Iraq... What a mess!

[Simon W. Moon]

You then ignored the fact that salt and ammonia aren't "controlled precursor chemicals",

I have taken note of the fact that I overlooked that phrase.

... and further proceeded from a premise that Saddam had actually obtained yellow cake rather than merely attempted to obtain it.

Hussein did have yellow cake. So it seemed like a good idea to proceed on that premise.

So your opponent's general inference that some silliness obtained on your side of the argument is in fact largely correct.

My side of the argument is that it is entirely reasonable not to classify yellowcake as a WMD.
What's so silly about that?

In the present case, I made no reference to pseudo-ephedrine either implicitly or explicitly. I would appreciate, as we go forward, that you take no further liberties as regards paraphrasing my statements. Kindly just cite them as written.

Since pseudo-ephedrine is indeed "a controlled precursor chemical, commonly known to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine," I assumed that it would fit the bill of "a controlled precursor chemical, commonly known to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine."

I hope you can see why I thought you were talking about "a controlled precursor chemical, commonly known to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine" like psuedo-ephedrine. I mean after all psuedo-ephedrine is "a controlled precursor chemical, commonly known to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine."
So, it is an easy mistake to make.

 

[Carl]

So, it is an easy mistake to make.

I reject the notion that your sentence, in this instance, constituted a mistake. But rather, an attempt to trivialize my arguments through a reduction to absurdity.

To avoid any further "misunderstandings", I'd appreciate it if you simply quote me as written, and make no further paraphrasings. Thank you.

 

[easyt65]

No disrespect to either 'the patrty of the 1st part' OR 'the party of the 2nd part', but I feel like I'm listening to Clinton give his teastimony where he argues 'It depends on what your definition of 'IS' is" all over again. :shock:

I'm going to try to go back to the title of this thread: "Iraq... What a mess!" I would have to agree that it is still an ugly situation over there. I see where we have begun lighting up Insurgents in Sommarah in what they are calling 'the biggest Air Campaign since the War' or something! The Iraqi people/govt are really nervous about an up-coming Religeous holiday, too, where Muslims walk to one of 2 cities. If insurgents targeted Mosques (and muslims) in order to try to start a civil war , they feel sure the Insurgents will take the oppportunity to attack Muslims during this event!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

To avoid any further "misunderstandings", I'd appreciate it if you simply quote me as written, and make no further paraphrasings. Thank you.

So, out of curiosity, would it have been more acceptable to you if I had instead put:

Carl offered an analogy where yellow cake was compared to "a controlled precursor chemical, commonly known to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine" like psuedo-ephedrine?
​

 

[Carl]

So, out of curiosity, would it have been more acceptable to you if I had instead put:

"I didn't say that, someone else did" would have been acceptable. When you use me by name in a post, I expect any reference to me words to always come in the form of an in-context citaton. Many boards I have frequented would have considered what you did a "warnable" offense.

 

[RightinNYC]

"I didn't say that, someone else did" would have been acceptable. When you use me by name in a post, I expect any reference to me words to always come in the form of an in-context citaton. Many boards I have frequented would have considered what you did a "warnable" offense.

Would you like that with footnotes or endnotes? MLA or APA?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

"I didn't say that, someone else did" would have been acceptable. When you use me by name in a post, I expect any reference to me words to always come in the form of an in-context citaton. Many boards I have frequented would have considered what you did a "warnable" offense.

I honestly don't see it.
You said "a controlled precursor chemical, commonly known to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine" and psuedo-ephedrine fits the bill.
AFAICT, psuedo-ephedrine's pretty much the only item that falls into the category of "a controlled precursor chemical, commonly known to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine."

Moreover, I provided a direct link to your post in question in case anyone wanted further clarification.

So what's the beef?
What meaning was changed or distorted?
What necessary context has been left out?

 

[KidRocks]

Can civil war be far behind?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-03-19-iraq-rdp_x.htm


Former Iraq PM: 'We are in civil war'

On the eve of the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said in a TV interview aired Sunday. His comments were immediately disputed by top U.S. and British officials.

Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. there is no other way to describe the increasing violence across the country. "It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," he said.

"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

 

[KidRocks]

Duh!

If only this brilliant revelation had come to President Bush before 2000 American troops had to needlessly die. Personally I'm not a brain surgeon but even I knew this before Bush attacked Iraq. in fact millions around the world knew about the sectarian violence Iraq was capable of, hell, even Saddam knew!

What a fool for a leader we have!









Bush blames Iraq's instability on Hussein

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is threatening the formation of a democratic government.

In his third speech this month to bolster public support for the war, Bush worked to counter critics who say the U.S. presence in the wartorn nation is fueling the insurgency.

Bush said that Saddam was a tyrant and used violence to exacerbate sectarian divisions to keep himself in power, and that as a result, deep tensions persist to this day...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/29/bush.iraq.ap/index.html