For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

[rtwngAvngr]

we know now, RightWing, it is clear that sanctions were working just fine. Saddam was all bluff and bluster, and we were taken in by people like Ahmed Chalabi, who wanted him overthrown for their own reasons, and figured they could get our help by saying he was a real threat to us. If you've followed the news, you've seen every single piece of "evidence" that Bush had for Saddam's dangerousness to us shot down. The picture that has emerged is of a grandstanding dictator who posed us no risk at all, and whose major crimes, the post-facto justification Bush picked for the war when all the other justifications turned out false, were actually committed when he was our ally, not our enemy, making us complicit.

Mariner.

But he was acting like he had them. He kicked out inspectors. I don't think we should insist our intelligence be so good that we can see through bluffing dictators, though I DO believe he was a threat, had weapons, and was seeking more. If you bluff, you may get called on it. That should be the standard. Only an idiot would postulate to the contrary. The British still say he was seeking uranium from niger, despite the forged documents. What was joe wilson's official report back to the government on that matter? DO you know?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sanctions were working? THat's utter foolishness.

 

[Said1]

But he was acting like he had them. He kicked out inspectors. I don't think we should insist our intelligence be so good that we can see through bluffing dictators, though I DO believe he was a threat, had weapons, and was seeking more. If you bluff, you may get called on it. That should be the standard. Only an idiot would postulate to the contrary. The British still say he was seeking uranium from niger, despite the forged documents. What was joe wilson's official report back to the government on that matter? DO you know?

I think the bulk of the reports and intel was gather under another administration. I mean how many freakin' times do I have to post that act?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Advice: if you try to throw back at somebody because they threw a similar one at you, make sure your jab has the same substance. Yours doesn't, because a claim of victory is not a tacit admission of defeat if it is true..

And neither is an Ad Hom statement an admission of defeat if it is true, as in your case it was.

Let's compare, shall we?
You asserted that the United States is unequivocally a Christian nation. You claimed that you had several proofs, including "voluminous" quotes, as well as book-signed memberships to various denominations which you named (which was odd, since some of them weren't even around at the time). I requested on multiple occasions that you post those proofs that you continually claimed to have. Interestingly, I just visited that forum a few minutes ago, and as of that moment, you've still not done so. You continually whined and cried about why you wouldn't post them, using the old, "Why bother, you won't believe me anyway" canard. But to this moment you've not posted one shred of quote, citation or otherwise offered any substantiation of your claims.

Now, I, on the otherhand, asserted that our nation is founded upon religious principles, but that many of the founding fathers were Deists, not dogmatic Christians, and that they explicitly stated that the United States was not to be construed as a Christian nation. Like you, I was also asked to provide proof and support. In response to that request, I posted a lengthy list of quotes from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Payne and Ethan Allen.

So, let's look at the score in that debate, shall we?

LuvRPgrl: Assertions - 1; supporting sources - 0.
Nighwish: Assertions - 1; supporting sources - many, including a legal document.

Now, if you would like to somehow construe that as not having had your ass kicked, please explain.

You sir, are simply a liar. Its that simple. You pile on enough lies that its useless to try to counter them. You just pile on more lies.

so, how often do people IN THE DEBATE keep the score? Answer: NEVER.

Again, I ask you, how many rep points did you garner in that discussion?

You have failed to answer questions, then when you ask some and someone doesnt answer, you claim victory. Weak, pathetic.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think the bulk of the reports and intel was gather under another administration. I mean how many freakin' times do I have to post that act?

My main point is that he was bluffing, if he had nothing. And bluffs get called in international security matters.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

we know now, RightWing, it is clear that sanctions were working just fine. Saddam was all bluff and bluster, and we were taken in by people like Ahmed Chalabi, who wanted him overthrown for their own reasons, and figured they could get our help by saying he was a real threat to us. If you've followed the news, you've seen every single piece of "evidence" that Bush had for Saddam's dangerousness to us shot down. The picture that has emerged is of a grandstanding dictator who posed us no risk at all, and whose major crimes, the post-facto justification Bush picked for the war when all the other justifications turned out false, were actually committed when he was our ally, not our enemy, making us complicit.

Pick up this week's New Yorker magazine and read the interview with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Republican, avowed neoCon, moderate Muslim, and friend of Bush), Khalilzad. Asked if the invasion was truly necessary, he hedges, making it clear that even at the time the neoCons knew they were pushing an acceptable rationale, not a real reason for war.

Mariner.

sorry, but to the best of our knowledge sanctions werent working, except to produce a shameful program that ended in corruption and greed to the tune of millions of kids starving so the fat glutenous pigs at the UN could get even more rich.

 

[Said1]

My main point is that he was bluffing, if he had nothing. And bluffs get called in international security matters.

I know. I agree. Wasn't that obvious?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I know. I agree. Wasn't that obvious?

Yep!

 

[Nightwish]

And neither is an Ad Hom statement an admission of defeat if it is true, as in your case it was.

I gather that you don't understand fallacies. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, which is why it is known under the fancy Latin name. It is a fallacy in every instance. There is no instance in which ad hominem (meaning attacking the person instead of the argument) is not a fallacy. And it is widely accepted that the fallacy of ad hominem is the favored fall-back when a person ceases to have an argument against their opponent.

You sir, are simply a liar. Its that simple. You pile on enough lies that its useless to try to counter them. You just pile on more lies.

Please cut and paste a single lie that you believe I've told. At any rate, whether I am a liar or not, you are a graceless loser. Rather than conceding that your point is not as well-supported as mine was, you instead resorted to the graceless tactic of name-calling, ranting and ad hominem insults.

so, how often do people IN THE DEBATE keep the score? Answer: NEVER.

If their intention is actually to debate, then they almost always do. That makes it apparent that debate is not your intent, but flaming apparently is.

Again, I ask you, how many rep points did you garner in that discussion?

Do you care that much about rep points? Do you feel an overriding need to be propped up by the congratulations of others?

You have failed to answer questions,

What question did you ask that I didn't answer? You tried to divert from my points by saying the thread was about VALUES, not about whether the US was a Christian or Secular nation (an odd tactic, since a few breaths later you again asserted that it is unequivocally a Christian nation). Unfortunately, your distinction was rather pointless, because the conversation had already branched off into the subtopic of secularism vs. Christian foundations, and at that point anybody is well within their rights to join the conversation under that subtopic. You apparently feel as if I didn't have that right (probably because you weren't able to provide resources to match the ones I provided). In that case, you would be wrong.

then when you ask some and someone doesnt answer, you claim victory. Weak, pathetic.

I can only assume that you've had no debate training or experience, and thus lack a basic understanding of the philosophy of debate. Would that be correct? Let me educate you, if one party in a debate makes an assertion, but at no point in the debate is able to provide support for that assertion, then that party is considered, by any definition of debate, to have lost. In case you're not following, that would you who made the assertion for which you've never been able to provide support. Therefore, you lost the debate, unless you plan at some reasonable future time to actually provide the support you claim to have. But all the crybaby excuses in the world won't forgive the need to provide them if you wish for anybody (other than the choir) to concede your point. That's just common sense.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I gather that you don't understand fallacies. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, which is why it is known under the fancy Latin name. It is a fallacy in every instance. There is no instance in which ad hominem (meaning attacking the person instead of the argument) is not a fallacy. And it is widely accepted that the fallacy of ad hominem is the favored fall-back when a person ceases to have an argument against their opponent.


Please cut and paste a single lie that you believe I've told. At any rate, whether I am a liar or not, you are a graceless loser. Rather than conceding that your point is not as well-supported as mine was, you instead resorted to the graceless tactic of name-calling, ranting and ad hominem insults.


If their intention is actually to debate, then they almost always do. That makes it apparent that debate is not your intent, but flaming apparently is.


Do you care that much about rep points? Do you feel an overriding need to be propped up by the congratulations of others?


What question did you ask that I didn't answer? You tried to divert from my points by saying the thread was about VALUES, not about whether the US was a Christian or Secular nation (an odd tactic, since a few breaths later you again asserted that it is unequivocally a Christian nation). Unfortunately, your distinction was rather pointless, because the conversation had already branched off into the subtopic of secularism vs. Christian foundations, and at that point anybody is well within their rights to join the conversation under that subtopic. You apparently feel as if I didn't have that right (probably because you weren't able to provide resources to match the ones I provided). In that case, you would be wrong.


I can only assume that you've had no debate training or experience, and thus lack a basic understanding of the philosophy of debate. Would that be correct? Let me educate you, if one party in a debate makes an assertion, but at no point in the debate is able to provide support for that assertion, then that party is considered, by any definition of debate, to have lost. In case you're not following, that would you who made the assertion for which you've never been able to provide support. Therefore, you lost the debate, unless you plan at some reasonable future time to actually provide the support you claim to have. But all the crybaby excuses in the world won't forgive the need to provide them if you wish for anybody (other than the choir) to concede your point. That's just common sense.

You're not even rational half the time, sanction-boy.

 

[Gunny]

I gather that you don't understand fallacies. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, which is why it is known under the fancy Latin name. It is a fallacy in every instance. There is no instance in which ad hominem (meaning attacking the person instead of the argument) is not a fallacy. And it is widely accepted that the fallacy of ad hominem is the favored fall-back when a person ceases to have an argument against their opponent.


Please cut and paste a single lie that you believe I've told. At any rate, whether I am a liar or not, you are a graceless loser. Rather than conceding that your point is not as well-supported as mine was, you instead resorted to the graceless tactic of name-calling, ranting and ad hominem insults.


If their intention is actually to debate, then they almost always do. That makes it apparent that debate is not your intent, but flaming apparently is.


Do you care that much about rep points? Do you feel an overriding need to be propped up by the congratulations of others?


What question did you ask that I didn't answer? You tried to divert from my points by saying the thread was about VALUES, not about whether the US was a Christian or Secular nation (an odd tactic, since a few breaths later you again asserted that it is unequivocally a Christian nation). Unfortunately, your distinction was rather pointless, because the conversation had already branched off into the subtopic of secularism vs. Christian foundations, and at that point anybody is well within their rights to join the conversation under that subtopic. You apparently feel as if I didn't have that right (probably because you weren't able to provide resources to match the ones I provided). In that case, you would be wrong.


I can only assume that you've had no debate training or experience, and thus lack a basic understanding of the philosophy of debate. Would that be correct? Let me educate you, if one party in a debate makes an assertion, but at no point in the debate is able to provide support for that assertion, then that party is considered, by any definition of debate, to have lost. In case you're not following, that would you who made the assertion for which you've never been able to provide support. Therefore, you lost the debate, unless you plan at some reasonable future time to actually provide the support you claim to have. But all the crybaby excuses in the world won't forgive the need to provide them if you wish for anybody (other than the choir) to concede your point. That's just common sense.

The individual incapable of understanding anything is you. You've pretty-much had your ass smeared across this board in every conceivable manner; yet, you persist in double-talk tapdancing, using insults as some warped form of response to people attempting to engage you in honest debate, and even have the nerve to claim a victory no one sees but you.

Grow up, junior.

 

[Nightwish]

The individual incapable of understanding anything is you. You've pretty-much had your ass smeared across this board in every conceivable manner; yet, you persist in double-talk tapdancing, using insults as some warped form of response to people attempting to engage you in honest debate, and even have the nerve to claim a victory no one sees but you.

Grow up, junior.

Are you still smarting because I said Hobbit's response was more well-reasoned than yours? I'm suspecting so. Or was it because I questioned how privy you would actually be to tactical planning, being a Gunny Sergeant?

 

[Gunny]

Are you still smarting because I said Hobbit's response was more well-reasoned than yours? I'm suspecting so. Or was it because I questioned how privy you would actually be to tactical planning, being a Gunny Sergeant?

"Smarting?" LMAO. That'll be the day.

Questioning my credibility in regard to tactical planning for no more reason than streotyping me with some preconceived notion of what YOU think a Gunnery Sergeant is, is just more proof of your ignorance.

I attempted to engage you in honest debate. You have proven yourself to be a dishonest jackass with no ability to debate, and no entertainment value.

CYa.

 

[Nightwish]

Questioning my credibility in regard to tactical planning for no more reason than streotyping me with some preconceived notion of what YOU think a Gunnery Sergeant is, is just more proof of your ignorance.

How often do Gunnery Sergeants sit in the War Room? How often do NCO's, period, sit in the War Room? I don't disparage your military experience. But it seems that you're hoping that your military experience will make me believe you're an authority on wartime tactical strategic planning, something in which only a tiny percentage of the military (almost all of them Commissioned Officers) have expertise.

I attempted to engage you in honest debate.

I don't doubt that you did. You just didn't do it very well. When asked why assassination wouldn't work, you offered the fact that it is illegal, and the conjecture (though probably accurate) that his son would have simply stepped into his place. I countered that the legality of assassination has never been a hindrance to our government practicing it (I didn't specify heads of state, because assassination is illegal across the board, head or state or not), to which you never responded. And to the point about his son, I then asked why a tripartite plot to take out Saddam and his sons wouldn't work, to which you didn't respond. To the suggestion that an encouraged rebellion armed, supplied and supported by the US might work, your only response was that it had been tried unsuccessfully in 1991 (when conditions were nowhere near similar), but when I asked you for a reasoned analysis of why it wouldn't have worked in 2003 (a reasoned analysis might have included examples of other similar cases that didn't work, along with expert analyses of why they didn't), you were not forthcoming. So while you offered arguments that were mostly based on your personal opinion, they weren't terribly convincing. Hobbit went one better by providing a well-reasoned argument for why assassination wouldn't work, and I immediately conceded that point.

You have proven yourself to be a dishonest jackass with no ability to debate, and no entertainment value.

I understand that you're quite upset that I've been unwilling to accept your personal opinions as authoritative fact. But I've made no attempt to intentionally insult you, at least none that I recall. So if any of my comments appeared to you to be insults, I apologize. And if there are any that especially offended you, please let me know which ones they were, and I'll see if they were intended as such, or if they were simply poorly worded.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nightwish, you're such an idiot you think sanctions were working.

 

[Gunny]

How often do Gunnery Sergeants sit in the War Room? How often do NCO's, period, sit in the War Room? I don't disparage your military experience. But it seems that you're hoping that your military experience will make me believe you're an authority on wartime tactical strategic planning, something in which only a tiny percentage of the military (almost all of them Commissioned Officers) have expertise.

I worked in G-3 Ops at Headquarters, US Marine Corps for 4 years, the G-3, 13th MEU for 3 years. I also did a stint at the Tactical Exercise Evaluation Control Group at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms. The G-3 is responsible for tactical planning and operations. Good enough, or did I have to actually be on the JCS in order to substantiate that I am correct?

Be that as it may, I do not expect you to believe me because of my military experience. You presented what you call "possibilities" and I pointed out the flaws to those possibilities and reasons why.

You have as yet to present a reason why your "possibilities" are more tactically efficient that the ones I presented.

Whether or not you choose to believe it is irrelevant.

I don't doubt that you did. You just didn't do it very well. When asked why assassination wouldn't work, you offered the fact that it is illegal, and the conjecture (though probably accurate) that his son would have simply stepped into his place. I countered that the legality of assassination has never been a hindrance to our government practicing it (I didn't specify heads of state, because assassination is illegal across the board, head or state or not), to which you never responded. And to the point about his son, I then asked why a tripartite plot to take out Saddam and his sons wouldn't work, to which you didn't respond. To the suggestion that an encouraged rebellion armed, supplied and supported by the US might work, your only response was that it had been tried unsuccessfully in 1991 (when conditions were nowhere near similar), but when I asked you for a reasoned analysis of why it wouldn't have worked in 2003 (a reasoned analysis might have included examples of other similar cases that didn't work, along with expert analyses of why they didn't), you were not forthcoming. So while you offered arguments that were mostly based on your personal opinion, they weren't terribly convincing. Hobbit went one better by providing a well-reasoned argument for why assassination wouldn't work, and I immediately conceded that point.

I understand that you're quite upset that I've been unwilling to accept your personal opinions as authoritative fact. But I've made no attempt to intentionally insult you, at least none that I recall. So if any of my comments appeared to you to be insults, I apologize. And if there are any that especially offended you, please let me know which ones they were, and I'll see if they were intended as such, or if they were simply poorly worded.

You REALLY need to get over yourself. That you are unwilling to accept my opinions supported by the facts just proves you to be incapable of accepting the truth and/or any idea contrary to the one you hold.

You jumped in over your head, substantiated your lack of education in the area of strategy and tactics by your posts, resorted to insults and questioning the credibility of anyone who opposed you instead of presenting a legitimate counter-argument, and you pretty-much got your ass handed to you. It's as simple as that.

I'm done here. Far from upset, I am just quite bored with your jr high school strategy and dishonest debate tactics.

 

[Mariner]

Saddam had kicked out the inspectors. We had many reasons to know, however, that he was bluffing. "Curveball," the main German source for much of the fearsome "secret" evidence, was already known to be loony. Uranium from Niger was already known to be false (and Bush was forced to admit that he knew this at the time of his State of the Union address). The aluminum tubes were already known to be useless for centrifuges at the time that Condi Rice made her "mushroom cloud" speech. Colin Powell has now referred to his speech to the U.N. as a "blot" on his record, i.e. admitting that the administration was distorting the intelligence. The neoCon, Republican, Bush-team U.S. Ambassador to Iraq has admitted that we didn't really need to invade when we did.

And on and on and on. I've followed the revelations carefully, and there's not a single piece of original Bush "evidence" for the war that is left standing. He chose to show Congress a highly edited version of the intelligence he had access to, so his claims that Congress knew what he knew are now also known to be false.

With so many egregious examples of Bush and his team lying and distorting his way into this war, I'm not surprised that there are only a half-dozen USMB members left defending him and it any more. A year ago there were dozens. Only the diehards remain. Most of the American public, too, has wised up.

Mariner

P.S. GunnyL, in regard to the lecture you tried to give me about the president having power over everyone and having no reason to bow to the law or to congress, why don't you Google Truman and the Steel Seizure dispute. You'll find that during the Korean war, Truman tried to commandeer civilian steel production, and was turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court as lacking the power. We live in a constitional democracy, not a military dictatorship as you seem to think. Check the news on the number of liberty-loving Republicans who are dismayed at the wiretap revelations.

 

[Mariner]

I don't understand why you guys are being so hard on Nightwish.

Pretend that you agree with his positions. Then you'll see him as a fairly level-headed, obviously intelligent person, who aviods ad hominem attacks, is careful about details, takes the time to read posts carefully, and writes very well.

Is this some kind of hazing?

Mariner.

 

[manu1959]

if the US is not a christian nation....then what is it?

further, if it is in fact not a christian nation why is everyone so freaked out that it is a christian nation....yall ain't making any sense

and how did being fro the removal of sadam but against doing it with war turn into an attack on christianity....

 

[Gunny]

Saddam had kicked out the inspectors. We had many reasons to know, however, that he was bluffing. "Curveball," the main German source for much of the fearsome "secret" evidence, was already known to be loony. Uranium from Niger was already known to be false (and Bush was forced to admit that he knew this at the time of his State of the Union address). The aluminum tubes were already known to be useless for centrifuges at the time that Condi Rice made her "mushroom cloud" speech. Colin Powell has now referred to his speech to the U.N. as a "blot" on his record, i.e. admitting that the administration was distorting the intelligence. The neoCon, Republican, Bush-team U.S. Ambassador to Iraq has admitted that we didn't really need to invade when we did.

And on and on and on. I've followed the revelations carefully, and there's not a single piece of original Bush "evidence" for the war that is left standing. He chose to show Congress a highly edited version of the intelligence he had access to, so his claims that Congress knew what he knew are now also known to be false.

With so many egregious examples of Bush and his team lying and distorting his way into this war, I'm not surprised that there are only a half-dozen USMB members left defending him and it any more. A year ago there were dozens. Only the diehards remain. Most of the American public, too, has wised up.

Mariner

P.S. GunnyL, in regard to the lecture you tried to give me about the president having power over everyone and having no reason to bow to the law or to congress, why don't you Google Truman and the Steel Seizure dispute. You'll find that during the Korean war, Truman tried to commandeer civilian steel production, and was turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court as lacking the power. We live in a constitional democracy, not a military dictatorship as you seem to think. Check the news on the number of liberty-loving Republicans who are dismayed at the wiretap revelations.

As you pointed out, it went to the Supreme Court. If this goes to the Supreme Court and they say Bush can't do it, I guess he'll have to get a new plan.

The fact of the matter is, you CAN'T stop it. He can get a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER the wiretap BY LAW. What it boils down to is you libs whining about nothing more than paperwork.

And you got "liberty-loving" right. You place your personal liberties above the security of this Nation. Says a lot about you.

My personal liberties have not in any way been affected by people talking to terrorists/terrorist organizations being wiretapped.

I have never once stated that we lived in a military dictatorship, so that's just an unsupportable accusation on your part.