1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[Psychoblues]

I have a neighbor, actually an asshole that lives across the street from me. I told him 6 years ago that he is not welcome on my property. So far as I know he has not returned yet there have been a few mysterious occurances and incidents since that time. I have not invaded his property and I don't intend to do so unless he again clearly trespasses on my own.

He glares at me, he talks scandalously about me and he indicates every will to do me harm to this day. He has even made certain that I have seen pictures of his "gun room" and he is an ex-County Deputy and an ex-Constable.

Fuck him. He needs to keep his ass on his side of the street and I abide the same. One mistake, just one, on his part and I guarantee he will regret his trespass.

This conversation has turned so silly and not cognizant of so many facts. America should be ashamed of it's actions in Iraq. "Mission Acomplished" my ass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can you address the point?

I did, with exactly the same level of inanity and irrelevance that it was presented with. And if my comment added nothing to the debate, its because of the level of irrelevance surrounding the comment I responded to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...It was necessary for the US to lie about the real reason for invading Iraq...

Prove that the US -- that is, the Bush administration -- lied about the real reason for invading Iraq.

Understand that this is a multi-faceted task, and simply stating your opinions as fact is not proof.

 

[maineman]

Prove that the US -- that is, the Bush administration -- lied about the real reason for invading Iraq.

Understand that this is a multi-faceted task, and simply stating your opinions as fact is not proof.

if by "lie" you mean "something intended or serving to convey a false impression", then I would suggest that the speeches of Bush in the fall of 2002 where he repeatedly mentioned "Al Qaeda" and "Saddam" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "9/11" and "gassed his own people" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again intended to convey the false impression that Saddam and Al Qaeda and 9/11 were all tied together and that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's ready to give to his allies in AQ. That impression was false. The attempt to convey that false impression was successful.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if by "lie" you mean "something intended or serving to convey a false impression",

If you need to quibble about the definition of "lie", then you're in sad shape.
Of course, you probably bought the whole "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" thing...

then I would suggest that the speeches of Bush in the fall of 2002 where he repeatedly mentioned "Al Qaeda" and "Saddam" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "9/11" and "gassed his own people" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

Please, point out the specific lie.

More importantly, point out where:
-Bush lied about WMDs
-Bush lied about the WMDs (etc) being the reason for going to war.

Rememeber that stating your opinion as fact isnt stating a fact, nor is it 'proof'.

 

[maineman]

If you need to quibble about the definition of "lie", then you're in sad shape.
Of course, you probably bought the whole "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" thing...


Please, point out the specific lie.

More importantly, point out where:
-Bush lied about WMDs
-Bush lied about the WMDs (etc) being the reason for going to war.

Rememeber that stating your opinion as fact isnt stating a fact, nor is it 'proof'.

are you really suggesting that Bush did not convey the impression that Saddam had links to 9/11, or that he did not have stockpiles of WMD's that he would give to AQ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

if by "lie" you mean "something intended or serving to convey a false impression", then I would suggest that the speeches of Bush in the fall of 2002 where he repeatedly mentioned "Al Qaeda" and "Saddam" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "9/11" and "gassed his own people" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again intended to convey the false impression that Saddam and Al Qaeda and 9/11 were all tied together and that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's ready to give to his allies in AQ. That impression was false. The attempt to convey that false impression was successful.

Simply not true and your continued attempts to pretend it is are old stale and boring. In fact Bush STATED for the record more than once that Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11 as did other members of the Administration, including Vice President Cheney.

The intel that Saddam had WMD's was not just a US one, it was shared by EVERYONE in the western world. That he was working on nukes also was believed by the west. As I recall Germany believed he might have a working nuke in 2 to 3 years. Bush did not make anything up, nor add to what was already believed. His contention that Saddam was hunting for terrorists to do his dirty work, is in fact proven by captured documents after the war.

Remind me again why the UN had inspection teams in Iraq if no one thought he had weapons? Remind me again why Blix reported twice in 2002/2003 that Saddam Hussein was still stone walling and being uncooperative? In fact his official report states that Saddam was still blocking efforts right up until the last minute. Though he did mention signs of improvement as Saddam began to realize his buddies France, Russia and China were not going to stop the US and her allies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

are you really suggesting...

You're really avoiding the issue, trying to change it to something you think you can argue, because you know you don't otherwise have a leg to stand on.

Point out the specific lie(s).
Show that they ARE lies.

Most importantly, point out where:
-Bush lied about Iraqi WMDs
-Bush lied about the WMDs (etc) being the reason for going to war.

Rememeber that stating your opinion as fact isnt stating a fact, nor is it 'proof'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Remind me again why the UN had inspection teams in Iraq if no one thought he had weapons? Remind me again why Blix reported twice in 2002/2003 that Saddam Hussein was still stone walling and being uncooperative? In fact his official report states that Saddam was still blocking efforts right up until the last minute.

"I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision [to disarm]."
Hans Blix, 26 FEB 2003
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/wire/2003/02/27/blix/index.html

So, who wants to prove that this is a lie?

 

[maineman]

You're really avoiding the issue, trying to change it to something you think you can argue, because you know you don't otherwise have a leg to stand on.

Point out the specific lie(s).
Show that they ARE lies.

Most importantly, point out where:
-Bush lied about Iraqi WMDs
-Bush lied about the WMDs (etc) being the reason for going to war.

Rememeber that stating your opinion as fact isnt stating a fact, nor is it 'proof'.

creating false impressions IS lying.

go check out a fucking dictionary sometime.

 

[maineman]

Simply not true and your continued attempts to pretend it is are old stale and boring. In fact Bush STATED for the record more than once that Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11 as did other members of the Administration, including Vice President Cheney.

The intel that Saddam had WMD's was not just a US one, it was shared by EVERYONE in the western world. That he was working on nukes also was believed by the west. As I recall Germany believed he might have a working nuke in 2 to 3 years. Bush did not make anything up, nor add to what was already believed. His contention that Saddam was hunting for terrorists to do his dirty work, is in fact proven by captured documents after the war.

Remind me again why the UN had inspection teams in Iraq if no one thought he had weapons? Remind me again why Blix reported twice in 2002/2003 that Saddam Hussein was still stone walling and being uncooperative? In fact his official report states that Saddam was still blocking efforts right up until the last minute. Though he did mention signs of improvement as Saddam began to realize his buddies France, Russia and China were not going to stop the US and her allies.

FACT: on 9/15/01 damned near everyone in America knew who was behind the attacks on 9/11


FACT: in early 2003, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had orchestrated the attacks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

creating false impressions IS lying.
go check out a fucking dictionary sometime.

Proof positive that you cannot show that Bush lied.

Thanks for playing, but I regret to inform you that you haven't won a prize.

Next contestant?

 

[M14 Shooter]

FACT: on 9/15/01 damned near everyone in America knew who was behind the attacks on 9/11
FACT: in early 2003, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had orchestrated the attacks.

-Please show how this proves anything regarding the Bush administration's supposed lies.
-Please show, specifically, where the Bush administation specifially linked Iraq to 9/11.

 

[maineman]

-Please show how this proves anything regarding the Bush administration's supposed lies.
-Please show, specifically, where the Bush administation specifially linked Iraq to 9/11.

do you understand what the concept of "creating a false impression" even means? If so, why would you continue to post things that would indicate otherwise?

attempting to have a discussion with someone whose command of the english language was apparently arrested at the "My Weekly Reader" level is really quite tedious

 

[M14 Shooter]

do you understand what the concept of "creating a false impression" even means? If so, why would you continue to post things that would indicate otherwise?

You have claimed that the administation created a false impression.
Apparently, you don't understand that its your responsiility to support this claim.

To do that, you need to show two things:
-Where, specifially, the Bush administration supposedly linked Iraq and 9/11
-That this supposed link is the reason the supposed shift in opinion took place.

If you can't to these things, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

And then, if you'd like to stop avoiding the original issue and get back on point, you can:

Point out where:
-Bush lied about Iraqi WMDs
-Bush lied about the WMDs (etc) being the reason for going to war.

Again, rememeber that stating your opinion as fact isnt stating a fact, nor is it 'proof'.

 

[maineman]

You have claimed that the administation created a false impression.
Apparently, you don't understand that its your responsiility to support this claim.

To do that, you need to show two things:
-Where, specifially, the Bush administration supposedly linked Iraq and 9/11
-That this supposed link is the reason the supposed shift in opinion took place.

If you can't to these things, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

And then, if you'd like to stop avoiding the original issue and get back on point, you can:

Point out where:
-Bush lied about Iraqi WMDs
-Bush lied about the WMDs (etc) being the reason for going to war.

Again, rememeber that stating your opinion as fact isnt stating a fact, nor is it 'proof'.

you seem to think that "creating an impression" requires some degree of specificity. that is incorrect, of course.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you seem to think that "creating an impression" requires some degree of specificity. that is incorrect, of course.

So, you cannot show:
-Where, specifially, the Bush administration supposedly linked Iraq and 9/11
-That this supposed link is the reason the supposed shift in opinion took place.

And as such, you cannot support your assertion.

Again, thanks for playing. Still no prize.

Next contestant?

 

[maineman]

cre·ate –verb (used with object)
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

false –adjective
1. not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement.
2. uttering or declaring what is untrue: a false witness.
3. not faithful or loyal; treacherous: a false friend.
4. tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive: a false impression.


im·pres·sion –noun 1. a strong effect produced on the intellect, feelings, conscience, etc.
2. the first and immediate effect of an experience or perception upon the mind; sensation.
3. the effect produced by an agency or influence.
4. a notion, remembrance, belief, etc., often of a vague or indistinct nature: He had a general impression of lights, voices, and the clinking of silver.
5. a mark, indentation, figure, etc., produced by pressure.
6. an image in the mind caused by something external to it.

one can "create the false impression" that Iraq and Saddam had something to do with 9/11 without ever specifically stating as such. Inferences, innuendoes.... if the purpose of those inferences and innuendoes was to change public opinion while maintaining plausible deniability, that IS a LIE, whether you chose to understand or accept that is really out of my hands.

am I getting through to you or do I need to dumb it down to the DICK and JANE level?

 

[M14 Shooter]

am I getting through to you or do I need to dumb it down to the DICK and JANE level?

Yes, you have made it --quite-- clear that you are unable to support your assertion.

 

[maineman]

Yes, you have made it --quite-- clear that you are unable to support your assertion.

proving intent to create a false impression is obviously unrealistic.... that is why it is called creating a false impression rather than an uttering an explicit false statement.

I never suggested that anyone could PROVE that Bush explicitly lied about WMD's or Saddam's connection to AQ or OBL....I suggest that the creation of the false impression to that effect is self evident. But not if you willfully chose not to see it, I suppose.