Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

And let it be noted.. we were right.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 8:36am
This is just too good. Linus back in his old ways of blowing something up only to have to resort to defending it based on SEMANTICS. Even some of the rather conservative forumers are not defending him. It's kind of like our conservatives here in Ohio who won't even back up Govenor Taft. Now you know there's a problem when you're own people think you're crazy.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 8:52am

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

BUT, we also said we would find chemical and biological weapons, and we DID.

We didn't just say that we would find "chemical and biological weapons", Linus.  That is a completely dishonest characterization of what Bush was telling us about Saddam.  This argument is, frankly, awful.

Originally posted by CIA Report CIA Report wrote:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered...

We did not invade Iraq to find "a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions".  We just didn't.

Face it, Linus - we did not find what we were looking for.  What we claimed Saddam had did not exist.

And we keep coming back to the fact that nobody except Santorum thinks this is a big deal.  The CIA dismisses it; Bush has never mentioned it.  Even tool-boy Frist hasn't brought it up.

This just isn't a big deal.  These are not the weapons we were looking for.

This thread was created on the premise that these weapons somehow proved "us" right.  Well, they don't.  And it is time for you, Linus, to admit that you were 100% completely and absolutely wrong.



Edited by Clark Kent - 23 June 2006 at 8:52am
Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 10:23am
Owned.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 10:43am

And more:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

Originally posted by Article Article wrote:

...defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991...

Originally posted by Article also Article also wrote:

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."
(emphasis added)

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 10:55am
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

BUT, we also said we would find chemical and biological weapons, and we DID.


We didn't just say that we would find "chemical and biological weapons", Linus.† That is a completely dishonest characterization of what Bush was telling us about Saddam.† This argument is, frankly, awful.



But you simply are missing the point.

People over the years have claimed Pres Bush is a liar, and they fail to see the facts.

#1-- He told us what the intelligence told him, so he should NOT be blamed AT ALL when it comes to an intelligence mishap. Agreed?

#2-- We Did Not find the NUCLEAR weapons we thought he had, true, but we DID find OTHER WMD's that he denied having.

When he was giving his speech he NEVER said "Only nuclear weapons", he said "Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons"

We found 2 of the three he was told Saddam had.


2 of the 3 that Saddam told the whole world he DID NOT have.


Answer this: Just because we didnt find nukes, or a nuke program, but we found the other 2 main factors of us going in, does this instantly negate ANY reason to go to Iraq?



Quote

Originally posted by CIA Report CIA Report wrote:



While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered...


We did not invade Iraq to find "a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions".† We just didn't.


Face it, Linus - we did not find what we were looking for.† What we claimed Saddam had did not exist.



Yes and no. We didnt find nuclear weapons, but we DID find checmial and biological, and like i've been saying time and time again, thats better then nothing.


Quote

This just isn't a big deal.† These are not the weapons we were looking for.



Again, it's perspective. We said nuclear, chemical and biological. We found 2 of the 3.



Quote

This thread was created on the premise that these weapons somehow proved "us" right.† Well, they don't.†




This is where you are wrong, Clark.


I posted this for the people that say "There are no WMD's in Iraq, so there is no reason to be there"

Wrong, there are WMD's and we found them.


Whether you think the amount found justifies the war or not does not matter. They were found when we said he had them.

Stance of the war should not matter, face the facts.

Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 10:59am
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

I just want Clark to say that one little phrase that he keeps alluding.


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, yo. You do the same thing in almost every argument you participate in.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:03am
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:




Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,



Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:08am

I declare myself done with this discussion, as I am tired of repeating myself. 

Linus, you would do yourself a service if you would admit to being wrong.  As it is, you are simply making yourself look more foolish by the minute.  Instead, you invent bizarre semantic theories to argue against a position that nobody has taken.  Strawmen arguments are not persuasive - they only make the presenter look disingenuous, which is what is happening to you right now.

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:10am
The origional point for this thread was to fight the ones that say "No WMDs found, so Bush lied"

I dont care on the number (as long as its over 0), I dont care what type, I dont care how dangerous. Just that they were found to shut the ignorant people up.


PS-- DO you ever go to sleep? Jeez

Edited by Linus - 23 June 2006 at 11:11am

Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:12am
Linus, would you be willing to go tell someone their son died in a desert so that we could find a few old weapons that couldnt do much more damage than a modern hand grenade?
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:16am
They can and do do more damage then a modern hand grenade... bad example.

I would go to them and thank them for their sons commitment to his country, and doing what he VOLUNTEERED to do... fight for his country.

Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:19am
Linus, the shells were OLD.  They wouldnt do much damage at all, if they even still worked.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:21am
Skillet, again, not all of them were degraded, and that has been stated.

Some were, yes, but some weren't.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:24am

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

I dont care on the number (as long as its over 0), I dont care what type, I dont care how dangerous.

Ok - one more.

This statement, Linus, is something you should be embarrassed to say in public.  Only children get hung up on technicalities like this.  Thinking people look at the SUBSTANCE of the issue. 

The weapons that have been found are not relevant to the pre-war WMD intelligence.  You are arguing against people that do not exist.  It's a strawman, and you are embarrassing yourself.

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:31am
I thought you were done? Hmph.


Clark, again, listen.

People have always said, since the beggining, "No WMD's so Bush lied"

WMD's were found, and 500 is 500 too many for a man like Saddam to have, but he had them, even after he said he didnt.




Well they were found.

Edited by Linus - 23 June 2006 at 11:31am

Back to Top
Cedric View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Unit

Joined: 24 November 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4240
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cedric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:33am
Linus, you gotta learn to know when you're beat.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:37am

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

I thought you were done? Hmph.

I can't help myself.


Quote People have always said, since the beggining, "No WMD's so Bush lied"

Yes - AND THESE ARE NOT THE WMDs THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT!  These were not the WMDs that Bush claimed that Saddam had.  These were not the WMDs that Blix was looking for.  These are not the WMDs in question.  These are some other munitions entirely, and have NOTHING AT ALL to do with this whole discussion.

Just because they might fit within the larger category of "WMD" doesn't automatically make them relevant to the discussion.  The question here isn't about the semantics of what is and is not a "WMD" - the question is whether the pre-war intelligence was flawed.

The anti-Bush crowd is saying that Bush lied because he said we would find "X".  Well, we didn't find "X", and we now know that the intelligence that led us to think that "X" was there was flawed.

The fact that we now find something else that is similar to "X" doesn't change the FACT that we did not find what Bush said we would find.  It doesn't change the FACT that the pre-war intelligence was flawed.

You are getting WAY too hung up on the label.  The label is irrelevant.  You have to look at the substance. 



Edited by Clark Kent - 23 June 2006 at 11:37am
Back to Top
Rico's Revenge View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

I wanna be a cowboy

Joined: 21 January 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3569
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rico's Revenge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:38am

Just a quick point... I think both Lois, I mean Linus and Clark are correct on this.   (Sorry, just saw a Superman commercial)

The weapons found can indeed be classified as WMDs and yes, some of the substrates had broken down.   However, don't think if those agents were released into the air it would just smell like Big Al had a burrito in the tent.   It would still do alot of damage.

I don't believe the uncovering of these weapons was every really that secret.   Bush was actually smart not to tote around yelling, "We found 'em!"  

What this story really hits me with is the FACT that the UN Weapon Inspectors DID NOT accurately assess, inspect or uncover what was obviously there.   This is probably not 100% their fault since we have all heard the lament from the UN about not being allowed into areas they should have had full access to.  

My opinion is that there is a good chance that had the UN asserted the proper amount of "convincing" to Saddam in the past 10 years and had actually held up THEIR (the UN's) part of the Treaty produced from the first Gulf war, then the probability of this conflict happening within Dubya's term(s) in office would have been greatly reduced.

To Linus... walk away from this one brother.   This one is too muddy.

To Clark... I once again marvel at your wordsmith capabilities and debate skills, but again... this one is too muddy.   Nobody wins this one.

Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:39am
yes you did start this thread to justify going into iraq. why the hell else would you be asking and taunting the rest of the forum to come up with a reason not to be there? you have been defeated, again, i might add. admit it and walk away.


Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 June 2006 at 11:41am
Originally posted by Rico's Revenge Rico's Revenge wrote:

What this story really hits me with is the FACT that the UN Weapon Inspectors DID NOT accurately assess, inspect or uncover what was obviously there.   This is probably not 100% their fault since we have all heard the lament from the UN about not being allowed into areas they should have had full access to.  

I agree that this is interesting.  Although I am not very familiar with the Blix report, so there might be something in there about old munitions.  I don't know.

But if the Blix report did not mention these, then this does clearly (IMO) bring into doubt the effectiveness of the UN inspectors.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.