posted
strider, in the politeness department? you have gotten back what you give in equal measure.... now you are whining.....
What was the purpose of your comment if it was not to imply that? The question mark on the end doesn't change the implication. It appears you were disagreeing with the content of my post.
i have to explain every statement over and over again because you don't detect nuances...
so far? i've been polite, yet you keep requesting more abuse.... quite frankly i am incapable of dealing with little old me. because you appear to have no long-term memory, you can't seem to follow an argument for more than one sentence.... you grasp individual sentneces out of pages of discussion and interpret them hwoever you you wish, mostly out of context, in some feeble attempt to make someone elses point appear to be wrong when it isn't even their point... this is not discussion or debating, it is a technique that reminds me of a lot of lower level managers, they use this type of management technique thinking they are good managers and they never figger out why the don't get promoted......
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I never claimed to be polite, but I don't whine and have not done so here.
Nuances are detected in different ways. Good writers can express them quite well. Good verbalists can also express them quite well. The trouble is, a good verbalist cannot always write in a way which makes their nuances clear. Most people think when they write, yet do not write all that they think. They believe the message they wrote contains their entire thought but they ususually don't. One reason sarcasm works very poorly in written debate.
It's a shame you can't deal with little old men. They generally have a lot of good experiences to share.
Since you were old enough to serve in the military during the Iran crisis, I think it's pretty fair to say that you are considerably older than I. You should know that since I served in the first Gulf War and stated so here.
What I'm requesting is discussion of the various topics I enter into on these boards. I do tend to get that for a while. But when it is apparent that the other individual no longer can succeed in changing my mind or furthering his own lack of a valid arguement, I get "abuse" that has nothing to do with the topic.
That is the sign of a weak debator.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you get abuse because you don't concede other peoples points when they make them.
yes i deduced that i am about ten years older than you, and have tried to be polite, but you deny your own statements... that becomes frustrating to people and they lose patience...
if i were to spend all day sorting thru your statements to show you how they contradict one another? i wouldn't get much else done... esp since you post so many of them...
on one post you claim access to intel not available on the news, in another you tell me i can't deduce our strategy by watching the news. (and i never claimed to understand all of it, just enough to know we did NOT contain the weapons caches, but we did contain the oil feilds) then YOU point to a news article as proof WMDs were used... contradictory to sy the least... esp since the sarin shell story died really qucikly..suspiciously quickly....
ANYBODY in the real intel community would never post on a bulletin board about their work anyway...so where do you get all this intel that wasn't on the news?
all i do is surf the web and sift data... and it IS there.... and yes there is a lot of BS so you have to keep track of corroborating stories to come up with a "bigger picture"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"........but I don't whine and have not done so here."
Yeah and pigs can fly. Exactly what are you doing now?
"What I'm requesting is discussion of the various topics I enter into on these boards."
No, what you are requesting is (1) to insult people and have them thank you and (2) to pass off ignorant rantings as facts that are clearly BS and have others worship your brilliance for doing it.
"I get "abuse" that has nothing to do with the topic."
When you can't prevail with illogical and stupid palaver, you insult people and call them names....you reap what you sew.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
glassman, that's too much work for most people, and they get scared when they see they might be wrong. Hurts to accept something, frightening even...
Knowledge is power.
After you realize it though when you put the pieces together and things don't fit you can easily see what's wrong and what is causing it.
In the eyes of our laws "beyond a reasonable doubt" can have you put to death. There's more reasonable doubt out there then most people could ever accept. And a lot of it is so "out of the box" people living in fairytale land can't accept anything that may change their beliefs.
After all, changing beliefs is the hardest thing to do.
Some people will stik to their guns.. But they don't see how hipocrytical they really are.
It's like if someone was christian and they thought that Islam was an evil religon.. Well, why are YOU right in the first place? because it sounds better? Because you grew up being told this is right and that is wrong.
Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't deny my own statements, I deny your faulty interpretation of my statements.
I concede valid points. I don't concede points which can be discounted by my own sources.
You could spend all day trying to find my own contradictions but I assure you, they are in your mind only. You see only what you want to see.
Our strategy is determined by the administration and the generals in the field. They do not share that information with us as it places our troops at risk. What you see on the news is opinions of talking heads.
You mentioned containment as a strategic concern. I explained to you what containment is. It is not securing the oil fields or weapons caches.
The news reports of the WMD's which I'm glad you finally admit you are aware of saving me the time of having to repost them died very quickly because they were not the BIG SCORE, the knockout blow everyone expected. The media reports what it wants to report. They did not regard it as important as it was not big enough, nor do they understand the nature of chemicals when exposed to heat and sunlight. When no big announcement is made that the lab confirmed the field results, they assume they weren't chemical weapons. The story dies. Besides, admitting that chemical weapons were found and used would undermine their campaign against Bush and the war.
I have the same intel you have and never claimed anything more. You simply read things into the intel that we do have that are not there.
I have been surfing for this information for 15 years. I am fully aware that there is a lot of BS and it is that BS which I do ignore. I also recognize the difference between opinion pieces and actual official reports. I'm pretty aware of the "big picture".
bdgee,
You have written a very accurate description of yourself. Thank you for saving me the time.
MasterQuinn,
Knowledge is power, so is the spreading of false knowledge designed to stir the fears or prejudices of the people. That is much easier to do than accept the real truth sometimes.
The real truth remains, Iraq had WMD's. Hussein was in violation of the cease fire agreement of 1991 concerning these WMD's. Evidence of Iraq's WMD's and other weapons systems in violation of the cease fire agreement were found after the invasion.
You can try to spin this all you want, make it appear trivial, but they are the facts.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hussein was in violation of the cease fire agreement of 1991 concerning these WMD's.
We happened to choose Saddam over all the other countries in the world with REAL THREATS? North Korea HAS nuclear weapons. One thing they don't have is oil.
Why don't we invade France, they were making money from the oil for food in iraq. Iraq supposidly supports terrorism so the french are supporting it to, lets go get them too.
quote:Evidence of Iraq's WMD's and other weapons systems in violation of the cease fire agreement were found after the invasion.
(did you know that supposidly 9 or so of the 9/11 hijackers were saudi's? let's invade them)
quote:Knowledge is power, so is the spreading of false knowledge designed to stir the fears or prejudices of the people. That is much easier to do than accept the real truth sometimes.
You mean like terrorism and how at any moment they could blow up a city or release chemicals or something and then use that to create a act called the Patriot act so the government can take away your right to privacy? Because apparently terrorists go to the bank and get accounts with their information and we need to have access to YOUR bank account so when they show their drivers license we can trace the money that they funnel.
GIVE ME A BREAK. Terrorists don't go get freakin bank accounts at the local HSBC so being able to search YOURS isn't going to help.
They also don't pick up the phone and go "Hey hamad, I need you to blow yourself up, meet me at mcdonalds"
So what is the point of these wasted security measures? Trading "security" for freedom...
The point: Fear is used in every facit to get desired outcomes because it works so well.. Talking about using fear and prejuidices is EXACTLY what this government has done.
Speaking of terrorists.. We still ahven't gotten Bin Laden? The mastermind behind terror? You know the guy who wanders the desert. We can get letters they write to each other but we can't find HIM? You know the guy who we gave millions of dollars worth of weapons to to defend Afghanistan from Russia in the early 80's because we were in the middle of the "cold war" The same guns they use to shoot back at our troops now.
Spin what? What am I spinning? Commoner...
Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The news reports of the WMD's which I'm glad you finally admit you are aware of saving me the time of having to repost them died very quickly
my response to the news article you posted was that they (the WMD cases) were insignificant, as in not what the white house was "pumping", so you admit that now too....
yet you disagreed with me when i said they were insignificant.....
maybe i should get out my kids crayons and draw a picture for you....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
We went after Hussein over all the other countries of the world because HE was the one in violation of a cease fire agreement.
A cease fire agreement, means exactly what it says. It does not end hostilities, it does not end a war. It has conditions which are to be met by the two sides, the losing side obviously having the most serious conditions. If the conditions are not met, the cease fire ends and hostilities resume. Hussein violated the conditions.
Where is the evidence cited that WMD's were found, two different reports, one by US forces, one by Polish forces that had positive test results from roadside bombs. Is the CIA lying? I have no idea. The report you site however also implys that chemical weapons were found.
"Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said."
Note they use the word "continue", not may possibly find. That implys they have found them and will continue to find them.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Still taking things out of context I see. The full quote is:
"The news reports of the WMD's which I'm glad you finally admit you are aware of saving me the time of having to repost them died very quickly because they were not the BIG SCORE, the knockout blow everyone expected. The media reports what it wants to report. They did not regard it as important as it was not big enough, nor do they understand the nature of chemicals when exposed to heat and sunlight. When no big announcement is made that the lab confirmed the field results, they assume they weren't chemical weapons. The story dies. Besides, admitting that chemical weapons were found and used would undermine their campaign against Bush and the war."
No where do I say they are insignificant. Once again, you see only what you want to see.
Obviously they are not insignificant for the purposes of these discussions. Either WMD's in the form of chemical weapons exist or they do not. The contention of many here is that they did not exist. Yet these two instance prove that they did. That makes them quite significant.
"maybe i should get out my kids crayons and draw a picture for you...."
What is it you hope to gain by attempting to insult me. I said "attempting" because you are incapable of insulting me. I am an anonymous poster in a message board forum whom you know almost nothing about and have been so far off base with your assumptions about me that your attempts to insult me only point out your own shortcomings. I've always been fascinated by this practice. What is it you hope to gain?
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole idea behing Iraq and WMD's was the idea that they could be used to kill americans.
quote:Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said."
How many 5? ten? They don't know. I'd love to see specifics. Why would I love to see specifics, because cited on the one report (glass I think you posted it and I cant find it, it was right off a government website) that cited specifically something like 35,000 gallons of chemical x.
Now we've deduced this amount to a few roadside bombs?
We've invaded a country for a few roadside bombs?
2K Americans dead, 12-15K wounded for a few roadside bombs?
quote:Note they use the word "continue", not may possibly find. That implys they have found them and will continue to find them.
So when Patrick Fitzgerald says the investigation will continue you think carl rove will be indicted?
I think we all know "continue" is used extensively by the government and agencies which means, we don't really care but we don't want to say we do because we will look bad.
We continue to look for Bin Laden... Uh, no we don't...
Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Still taking things out of context I see. The full quote is:
"The news reports of the WMD's which I'm glad you finally admit you are aware of saving me the time of having to repost them died very quickly because they were not the BIG SCORE, the knockout blow everyone expected. The media reports what it wants to report. They did not regard it as important as it was not big enough, nor do they understand the nature of chemicals when exposed to heat and sunlight. When no big announcement is made that the lab confirmed the field results, they assume they weren't chemical weapons. The story dies. Besides, admitting that chemical weapons were found and used would undermine their campaign against Bush and the war."
No where do I say they are insignificant. Once again, you see only what you want to see.
Obviously they are not insignificant for the purposes of these discussions. Either WMD's in the form of chemical weapons exist or they do not. The contention of many here is that they did not exist. Yet these two instance prove that they did. That makes them quite significant.
"maybe i should get out my kids crayons and draw a picture for you...."
What is it you hope to gain by attempting to insult me. I said "attempting" because you are incapable of insulting me. I am an anonymous poster in a message board forum whom you know almost nothing about and have been so far off base with your assumptions about me that your attempts to insult me only point out your own shortcomings. I've always been fascinated by this practice. What is it you hope to gain?
this proves you have no reading comprehension at all...
No where do I say they are insignificant. Once again, you see only what you want to see.
i glassman said they were insignificant.because they are in the greater political picture...
see right here? this is it...my response to the news article you posted was look up there and you'll see...
once again? you fail to interpret a simple statement... i do need to get out the crayons...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
by the way, strider, i peraonally do know what happens to the speyeshul weapons when they are not maintained in a climate controlled environment, and so do quite a few of the journalists...
this is anothe mistake that you make in your arguments...it really comes off as arrogant...and just begs for "crayon comments"
i also weighed this factor when i was deciding FOR MYSELF the WMD didn't exist before the ISG ever issued their reports...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Where did the 35000 gallons go? There is proof that it existed, there is no proof it was ever destroyed as required by the cease fire agreement. It was never destroyed in the presence of UN inspectors. It simply vanished. Is it that hard to imagine that barrels of chemicals just might be buried out there in the desert where we can't find it. An Australian military unit occupied an Iraq air base with somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 combat jets buried right under their noses. A jet is a lot larger than a barrel. They were there for three months until someone spotted the top of a tail fin that the wind had uncovered.
The search has not ended. The bottom section deals specifically with the small team which remains to "continue to examine documents and follow up on any reports of weapons of mass destruction."
Glassman,
Once again, you fail to post the entire quote. This is tiresome.
"my response to the news article you posted was that they (the WMD cases) were insignificant, as in not what the white house was "pumping", so you admit that now too....
yet you disagreed with me when i said they were insignificant....."
I do not "ADMIT THAT NOW TOO..."
It's right there. You are claiming that I too admit that they (the WMD's) were INSIGNIFICANT.
If I failed to interpret a simple statement, it is because it is not a well written one. Please, explain what that sentence was supposed to mean.
I'm begging for "crayon comments"? Interesting. And here I thought we were having a pleasant discussion.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i have to interject into youzallz convo about the missing evidence that stuff was destroyed...
quite a bit of UN evidence was REPORTED to be missing... filed and LOST.... there is quite a bit of speculation why that happened .. the speckelashun ranges from UN tactics to obtain more data to blackmail...
i am patiently waiting to see what we learn in the months and weeks ahead....
so now youz an angleesh teecher too eh?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
here is your statement that says they were insignificant:
The news reports of the WMD's which I'm glad you finally admit you are aware of saving me the time of having to repost them died very quickly because they were not the BIG SCORE, the knockout blow everyone expected. The media reports what it wants to report.
the media reports what it wants to report?
maybe i should take this opportunity to point out to you that the person sitting next to you may not be who they appear to be
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
That does not say they were insignificant. It says "they were not the BIG SCORE, the knockout blow everyone expected".
Translation: They were not the huge stockpiles of bombs stacked on top of each other and photographed by the UN. They were not the 35000 gallons of chemicals all in a nice tidy group.
It does not mean they were "insignificant".
You accuse me of failing to interpret a simple statement?
There is a long distance between insignificant and big score. You saw what you wanted to see.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than Bush, Cheney, and various persons in the Administration appointd by Bush, who else in the months preceding the invasion said that Saddam was in violation of the agreement?
Bush, Cheney, and those appointees claimed that the reason for saying he was not living up to the agreement was that he was making and hoarding WMDs and devices to deliver them on the US.
We now have proof that Saddam had no stockpiles of WMDs or weapons systems capable of delivering even children's noise makers into and onto the US and we have plenty of evidence that Bush, Cheney, and those appointees had that information at the time. It seems prudent to discount the claim of "failure to adhere to the cease fire agreement" and accept that it was every bit as fabricated as the claims of store houses of WMDs in Iraq.
Oh wait. I left out England's Prime Minister. He was Bush's appointment to the position of Cohort in Deception and Propaganda.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's not an opinion, it is a fact. Failure to adhere to a cease fire agreement is justification to resume hostilities.
I acknowledge that my "belief" that this is sufficient reason is while not alone is in the minority. Most believe it is not sufficient.
A similar situation existed in Europe in the 1930's. Another dictator flaunted a formal treaty in that instance and was appeased for years. Had that dictator been stopped in the early phases rather than allowed to grow stronger another war might have been averted or at least been much smaller and shorter than it was.
People then believed the same thing. Violation of a treaty or even the invasion of a few small nations was not sufficient cause to go to war.
bdgee,
Failure to adhere to the cease fire agreement was not fabricated. There were about 18 UN resolutions which dealt with the non-adhearance of the cease fire agreement.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: Where are all the WMDs he apparently did not cease firing? LOL
he was firing on our patrols over the no-fly zone...
BUT?
that wasn't getting anybody riled up enough to spend all the capital that we have to remove him....
U.S. Air Force jet fires missile at Iraqi radar facility missile Second strike against Iraq; larger no-fly zone takes effect
September 4, 1996 Web posted at: 12:10 p.m. EDT (1610 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. fighter jet patrolling the expanded no-fly zone in Iraq fired a missile at an Iraqi radar installation Wednesday, U.S. officials said.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
furthermore? if you were to read the Deulfer report you would have much more insight into why and how sadam was being a pompous aZZ, that is what he is guilty of...
he rarely kept written records of anything , he kept it all in his head, that's why he couldn't prove anything...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The war was under the direction of CENTCOM, a command overseen by the United States.
From the BBC News:
On 27 February 1991, jubilant Kuwaitis welcomed convoys of allied troops into the city.
Special forces went in first, followed by Kuwaiti troops and then US marines. At 2100 US time, President George Bush Snr announced a ceasefire from 0400 the following day.
Kuwaitis welcomed the allied forces
Allied forces across Iraq had by this time captured tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers.
Many were hungry, exhausted and demoralised and surrendered with little resistance. The US estimated that 150,000 Iraqi soldiers had deserted.
The allies had lost 148 soldiers in battle, and another 145 in deaths described as "non-battle".
Estimates of Iraqi deaths range from 60,000 to 200,000 soldiers. Heaps of Iraqi corpses were buried in mass graves in the desert.
On 2 March the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution establishing the terms of the ceasefire.
These required Iraq to end all military action, to rescind its annexation of Kuwait, to disclose information about any stored chemical and biological weapons, to release all international prisoners and accept responsibility for the casualties and damage done during its occupation of Kuwait.
The next day, Iraqi commanders accepted the ceasefire terms formally at a meeting with US military leaders in a tent at the captured Iraqi military base of Safwan.
Saddam Hussein did not attend.
****************
The March 2nd cease fire is UN Resolution 686
The agreement is between Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait on one side and Iraq on the other.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
No idea why you asked the question. It makes no difference if the cease fire was brokered by the UN or the United States. The United States fought the war.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL
