Capital Offense
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, November 16, 2025 04:49
VIEWED: 11738
PAGE 14 of 22
Quote:It’s true, Bush did not go to Iraq and snoop around in Saddam’s secret weapon’s research, and even if did, he likely wouldn’t have been allowed to do that anyway. But other people did, and most of the time they were lead around on wild goose chases by Saddam’s people, ultimately casting doubt on the ability of weapons inspectors’ to arrive at any kind of confident result.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In which case it is up to the viewer to get to the truth; find the reality of the thing. And Bush- according to you- didn't do that.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No Finn, that's not logic, that's the 'have you stopped beating your wife ' tac.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
therefore logic would suggest they still exist. Until evidence surfaced otherwise
Go ahead and prove lack of something to me. Prove you aren't a witch. Prove you haven't hidden a McDonald's fillet O fish in an air vent in a building in your city. Wait- you have a history of dancing ability- prove you can't do the Macarena (and don't try faking lack of knowledge, we have experts that can tell).
Quote:Here's where I use the classic 'I'm rubber, you're glue' response.
You made your assumption based on the ideological premise
Icanbechildishtooisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There was PLENTY of evidence that he destroyed them. There were huge scorched holes in the ground with chemical WMD residues. In fact, WE destroyed a bunch during the first Gulf war. What Saddam didn't do was ACCOUNT for them. Honestly! It was all about accounting. But, no matter because....
there was no evidence that he destroyed them
Quote:And once again, you have failed to take into account a very important reality: impure chemical weapons degrade very quickly (except mustard gas), and the form of anthrax that he produced (liquid) turns into a smelly stew after a few months. Its horribly unstable, and just rots. So Saddam could have hung on to them all he wanted, they wouldn't have done him any good a decade or so later. In order for WMD to do any good you have to produce them... and then keep on producing them.
– therefore logic would suggest they still exist
Quote:Except that... unlike you... I listened carefully to the people who were actually doing the inspections.
But other people did, and most of the time they were lead around on wild goose chases by Saddam’s people, ultimately casting doubt on the ability of weapons inspectors’ to arrive at any kind of confident result.
In addition to "Politicians lie" another lesson is... "If you want to find out what's really going on, talk to the grunts."
I'm sure you've seen that poster (or email) about how "This is pure bullshit" is gradually turned into "It smells like a rose" as it wends it way up the chain of command? it's funny, but true. And Cheney purposefully circumvented the usual vetting process by creating the Office of Special plans. If you have to manipulate the process THAT much, you're not really interested in the truth, are you?
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM
I was going to mention that but you got there ahead of me - it doesn't matter what they thought Iraq might possibly have had in 1999 - by 2003 the biologicals and most of the chemical weapons would have been less useful than rocks. Without production to constantly replenish them, the stocks would have degraded to nothing, along with Iraq's CBW capability. And as Finn's own quotes show, Iraq had no production capability.
And as we all know, and knew at the time, Iraq was not engaged in developing nuclear weapons.
So much for those WMDs.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, Finn has come a remarkably long way in just a few short years. He's gone from "but he absolutely DID have them" to "the general consensus of the assessment was that he probably had them - a 50/50 shot at best." That's real progress, folks.
Now if we could just convince him that launching an all-out war, invading and occupying another country on a 50/50 shot isn't the best idea ever, we might be getting somewhere...
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll be curious to see if Finn replies to you with ---- I never said that ! 
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'll be curious to see if Finn replies to you with ---- I never said that !
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Oh, those quotes might not be his exact words verbatim, but that is the essence of where he's come from to where he is now - and it IS positive growth. There may be hope for him yet.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, his history is he never fails to disappoint when it comes to parsing words. God forbid you should do anything but quote him exactly. And if you press him on what he meant, he goes away.
But maybe he just does that if the post comes from a girl. EEEWWWWwwww
Perhaps a more manly, man-to-man conversation gets somewhere.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But I can. However, whether or not you can or cannot prove that Saddam had WMDs at the time of the invasion, it is still a fact he had them at some point. And if we can’t prove he didn’t have them, which you admit, then all we can know is that he certainly did have them – because that much is a fact. Whether or not he continued to have them, we can’t know that. All we can know for sure, is that without question, he had them.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No Finn, that's not logic, that's the 'have you stopped beating your wife ' tac.
Go ahead and prove lack of something to me. Prove you aren't a witch. Prove you haven't hidden a McDonald's fillet O fish in an air vent in a building in your city. Wait- you have a history of dancing ability- prove you can't do the Macarena (and don't try faking lack of knowledge, we have experts that can tell).
Even Hans Blix admitted that. In his last report to the UN, he stated that large quantities of WMDs remain unaccounted for. Logically, we can only say that he had them, pending confirmation of their destruction.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This from the person who claims that phrases like “it seems” and “it appears” are duplicitous.
Originally posted by rue:
Well, his history is he never fails to disappoint when it comes to parsing words. God forbid you should do anything but quote him exactly. And if you press him on what he meant, he goes away.
But maybe he just does that if the post comes from a girl. EEEWWWWwwww
Perhaps a more manly, man-to-man conversation gets somewhere.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME