J
jones
Guest
- Thread starter
- #61
btw, truth already came out. http://wmd.ceip.matrixgroup.net/iraq3fulltext.pdf
Carnegie Endowment is a joke. 
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/01/carnegie_endowm.html
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/01/carnegie_endowm.html
J
jones
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
Oh please. Are you saying they're irrelavant because they didnt say anything about his other abuses to humanity? please jim.
Understand that there are ALOT of dictators around the world, including the rulers of china, our biggest partner in trade now.
We cannot go around the world toppeling evil people, would be an endless cycle of violence. Thats not what america for, we are the example. And boy has it worked setting an example, many more democracys have developed because of that. Not because we went around the world killing for freedom. We went to war because of a threat to our nation that was in fact, unjustified.
Understand that there are ALOT of dictators around the world, including the rulers of china, our biggest partner in trade now.
We cannot go around the world toppeling evil people, would be an endless cycle of violence. Thats not what america for, we are the example. And boy has it worked setting an example, many more democracys have developed because of that. Not because we went around the world killing for freedom. We went to war because of a threat to our nation that was in fact, unjustified.
Carnegie Endowment is an anit-war organization, of course their slant will be that we shouldn't have went to war. They've presented not much in facts and lots in opinions. Their summary of the evidence is one big opinion. They're biased. I'll stick with other sources. Thanks for sharing though.
J
jones
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
Because thats not what they were giving a report on. We already knew of his abuses.
Check out those facts on page 43 if you think theirs none. Its a nice and simple summery for us.
Check out those facts on page 43 if you think theirs none. Its a nice and simple summery for us.
Zhukov
VIP Member
No I don't believe so. I doubt they would begin with loads of unsubstantiated opinions only to get into the facts 30 minutes later. I'm sure it's more of the same.
Don't presume to know my politics.
Nothing else you stated merits a response.
JONES VS. JIMNYC in the heavywight bout of the century.
Round: ?! Ah....what round are we on anyway.
If you will allow me to add my two cents. First as a conservative I will attempt to keep my criticisms of Jones to a minimum.
Secondly, I consider myself a little different than most people who come into a debate. Sure I think i'm right most of the time, but by telling someone so I genuinelu want them to see things my way and, in the end, agree that I am right and change their way of thinking. Thirdly, as a conservative I believe that if the facts are on my side there is a at least on arugument that should persuade the person I am debating no matter what. That unfortunately assumes the premise that the other person abides by the unwritten rule that facts win the day. The other problem is that, by definition, facts are not as important to liberals as other things like compassion and emotion. Jones went so far as to admit he doesn't care about facts. So, you can imagine my frusteration as a person who actually wants others to agree with my way of thinking.
How does this pertain to you two. Well, it seemed you both started off with reasonable arguments. Jones, you posted the moveon.org clip. jimnyc enterd his criticims and the whole thing soon nosedived into name calling. By the second page you had made up and by the fourth name calling again. Do you even remember what this was over?
Finally, Zukhov picked apart the moveon clip pretty much as i would have done. You claim to be open minded Jones and tell other people to do so as well. Yet when Zukhov objectively criticised your clip you basically failed to respond objectively yourself. Most people here are openminded, Jones. IMO conservative are more open minded than liberal becasue they are more objective than subjective by definition. That being the case just because someone still disagrees w/ you doesn't mean they're close minded. It means you didn't present a comvincing argument.
Round: ?! Ah....what round are we on anyway.
If you will allow me to add my two cents. First as a conservative I will attempt to keep my criticisms of Jones to a minimum.
Secondly, I consider myself a little different than most people who come into a debate. Sure I think i'm right most of the time, but by telling someone so I genuinelu want them to see things my way and, in the end, agree that I am right and change their way of thinking. Thirdly, as a conservative I believe that if the facts are on my side there is a at least on arugument that should persuade the person I am debating no matter what. That unfortunately assumes the premise that the other person abides by the unwritten rule that facts win the day. The other problem is that, by definition, facts are not as important to liberals as other things like compassion and emotion. Jones went so far as to admit he doesn't care about facts. So, you can imagine my frusteration as a person who actually wants others to agree with my way of thinking.
How does this pertain to you two. Well, it seemed you both started off with reasonable arguments. Jones, you posted the moveon.org clip. jimnyc enterd his criticims and the whole thing soon nosedived into name calling. By the second page you had made up and by the fourth name calling again. Do you even remember what this was over?
Finally, Zukhov picked apart the moveon clip pretty much as i would have done. You claim to be open minded Jones and tell other people to do so as well. Yet when Zukhov objectively criticised your clip you basically failed to respond objectively yourself. Most people here are openminded, Jones. IMO conservative are more open minded than liberal becasue they are more objective than subjective by definition. That being the case just because someone still disagrees w/ you doesn't mean they're close minded. It means you didn't present a comvincing argument.
J
jones
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
Thanks of the analysis. 
Even though i disagree on a few points.
1st, I think Jimnyc won the match, haha. Its his turf, and hes experienced at this.
2nd I can't supply the facts you all desire. If we HAD all the facts, we wouldnt need to sit here and debate this, action would have been taken because sufficiant evidence could be supplied.
3rd Its not a clip from moveon, its a 'documentary', had more testimony from people with first hand accounts from war in iraq than anything you would find in the media these days.
4rd Tell me why I was not objectively responding to Zuks post, maybe I will understand. Even though I was in a hurry, thought I did a good job.
Even though i disagree on a few points.1st, I think Jimnyc won the match, haha. Its his turf, and hes experienced at this.
2nd I can't supply the facts you all desire. If we HAD all the facts, we wouldnt need to sit here and debate this, action would have been taken because sufficiant evidence could be supplied.
3rd Its not a clip from moveon, its a 'documentary', had more testimony from people with first hand accounts from war in iraq than anything you would find in the media these days.
4rd Tell me why I was not objectively responding to Zuks post, maybe I will understand. Even though I was in a hurry, thought I did a good job.
For example, This is a subjective post. Last i checked a coalition of 36 countries supported our efforts in the region. I guess the "rest of the world" is made up of France, Germany and Russia. There will never be 100% support of anything ever, but 36 countries is a heck of a start.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
posted by Jones:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
State of the Union:
..."With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
State of the Union:
..."With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." (Applause.)
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
'It’s kind of serious stuff,' Vegas hotel tells 911 after Canadian man's alleged flamingo theft- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
The we have it bad here? Thousands of drivers are lining up at gas stations in Chy-na- Started by JGalt
- Replies: 0
-
-
