Real World Event Discussions

Obama is doing a job.

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Thursday, July 2, 2009 13:59
VIEWED: 13329
PAGE 9 of 14

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:

I appreciate and respect your lifestyle support of your political beliefs.
*raises hand*
My car gets 35 city, 40 highway!

The laughing Chrisisall

Mine gets 15. But, I need the cargo space, and I only use it when I have to.

This isn't out of any fear of carbon. I just don't like wasting my ammo budget on gas.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Hmmmm... good quote.

Quote:

Sorry, dude, but I'm at least semi-professional in this field.

You think that just because you know more about these technical talking points than I do that I should actually listen to what you have to say on the broader subject?

*thinks*

Okay, I will.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:28 PM

freakin yellowcake double post

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
freakin yellowcake double post

Here's an aside, which as an immigrant, even from another western democracy (yes, I know, the US is a Republic, and I like it, but it made a quick connection) like the UK.

I had to explain to one of our Pakistani contractors how in the US, one could live in "poverty," which consisted of a roof over one's head, cable TV, a car, and enough food to be obese, and people would complain that it wasn't fair that there wasn't free medical treatment for that obesity.

Now, think about what the Pakistani definition of "poverty" might be. Think hard.

Khan was both laughing and appalled at the story, even knowing as I made more in a month than he did in a year, and he was one of the WELL PAID contractors.

The typical yank has no %@#$ing idea how good they have it.

So, no, I'm not overly impressed by the whines about how much more we should pay in taxes for someone else's benefit. I've seen real poverty up close.

When our president admits his WORST JOB was working at Baskin Robbins...

PUHlease.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Doesn't prove aliens didn't sell them weapons either. Or the Dalai Lama.

That was never my argument. The fact is yours doesn't begin to to prove what you claim either (and your above comment actually helps illustrate my point, thanks).

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
But do tell me about your personal experiences in the matter.

My personal experiences are irrelevant (just as yours are), none of your business and not something I can discuss with you over the internet even if I wanted too.

I can say I spend my days along side Majors, Brigadiers and Generals, so you're unlikely to get much traction trying to brow beat me with your military credentials. Personally I'd like to keep the whole question out of our posts, given that it's entirely irrelevant.

If you have any facts to offer, please feel free and I'm willing to listen, if all you have is "personal experience", then don't waste our time.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
You find me a picture of an Iraqi soldier before 2003 with an M16, or driving an M113, or an M60 MBT, or using an M66, or any other commonly available US piece of surplus. You won't, because they don't exist, because we didn't.

I never said M16's or any other small arm was sold to Iraq, I said weapons, Weapons can range from a sharp stick to Defender Helicopters to... knowledge and materials required to build chemical and biological weapons.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
I know what I saw and what I disposed of. I know what I saw on the same "news" you did.

You might know what you disposed of, but you don't necessarily know the whole picture. I've never seen the Aura Borealis, doesn't prove it doesn't exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
I know how our weapons are contracted and manufactured, and during the 80s, there would have been no reason to hide the fact--we openly gave the sat images to Iraq..

Really? There's no reason for the US to supply weapons to nations secretly during the COLD WAR? That little global chess game of feints and covert ops that used other nations as proxy-pawns?

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
BTW, what's Bill Clinton's withdrawal strategy for Kosovo? I've got friends over there who'd like to know.

You're comparing a UN peace keeping operation to a US unilateral invasion?

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Oh, and located WMD and support so far is several tons of nerve agent, several tons of binary munitions, a ricin production factory, and 550 tons of yellowcake. You can try to claim it doesn't exist. The problem is, it was sold to Canada, who's using it in their Ontario reactors. That sort of makes it rather concrete.

I'm not claiming that those don't exist. I'm just not trying to claim it means things it doesn't, as you are. The chemical weapons found were pretty much entirely from the first Gulf War Era, and many were degraded beyond use. Your Ricin production facility seems to be little more than a fabrication of yours, you can say it exists all you want, but that doesn't mean it did.

As for Yellowcake, it's a raw material, not a bomb in and of itself. We know they had Yellowcake Uranium, but Yellowcake Uranium isn't a WMD, no matter how much you might want it to be.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Yes, it was left over from Osirak. It still only takes 1940 technology to produce about 100 nukes from it.

And most countries don't have that 1940's technology to refine the material, or to produce the bomb, so flatly claiming it's 1940's technology because that's when the US, UK, Canada and Australia developed it, isn't the best argument ever. It's possible to put a man on the surface of the Moon with 1960's technology, so everyone in the world must have done it by now, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
And we use very little Iraqi oil, because it's a bitch to get

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHUCKLES48

Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your personal experiences on that matter prove, well nothing. Saying the US and other western nations never sold Saddam weapons is a fairy tale. Weapons sales stopped in the late eighties, which was over twenty years ago. Even if all you saw was Russian equipment, that doesn't prove equipment wasn't bought from the US earlier.

First, you need to separate "US" and "other Western nations" in this discussion. Why, because France, esp. in the 80s, was very much an independent actor in this regard.

Second, here's some hard #s:
Summary $ value of arms sales to Iraq, 1973-1990:
USSR/WP: $30,301m
France: $5,595m
China: $5,192m
US: $200m
Egypt: $568m
Other: $2,104m
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Arms-sales-to-Iraq-1973_1990

So, of that the US is responsible for 0.46%. Run the #s yourself. Want someone to bitch at? The top 3, in order, are USSR, France, and China. Go yell at them.

That being said, there's a lot of documented-but-not-discussed finds of French equipment that post-dates the 1991 Gulf War, after which (theoretically) the Iraqis were under an arms embargo. So, if France wasn't legally able to sell them equipment, why was post-91 dated equipment (including a generation of SAMs that weren't even _available_ circa 1991) found in Iraq? Samesame, on a much grander scale, with post-Soviet equipment, as well as Chinese.

Hell, 2003-dated chem warfare gear was recovered during the initial invasion.

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Doesn't prove aliens didn't sell them weapons either. Or the Dalai Lama.

That was never my argument. The fact is yours doesn't begin to to prove what you claim either.

It was a negative proof argument. "prove we didn't sell them weapons." Logically impossible.

Weapons have an agreed upon definition in the military and political world.

Show me a photo of US weapons in Iraqi hands.

Show me a transfer document.

Unless you're trying to claim that that left-winger Reagan arranged sales of AK47s, ZSUs and MiGs. Pull the other one. I'd have trouble writing jokes that funny.

NCO in the Guard. Day job, yes, mostly writing fiction, but I also have some consults and quite a few professional involvements. And NCOs have a lot more knowledge of certain areas than you seem aware of.

Given that, and the first two statements you made, I highly doubt you spend any time talking to any decision makers in the military. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

The accused is innocent until proven guilty. PROVE the US sold weapons to Saddam, or shut up.

Hughes 500 helicopters are frequently used as cropdusters. If Saddam put Russian guns in the doors, that does not constitute selling him weapons. Russia selling him DShK 12.7s constitutes selling him weapons.

Especially as the same whiners would have complained we were "starving the Iraqi people" if we hadn't sold helicopters.

Which, I remind you, DoD opposed, and the lefties in State insisted we do.

If you argue that State isn't full of lefties, I will laugh at you.

Just so we keep this on track:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce) occurred in the period March 16–17 1988, during the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons (CW) were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja.

The attack killed instantly thousands of people (3,200-5,000 dead on the spot) and injured 7,000-10,000, most of them civilians.[1] Thousands more died of horrific complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[2] The incident, which Human Rights Watch (HRW) defined as an act of genocide, was as of 2009 the largest-scale chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.

Saddam was a BAD GUY.

BAD GUYs don't generally turn into GOOD GUYs.

You claim the US sold weapons to Saddam. Then you claim that all the photos of all those Russian weapons don't prove anything, then you try to claim that, "Well, maybe not weapons, but vehicles that could carry weapons." Then you demand I prove it didn't happen.

And I'm going to refuse to argue with someone who demonstrably seems to have no knowledge of the subject, and certainly doesn't know how to debate.

But, I'm willing to revisit it if the above changes.

But first, you have to prove the Invisible Martians didn't sell him the US weapons no one has ever seen.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
It was a negative proof argument. "prove we didn't sell them weapons." Logically impossible.

I said your statement doesn't prove what you claim it did. I asked nothing else, and made no other claims. I haven't attempted to prove anything yet, I've merely pointed out for all your bluster and posturing, neither have you.

Though I notice you did make claims that are positive proof arguments, but those are no better supported either. In other words you've got nothing and your bluster and insults aren't hiding that fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Weapons have an agreed upon definition in the military and political world.

Yeah, and it includes chemical and biological weapons. True a helicopter might be pedantically called a weapons platform, but such pedantry would seem to be something only someone losing the argument would go for.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Show me a transfer document.

If you knew half what you claim too, you would know that such documents are either secret, not open to the public, or never existed as the weapons were sold through third parties.

It's interesting that you require your statements to be just taken on your say so, while anything else has to be proven as if this is a court of law.

Your alter-ego posted this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Arms-sales-to-Iraq-1973_1990
Nationmaster is a fairly solid source, and they certainly seem to think the US sold arms to Iraq.

Still nothing but bluster from you.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Unless you're trying to claim that that left-winger Reagan arranged sales of AK47s, ZSUs and MiGs. Pull the other one. I'd have trouble writing jokes that funny.

I've already told you what I'm talking about. If you're too simple or dishonest to deal with that, that is hardly my fault.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Given that, and the first two statements you made, I highly doubt you spend any time talking to any decision makers in the military. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Much like how it's sounding more and more like you're nothing but a back room filing clerk with delusions of grandeur. So far your only argument has been "and I'm in the army, so I know!" and, well absolutely nothing of substance. I really don't see any reason to waste my time digging up evidence to the Nth degree so you can stick your fingers in your ears and say "I don't believe it, and you don't know what your talking about!"

Your argument is pathetic, as is your desire to insult people who disagree with you, and to throw your supposed military credentials around, in lieu of providing any substance whatsoever to back up your statements.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. PROVE the US sold weapons to Saddam, or shut up.

That's just the point, the US is fairly well proven to have sold weapons to Saddam, in fact the only person who has ever tried to deny that that I can see, is you. Since you're the one making the claim it's up to you to disprove that evidence. You can do that, it's done all the time, though we both know you can't and won't.

I don't see why I have to spend hours disproving an argument you know you can't support. You've made a lot of claims you could support, but instead of doing that, you demand I make a water tight case to stand up in court, on an internet forum. The fact you can't support your case and feel the need to lay that off on me is both transparent and pathetic.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
If you argue that State isn't full of lefties, I will laugh at you.

Man you are quite an angry person aren't you. I often find when people are incapable of making their case, they get angry.

They're probably left of you, but then who the hell ain't? Maybe neo-Nazi's. Maybe.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
You claim the US sold weapons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty.

OOOPPS!
You just proved your complete lack of believability here.
Go straight to Hell, do not pass go; do not collect $500.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Since your entire argument is entirely dependent on you being this elite military strategist NCO with intimate knowledge of every US covert deal and military action since the beginning of time, maybe you can try and prove you are who you say you are. I don't hold out much hope that you will, or can...

Cit, why hold back?
LOL!

The laughing Chrisisall