration of a western city. Had we not invaded, we would almost certainly still be wondering.


again you state with certainty that no weapons from Saddams program will ever target a Western country.

Okay Brandon, first do what you and no one else has been able to do. Prove there are weapons capable of that from Saddams weapons program or ever were.

then, if you're so godddam sure that there were WMD's and they got hidden somewhere and are still around, prove that they won't be dug up at some point and used against us or a Western Country.

You can't. You're statement is bullshit. Live with it.

I certainly have not asserted that there were WMD at the time of invasion, or that when we invaded they were there but hidden.

What I am asserting is that there was a brutal dictator, who attempted to annex neighbors, and who had programs to develop both nuclear and biological weapons - someone who certainly could not be allowed to possess such weapons. We attempted to hold him to his promise to provide verification that such development programs had been stopped, yet at the time of invasion, no one really knew whether these development efforts still existed or not, because he could not be induced to provide such proof. Had his development programs still existed, the end result might have been the use of such a weapon to obliterate a city in one blow. Uncertainty about such a grave matter was certainly not unacceptable. What was achieved by invading was the knowledge that Saddam Hussein's WMD development programs had ceased and that there was no stockpile of weapons.

Can I say for sure that in the future Iraq won't seek superweapons? No. Can I say for sure that WMD are not hidden, and that they will not be retrieved by the new government and used to kill hundreds of thousands of people per bomb? No. Certainly, any threat which is ever intervened in can return when one finally stops the intervention, yet one cannot leave what could well be grave danger in place.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 06:32 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
...What was achieved by invading was the knowledge that Saddam Hussein's WMD development programs had ceased and that there was no stockpile of weapons.


You seem to have conveniently forgotten that there were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to do that very job, Brandon. .... But I'm not going down this path, yet again. I think we're all pretty clear on what happened & why. And how easily the mass carnage that has occurred in Iraq, directly as a result of the invasion, could have been avoided.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 08:18 am
brandon get a social life or a friend or a dog or something.... or just call an escort service....maybe it'll help relieve your pathological need to never (in your mind) lose an argument no matter what Laughing
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 10:16 am
msolga wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
...What was achieved by invading was the knowledge that Saddam Hussein's WMD development programs had ceased and that there was no stockpile of weapons.


You seem to have conveniently forgotten that there were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to do that very job, Brandon. .... But I'm not going down this path, yet again. I think we're all pretty clear on what happened & why. And how easily the mass carnage that has occurred in Iraq, directly as a result of the invasion, could have been avoided.


Quite right, msolga. One thing we can say for sure about this foolish war, indeed perhaps the only thing, it definitely proved how remarkably effective the much denigrated UN inspections were.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 10:42 am
msolga wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
...What was achieved by invading was the knowledge that Saddam Hussein's WMD development programs had ceased and that there was no stockpile of weapons.


You seem to have conveniently forgotten that there were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to do that very job, Brandon. .... But I'm not going down this path, yet again. I think we're all pretty clear on what happened & why. And how easily the mass carnage that has occurred in Iraq, directly as a result of the invasion, could have been avoided.

There had been weapons inspectors in Iraq for a dozen years, without the desired result being achieved. Had Hussein been continuing to hide his WMD development programs, something no one could say wasn't so, an even larger carnage might have resulted in a few years when such programs reached fruition. Most of the deaths which have occurred in this case were not caused by our soldiers, but by terrorism conducted after the war by the people we are now trying to stop.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 10:47 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
brandon get a social life or a friend or a dog or something.... or just call an escort service....maybe it'll help relieve your pathological need to never (in your mind) lose an argument no matter what Laughing

You make a statement, I give an on-topic answer. That's actually the way the board is supposed to function. It isn't actually unusual that I present and defend my viewpoint on the Politics board. You very clearly prefer to insulting those who disagree with you, rather than discussing the issue with them or simply ignoring them. May I suggest that you not start threads posing a question, if you don't want people to respond?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 11:58 am
may I suggest that everyone here has the same right to disagree with with and denigrate your responses that you exercise on theirs?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 01:30 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
There had been weapons inspectors in Iraq for a dozen years, without the desired result being achieved.


What?

Saddam was actually in possession of WMD? Have they been found? Did I miss something?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 03:28 pm
Brandon won't read this valuable essay by Michael Massing, but some of the rest of you might. I think the time would be more profitably spent with Massing than with Brandon if he remains incapable of digesting the findings of even Bush's hand-picked weapons inspector.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19720
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 09:45 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
There had been weapons inspectors in Iraq for a dozen years, without the desired result being achieved.


What?

Saddam was actually in possession of WMD? Have they been found? Did I miss something?


No, the DESIRED RESULT hadn't been achieved, that is, Bush and the boys needed to find something, but those darn inspectors couldn't come up with the goods, mostly because THE WMDs weren't there, but hey... .

(Remember in the Hardy Boys -The Tower Treasure- when everyone kept looking for the stolen loot in the tower of the old man, but it was never there in the first place, but they were so sure.)

Joe(D. Rumsfeld "We know where they are.")Nation
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 09:52 pm
excellent article, Bernie.

Who was it who envisioned several massive military bases and the largest embassy in the world right smack dab in the middle of the Fertile Crescent? When was that? Three years ago or a lifetime?

Joe(I'll be back after New Years. Cheers)Nation
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 02:12 am
While Democratic leaders talk of "going slow," smart Republicans are recognizing the political opening and seizing it.

Case in point: Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel's opinion piece in Sunday's Washington Post.

Hagel has long been blunter than his Democratic colleagues about the disaster that the Iraq occupation has become for the U.S. The Nebraska Republican was making comparisons between the Vietnam War, in which he served, and the Iraq imbroglio months ago -- at a point when most Senate Democrats were holding their tongues.

Hagel has now taken the mightly leap of declaring that it is time to "form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq."


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=143259
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 02:18 am
In the Vietnam era, President Richard M. Nixon went on a well-armed, years-long hunt for something he called "peace with honor." Today, the catchword is finding an "exit strategy" that can "salvage U.S. prestige."

What we want, it seems, is peace with "dignity." In Vietnam, there was no honor left, only horror. There is no American dignity to be found in Iraq either, only horror.
In a Washington of suddenly lowered expectations, dignity is defined as hanging in there until an Iraqi government that can't even control its own Interior Ministry or the police on the streets of the capital gains "stability," until the Sunni insurgency becomes a mild irritation, and until that American embassy under construction, that eighth wonder of the world of security and comfort, becomes an eye-catching landmark on the capital's skyline.

Imagine. That's all we want. That's our dignity. And for that dignity and the imagined imperial stability of the world, our top movers and shakers will proceed to monkey around for months creating and implementing plans that will only ensure further catastrophe (which, in turn, will but breed more rage, more terrorism that spreads disaster to the Middle East and actually lessens American power around the world).

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=142484
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 05:49 am
I agree, snood.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 05:50 am
Eisenhower was no dove. And no traitor. I think that unless American society really confronts Ike's warning in his famous last speech on the, then new, phenomenon of the military-industrial complex, the US will increasingly become a weakened and unwelcome player on the world stage.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 02:54 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
There had been weapons inspectors in Iraq for a dozen years, without the desired result being achieved.


What?

Saddam was actually in possession of WMD? Have they been found? Did I miss something?

Saddam Hussein had promised to show verifiably that any WMD had been destroyed and any WMD development programs, which certainly existed, had been dismantled. No such verification had been obtained after a dozen years.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 06:06:39