3
   

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

 
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:48 am
candidone1 wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

No one stepped forward with the information that WMD's were moved until Saddam was no longer in the picture. Prior to any invasion, no one knew that Saddam may have moved his existing WMD's. It was a secret, and unlike the US government, Saddam was able to actually keep secret things secret.

Is this really that hard an idea to grasp?


The date on my MSNBC link was January 2005.
There has been nothing that suggests that your thesis, vis a vis "secrets" and the moved WMD, is correct.

Is this really that hard an idea to grasp?

You can argue till you're blue in the face that Genoans in 1480 believed that the earth was flat, or that 16th century Greeks believed the planets orbited the earth, but we know better now than to argue these points....as should you.


You realize that 2005 is after the invasion right?

I would argue that all paths to prove the world was not flat and that not all planets orbited the Earth was investigated proving beyond a doubt that the Earth was indeed not flat and that the planets orbited the sun.

I understand your need to try to sidestep the idea that WMD's may still exist through hyperbole and humor. You must find it very distatseful to believe that the WMD's may have been moved and thus proving the need to invade was true. But, until all avenues of investigation have been explored and evidence of the destruction of all of the WMD's that we knew about are discovered, we must remain vigilant that they remain a threat.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:55 am
Quote:
You must find it very distatseful to believe that the WMD's may have been moved and thus proving the need to invade was true.


Even if there were WMDs, there was still no reason or justification for invasion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 10:57 am
McGentrix wrote:

You must find it very distatseful to believe that the WMD's may have been moved and thus proving the need to invade was true. But, until all avenues of investigation have been explored and evidence of the destruction of all of the WMD's that we knew about are discovered, we must remain vigilant that they remain a threat.


No, I don't just keep demanding evidence until the evidence proves my flawed theory correct.
Maybe I'll say this louder:

Quote:



I put this up against your unnamed "credible witnesses" anyday.
Just continue being afraid and paranoid. It's becoming.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 11:15 am
Quote:

THEY EXIST UNTIL THEY DON'T EXIST ANY LONGER. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE ALL DESTROYED.


Yeah.. right..

Nice logic if you can get others to agree with it.
You forgot to add..

THE EXIST UNTIL THEY DON'T EXIST ANY LONGER, EVEN IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THEY EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You have stated that WMDs were moved McG yet when asked for a list of WMDs you cite no WMDs at all. You list shells and precursors.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 12:23 pm
parados wrote:
Quote:

THEY EXIST UNTIL THEY DON'T EXIST ANY LONGER. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE ALL DESTROYED.


Yeah.. right..

Nice logic if you can get others to agree with it.
You forgot to add..

THE EXIST UNTIL THEY DON'T EXIST ANY LONGER, EVEN IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THEY EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You have stated that WMDs were moved McG yet when asked for a list of WMDs you cite no WMDs at all. You list shells and precursors.


Ooooohhh... I see. You believe Saddam never had any WMD's to begin with. That explains a lot.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 01:01 pm
No, I know what happened to the ones known to exist 1991. They were accounted for or chemistry tells me they degraded. You are the one claiming some non existent ones are still around.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 01:02 pm
parados wrote:
No, I know what happened to the ones known to exist. They were accounted for or chemistry tells me they degraded. You are the one claiming some non existent ones are still around.


He doesn't understand the logical fallacy inherent in his Black Swan argument, and I have a feeling that he won't understand it, ever, no matter how carefully you explain it to him...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 01:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
parados wrote:
No, I know what happened to the ones known to exist. They were accounted for or chemistry tells me they degraded. You are the one claiming some non existent ones are still around.


He doesn't understand the logical fallacy inherent in his Black Swan argument, and I have a feeling that he won't understand it, ever, no matter how carefully you explain it to him...

Cycloptichorn


I don't normally agree with McG, but I at least find him rational in what he believes.

This discussion certainly calls that rationality thing into question.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 01:30 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
parados wrote:
No, I know what happened to the ones known to exist. They were accounted for or chemistry tells me they degraded. You are the one claiming some non existent ones are still around.


He doesn't understand the logical fallacy inherent in his Black Swan argument, and I have a feeling that he won't understand it, ever, no matter how carefully you explain it to him...

Cycloptichorn


Right. So Saddam made no attempts at creating biological or chemical WMD's after 1991 then? They were all accounted for or degraded over time? All of them?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 01:34 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
parados wrote:
No, I know what happened to the ones known to exist. They were accounted for or chemistry tells me they degraded. You are the one claiming some non existent ones are still around.


He doesn't understand the logical fallacy inherent in his Black Swan argument, and I have a feeling that he won't understand it, ever, no matter how carefully you explain it to him...

Cycloptichorn


Right. So Saddam made no attempts at creating biological or chemical WMD's after 1991 then? They were all accounted for or degraded over time? All of them?


Oh, he very well may have. But we haven't seen any evidence that this is true.

While there 'may' still be WMD existing in Iraq, there is no affirmitive reason to believe that it is true, and certainly no reason to believe that they were shipped to Syria.

You are arguing that chemicals which normally degrade over time, didn't degrade; that weapons we can't find, must still exist; that the lack of evidence showing that something was destroyed is proof that it was not destroyed. None of these are strong arguments.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Nov, 2006 06:42 pm
Funny how some people made almost absolute statements on serious issues and then did a 180 on their own positions without any new evidence to back the change. Scott Ritter told us the truth but so did Condi and Powell. Yet as Scott kept to the truth Condi and particularely Powell played major roles in arguing the world into war based on evidence they knew was fake, forged and fabricated as ElBaradei called Powell's evidence presented at the UN shortly before Shock & Awe. "2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat" http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2018 11:17 am
@candidone1,
as true as it ever was for America's need to invade/interfere in other countries


candidone1 wrote:

Here's a good reason to stay in Iraq:

Quote:
Lockheed Martin is the world's largest defense contractor (by defense revenue). As of 2005, 95% of Lockheed Martin's revenues came from the U.S. Department of Defense, other U.S. federal government agencies, and foreign military customers.


Source

Quote:
Financially, the world's largest defense contractor realized $25.3 billion in 2000 revenue, almost flat compared to 1999 revenue of $25.5 billion. The company saw a net loss of $519 million, compared to 1998's $382 million in net earnings (which had plunged from 1998 earnings of $1 billion).


Source

Quote:

2001:
Lockheed martin reports first quarter 2001 earnings per share of $0.25; earnings per share of $0.23 excluding nonrecurring and unusual items
Generates $1.4 billion of free cash flow
Reaffirms 2001 free cash flow guidance of at least $800 million; free cash flow estimate of at least $1.8 billion for the two years 2001 and 2002 combined
Reaffirms 25 - 30 percent increase in 2001 recurring earnings per share outlook from 2000 results of $1.07; 2002 earnings per share growth of about 20 percent from 2001


Source

Quote:
2006:
Third quarter earnings per share up 52% to $1.46; Year-to-date earnings per share up 47% to $4.12

Third quarter net earnings up 47% to $629 million; Year-to-date net earnings up 43% to $1.8 billion

Third quarter net sales up 4% to $9.6 billion; Year-to-date net sales up 7% to $28.8 billion

Cash from operations of $652 million for the third quarter and $3.5 billion year-to-date


Source

Cha Ching.
Iraq has been good to LM.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2018 12:18 pm
Republicans and Democrats are in lock step on war. It will never end because they get re-elected every time.
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2018 at 08:24:59