Admit it, Move on, Refocus

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Sorry, not good enough, and I still disagree with that statement.

Disagree??? It's your own spinsanity source....

You talk about dismissed... but now you want to have another long dialogue. Have you always had these shitzophenic tendencies?

Make up your mind! You're losing your head.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Disagree??? It's your own spinsanity source....

You talk about dismissed... but now you want to have another long dialogue. Have you always had these shitzophenic tendencies?

Make up your mind! You're losing your head.

Is this officially your refusal to answer the questions that will put some finality to this debate? Why do you refuse to answer those questions?

The source was mine, but I was not the writer. I disagree that the threat in Iraq was overestimated. Not you, not I, but the professional inspectors that looked at the situation stated that it was a larger threat than initially described!

"It would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat"

"I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought."

-David Kay

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Is this officially your refusal to answer the questions that will put some finality to this debate? Why do you refuse to answer those questions?

You're the one who is already trying to put some finality on this debate. You've been trying to use aggressive strong arm tactics. And when you get a taste of your own medicine. You're deleting messages. Closing down threads - after of course you delete a message that you don't like. You can dish it, but you can't take it.

There's nothing else for us to discuss.

 

[winston churchi]

I have to take some aspirin.


I for one, and I am not writing on behalf of anyone else, still do not believe the Saddam threat was over estimated.

I am one of those people that believe these 'dictators' or 'terrorists' or whatever you want to call them are all working together in one form or another. Al Queda , in my opinion, is a link with Iraq and Iran and several other terrorists supporting countries. These individuals may hate each other as night and day but they have one strong common bond which links them and that is their great detest for Western civilization - the US being the main - or the great satan.

There are hundreds of terrorists organizations in this world and what you probibly do not know is many of them are in your own neighborhood. There were Al Queda members living and are still in DC and NY ... as well as other organazations. AQ came to be so well known through OBL of course.

I believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - I truly do.

 

[LoneVoice]

Nice try again

 

[LoneVoice]

Yeah.. So why do you keep showing your face

Especially with dumb & useless posts like you've just started

 

[wonderwench]

This thread puts me in mind of the eternal question:

If a troll screams in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it actually make a sound?

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Because I can! I am a Moderator, you are annoying, I can do this, you do it again and you will be banned!!!

Fine... If this is the way you s run this board.

You guys all gang up. You were made to look like fools. You were proven wrong. And when you lose you use strong arm tactics.

If that's the way you wanna run this board, adios

 

[5stringJeff]

I'll attempt a rational answer here...

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Doesn't this all just boil down to a few simple points?

All the Bush regime has to say, is that they overestimated the level of threat from Saddam Hussein. They can just say that our intelligence may not be outright wrong. At best it was faulty and sketchy. That's why we heven't located any WMD's at this point.

I think Jim's post illustrates that it wasn't just the Bush administration that was concerned about Saddam's dealings with WMDs; many Democrats said the same things.

The United States and other countries throughout the world are relieved that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. No matter how significant or minimal Saddam's threat was, we all can be happy that his regime has been toppled. He was a terrible man with an evil regime.

I would hardly call his threat minimal.

Our biggest regret with regards to this war is that in our earlier dealings with Iraq, George W. Bush Sr. had 100,000 foreign troops supporting in Iraq, but our current Bush regime was unable to mobilize troops anywhere close to those numbers in this venture. Resolving the Saddam threat would have been better served with more foreign troops and support. The United States would have been better served if it didn't cost as many American lives and American dollars (160 billion dollars and still going).

Did you see how quickly the war was executed? Any more troops - from the US or elsewhere - would have been overkill.
Your pooint about the cost of war is well taken. However, given the alternative (an Iraq under Saddam's continually defiant rule, a breeding ground for terrorists, and a 13-times-over snub to the UN), I believe that it is money well spent.

The rebuilding of the Iraq governmental system is a potentially amazing exercising in nation building, which in the end result could potentially have many positive outcomes, if it's done right. Likewise, it could be better achieved with more multi-lateral support (troops, dollars, and input).

There are over 60 countries serving alongside the US in Iraq. I don't know how much more multi-lateral it could be without the UN... who, by the way, was there until a terrorist bomb sent them scurrying back to UN headquarters in New York. Again, IMO, money well spent.

Then can't we just move on to something else.....

We still have a war in Afghanistan against the real threat from 9/11 - Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Have we gotten distracted from that? That's really what Americans want to focus on and bring to conclusion.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did the attack on America interrupt your peaceful existence? Join the rest of us! And, since you haven't been paying attention, there are still plenty of US troops in Afghanistan, under the NATO flag, weeding out al-Qaeda and (hopefully sooner rather than later) OBL. In fact, Canada is in command of Afghanistan right now, if I'm not mistaken - how's that for multi-lateral?

 

[wonderwench]

What a whinger!

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Fine... If this is the way you s run this board.

You guys all gang up. You were made to look like fools. You were proven wrong. And when you lose you use strong arm tactics.

If that's the way you wanna run this board, adios

Oh.... And you delete posts that you don't like.

And close down threads.

What a bunch of sore loser, cry baby, s!!!

 

[wonderwench]

Dood. That is what private property is all about. The owner gets to decide on how it is decorated. If you can't respect the rules, expect to get smacked around a bit.

Here's a little clue: Calling everyone who disagrees with you an asshole is not a way to gain respect for one's point of view.

 

[LoneVoice]

OK... That sound fair enough...

I'm willing to stop with lame posts (1 liner, insulting responses).

Are you guys gonna do the same? Or is this one of your lil double standard things?

Either way, I'm willing to stop.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Dood. That is what private property is all about. The owner gets to decide on how it is decorated. If you can't respect the rules, expect to get smacked around a bit.

Here's a little clue: Calling everyone who disagrees with you an asshole is not a way to gain respect for one's point of view.

I wasn't the first to sling the MUD.

Try starting at the source.

Of course I'm sure you only want to point your finger in one direction.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
OK... That sound fair enough...

I'm willing to stop with lame posts (1 liner, insulting responses).

Are you guys gonna do the same? Or is this one of your lil double standard things?

Either way, I'm willing to stop.

Sounds like a plan. Why don't you start us out on the right foot again by answering Jimmy question to you about the Kay testimony so we can get back to a functioning debate. Just be the bigger man, uh.....man.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but I and a lot of other people, including the conservatives, will take you a lot more seriously if you do that.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
OK... That sound fair enough...

I'm willing to stop with lame posts (1 liner, insulting responses).

Are you guys gonna do the same? Or is this one of your lil double standard things?

Either way, I'm willing to stop.

You're willing to stop? Stop what, trolling?

I'll ask one last time in the hopes of making something good out of yet another thread you turned into lameness - can you now answer the questions I've asked you about David Kay's testimony?

 

[jimnyc]

I see that you are on the board.

I'm still waiting on an answer.

Can you handle answering those 2 little questions?

Why would you try so hard to avoid those questions?

Are you afraid your entire argument goes down the tubes when you answer them honestly?

This is quite a pickle you are in!

When faced with a painful situation, it's best to suck it in and get it over with.

We all know the truth about what David Kay stated, which is in direct contradiction to your statements.

Could that be why you are avoiding those questions?

Who do you think is in a better position to know, David Kay or yourself?

I'm still waiting...

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I see that you are on the board.

I'm still waiting on an answer.

Can you handle answering those 2 little questions?

Why would you try so hard to avoid those questions?

Are you afraid your entire argument goes down the tubes when you answer them honestly?

This is quite a pickle you are in!

When faced with a painful situation, it's best to suck it in and get it over with.

We all know the truth about what David Kay stated, which is in direct contradiction to your statements.

Could that be why you are avoiding those questions?

Who do you think is in a better position to know, David Kay or yourself?

I'm still waiting...

OK.... Here's a quick response...

I now have experience with the way you and your 7 little dwarves operate on this board.

First - you.
You tried to make such a big issue, out of a little statement that I posted. "Bush regime overestimated the level of threat from Saddam Hussein".
Whenever the point was demonstrated to you, you proceeded to take the issue to inane trifle detail (i.e. Who in the Bush regime relayed "Saddam/Iraq", "imminent threat", to the "US"?). Despite the numerous examples that demonstrated it in general, you wanted a simple one line statement of it all in one. After numerous back and forth on the issue, I gave you the quote with Ari Fleischer which puts it all together. When you finally see it, instead of just admitting that you were wrong, you try to squirt out of it, by saying "he misspoke". As a test, I put the same level of burden of proof back on you, to show me that Ari Fleischer, ""Saddam/Iraq", "imminent threat", to the "US" was a "misspoken statement". You respond with a post, that I butcher to the same inane trifle detail as you had been butchering all the posts I put on. And as an extra bonus, your quote proves my point brilliantly with the following statement. "As we have pointed out before, many of the arguments for war made by the Bush administration were deceptive or false." from http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html.

So to wrap it up: It was proven that the Bush administration relayed "Saddam/Iraq", "imminent threat", to the "US". When proven you try to dismiss it as "misspoken", which you are unable to prove to the same level of inane detail that you wanted from me. And in the process your own parties article that you quote proves my original premise perfectly. After all of that, instead of admitting that you were proven wrong, you try to start the whole issue up again from a new direction.

Well, in order to respond to that with the way you argue, it would take another 30+ messages, so that at the end of the line you'll still just deny it, even if you are proven wrong. So, to even go down that path with take numerous messages. And the point will be wasted on your inability to comprehend or admit it anyway.


All the while, you and your 7 little dwarves will consistently take idiotic potshots that amount to nothing, contribute nothing, prove nothing, and ultimately say nothing.

Then when I rebut your maroonness, you will delete my messages, close the thread, chastise me for making potshots (even though all I did was rebut the ones thrown at me), and then threaten to boot me off the message board.

All the while you'll encourage the maroonness from your little dwarves. So much for following your own rules and running the board by example.


Well, I've got better things to do in real life, than to deal with that kind of dribble all day long.

 

[jimnyc]

AND YOU STILL FAIL TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
you will delete my messages, close the thread, chastise me for making potshots (even though all I did was rebut the ones thrown at me), and then threaten to boot me off the message board.

One thread was closed because it had obviously ran it's course, not the first time threads have been closed when it's turned into a flamefest.

One post you made was merged into the original thread, there was no need to reply with a new thread as opposed to replying in the thread where the discussion was already taking place.

You started yet another thread that had no value other than to instigate trouble. That one was in fact deleted. There is absolutely no need to make repetitive posts of the same nature in a forum when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. If you're going to do that, at least do so in the thread that you are currently debating in.

You've made potshots in nearly every post. I don't care because I know it's off base. It's obvious the potshots that several members have thrown back at you about your intelligence is true.

Now, are you going to finally answer those 2 little questions?