WMD? Wonder what the spin will be on this.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stuartj
What a busy Freeper you must be.

On the issue of WMD. Where are the they, then? Where are the capabilities you refer to and the infrastructure required to support and deploy that capabilty? If the appearence of one Sarin artillery shell is cause for such neocon celebration, imagine what will happen when a cache is actually found. Oh, the joy.

Thare was enough sarin in that shell to kill hundreds of people. Do we know how many there are?

They obviously had the infrastructure in place to build this warhead...it would have been just as easy to build thousands.

All that was required to deploy the capability was a simple artillery piece..the kind that Iraq used to launch chemical attacks on Iran and his own people..the kind of artillery piece that Iraq had hundreds of before we destroyed them. The exact same capability is easily transferable to any delivery system from a carbomb to a UAV or even to a suitcase.

You guys are just upset to find out that you have been wrong all along when you said that Saddam did not have any WMDs...You can spin all you like but even GW was smarter than the liberals...LOL

[350HP930]

Careful there Mark, Stuart is making a much better argument than you are.

I think you are mistaking validity for volume. It must suck to be on a loosing end of an argument, huh?

I believe this is the day the world became a more dangerous place.

[on-ramp]

fintstone ,

and what about North Korea, a known, self-proclaimed nuclear nation.

would you apply the same standards there as Iraq?

[techweenie]

"They obviously had the infrastructure in place to build this warhead...it would have been just as easy to build thousands."

Had is the operative word. This warhead *most likely* dates to the 80s.

You want to bomb a country because of weapons they had 16 years earlier; you're going to have few supporters.

Originally posted by 350HP930
Careful there Mark, Stuart is making a much better argument than you are.

I think you are mistaking validity for volume. It must suck to be on a loosing end of an argument, huh?

I guess it would, but I haven't lost one in quite a while. And Stuart has made no point other than to show a gruesome photo of a war casualty. For all I know, that shot is from some other country and some other war. Everything I posted was directly quoted. All of you guys arguements are total bullshyte.

[350HP930]

So you are saying you are for outdoing one attrocity with another?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
I guess it would, but I haven't lost one in quite a while. And Stuart has made no point other than to show a gruesome photo of a war casualty. For all I know, that shot is from some other country and some other war. Everything I posted was directly quoted. All of you guys arguements are total bullshyte.

arrogance and hypocricy, that's what it's always about.


Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

You guys got nothing. All you have left is rhetoric, deflection, and name calling - right out of the DNC playbook. It's just sad.

[techweenie]

"arrogance and hypocricy, that's what it's always about."

Well, there's selectrve memory, as well. Have you noticed how many times the Cons completely forget arguments and evidence and just snap back to their prior positions?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
You guys got nothing. All you have left is rhetoric, deflection, and name calling - right out of the DNC playbook. It's just sad.

...and all you have is a gun-slinging Texas cowboy who has killed about 700 of your young men and women for a war that should never have happened....with the lies continueing to flourish

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
I guess it would, but I haven't lost one in quite a while. And Stuart has made no point other than to show a gruesome photo of a war casualty. For all I know, that shot is from some other country and some other war. Everything I posted was directly quoted. All of you guys arguements are total bullshyte.

Well, then. Unless you have any more trailer park and black helicopter remarks to make, lets have at it.

Explain for us the connection between the attacks in the US on Sep11 (the day the world got dangerous- what a myopic conceit) and the current occupation of Iraq. I posit there is none, and that this is a complete fiction.

Explain the "imminent", "clear and present" threat to the West from Saddam's WMD, given that:
We have occupied the country for a year, yet no evidence of any current WMD capability has been produced, and;
Colin Powell, the Sec of State, has backed away from statements he made to UN prior to the invasion in regard to that capability, saying the CIA had relied on intelligence from "inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases, deliberately misleading" sources.

And yes, I think people killed by invading and occupying militaries of "civilised countries" in Iraq and Afghanistan are precisely the point.

stuart

[on-ramp]

stuart,

very valid points.

[lendaddy]

The president(whomever) gets a call on the little red phone.

"Mr. President, flight 845 from Jamaica is carrying a suitcase nuke, our sources say the intent is too activate the nuke over Miami."

"how good is your information?"

"we have verified this intel through 17 countries and they all concur, in fact, not one intel source disagrees"

"how many on board?"

"480 sir, we need an answer, do we shoot it down sir?"


The president does not shoot it down, and you would say "you Mr. President are responsible for the 1.4 million lives and the environmental/ social impacts, you sir are a disgrace and a yellow bastard for ignoring your duty"

The President does shoot it down, the ocean is searched for 9 months and no nuke is found. You would say " you Mr. President are responsible for the 480 lives on board that plane. you sir are a disgrace and a yellow bastard for ignoring your duty"

Just my little analagy, with some people you just cannot win.

[techweenie]

We don't need an analogy, we have an actual set of circumstances.

So is Tenet analogous to the anonymous caller?

[CamB]

I'll bite. See my extra information below.

Originally posted by lendaddy
The president(whomever) gets a call on the little red phone.

"Mr. President, flight 845 from Jamaica to Brazil is carrying a suitcase nuke, our sources say the intent is too activate the nuke over Columbia."

"how good is your information?"

"we have verified this intel through 17 countries and they all concur, in fact, not one intel source disagrees."


"how many on board?"

"480 sir, we need an answer, do we shoot it down sir?"

"What do the other countries think we should do?

"Nothing yet sir, there is the opportunity to find out more if we have more time"

"well, I've heard enough - I don't like 747s anyway, and one was rude to my daddy. Blow the mother up"

If the president does not shoot it down, further information is found and it appears that there isn't an issue. You would say "you Mr. President did a great job - thanks for not blowing it up without checking the facts"

But the President does shoot it down, the ocean is searched for 9 months and no nuke is found. You would say " you Mr. President are responsible for the 480 lives on board that plane. you sir are a disgrace and a yellow bastard for ignoring your duty"

Just my little analagy, with some people you just cannot win.

The only thing you guys have to hang your hat on in this discussion is that no WMD's have been uncovered in Iraq. I guess the families of the 5500 gassed and dead Kurds from 1988 may be able to prove you wrong.

There are lots of sand dunes in that pasture. I think the gun toting cowboy may have some tricks up his sleeves.

[lendaddy]

Yes, and the "actual" circumstances are that everyone agreed he had the weapons. EVERYONE, so enough of the BS that we made it up. Hell, even the UN said he had them. The president was presented intel and he acted on it, with the best interests of the US in mind. If Sadaam had attacked us, guess what you'de be saying "Bush ignored the UN, they told him Sadaam had these weapons and he did nothing" Am I wrong?

[lendaddy]

Cam, points for creativity

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
The only thing you guys have to hang your hat on in this discussion is that no WMD's have been uncovered in Iraq. I guess the families of the 5500 gassed and dead Kurds from 1988 may be able to prove you wrong.

There are lots of sand dunes in that pasture. I think the gun toting cowboy may have some tricks up his sleeves.

No reasonable person would argue that SD did not possess and use chemical weapons on the Kurds in the eighties. This is a given.

Why dont your spare us the down home bonhomie and get about answering the questions put to you, as apparently, you never lose an argument. And when you do, try not cut and paste the lot.

All Stetson, no cattle.

stuart