So, your 'evidence' for them not having a black-market connection for WMDs is based on the fact that they had no WMDs.Napoleon's Nightingale said:Because Iraq did not have any nuclear bombs, it's chemical and biowarfare sites had been obliterated during the gulf war and were never repaired or rebuilt, and it's uranium stockpile had been seized, sealed, and locked up by the ISG and Saddam never tried to gain access to it after that point.
There's no exaggeration at all.Thats a misleading exageration. Saddam didn't sponsor any terrorist organization..he gave money to the families of dead suicide bombers after the fact.
Its evidence that Iraq is STILL a part of the war on terror NOW.And? Thats not evidence that Saddam has anything to do with it. Of course they'd follow us into Iraq.
Not that they have any (yet).We're lucky North Korea didn't start firing missiles at our mainland while we were busy playing finger paints in Iraq and toppling a completley inert dictator which posed no threat to us.
And we cannot/wont do that, because,...?An all out invasion probably would not be neccessary but I am in favor of taking military action against North Korea, yes.
I see.No. Iran is not our problem and won't be our problem until they develop sufficient missile technology to reach a U.S. territory. As it stands, Iran is Israel's problem.
earthworm said:To quote the Nightengale ......We should not have started with Iraq. Iraq did not pose a direct threat to us. North Korea poses a direct threat to us.
Was it not Thomas Jefferson who spoke the words over 200 years ago ... Stay out of foreign conflicts !
An intelligent man would heed this advice...
North Korea poses no threat to us; how can this even be uttered ???
I agree , Iraq was supposedly" easy pickings".. but never posed a direct threat..
The WMD ?? In warfare this can be absolutely anything - a rag, a match, some gasoline..enough mad citizens willing to die for the cause.
For the insane Islamics - nothing more than some box-cutters, no respect for others, and a willingness to die..
Of course, the A bomb is a true WMD, is more "humane"...But what the Iraqi insurgents(and the Islamic terrorists) are doing simply takes more time, of which they have plenty of...
I like that map, too bad the Islamics are too hateful to see it this way..
Goobieman said:If they're found in Syria, doesnt this destroy this argument?
Goobieman said:There's no exaggeration at all.
Goobieman said:And in any event, giving money to suicide bombers' families, alone, is supporting terrorism.
Goobieman said:Its evidence that Iraq is STILL a part of the war on terror NOW.
Goobieman said:Not that they have any (yet).
Goobieman said:I see. And thew US should stand aside, allowing Iran to nuke Israel and Israel to retalliate in like and kind, because...?
Prove a claim I never made? Sounds like a strawman.Napoleon's Nightingale said:I'd like to know how you can proove in any way shape or form that wmds found in Syria came from Iraq.
Of the oranizations listed in the cite, which of them were out of the control of Baghdad?Yes there is. You forget that such organizations operated outside of Baghdad's control since the no-fly zone was put in place.
Rewarding the families of suicide bombers -- and therefore giving incentive for others to become suicide bombers -- is supporting terrorism.No it's not. Saddam didn't finance the attacks therefore it is not supporting terrorism.
The "insurgency" is primarily deposed Ba'thists and Sunnis.The U.S. created this insurgency and dragged it with us from Afghanistan.
That doesnt in any way translate to an operational capability, especially in a nuclear context. Thats not to say they won't have that capability (and thus, the most obvious argument for the GBI/NMD), but they dont have it NOW -- so there wasnt any danger of them doing as you suggested.Were you sleeping all the way through Clinton's presidency? Maybe you forgot that North Korea launched a test missile which went over Japan and landed off the Alaskan coastline.
A nuclear exchange in the ME is everyone's problem.Because it's not our problem.
Goobieman said:Prove a claim I never made?
Goobieman said:IF the weapons are found... doesnt that destroy your 'proof' that Iraq had no black market contacts for WMD trade?
Goobieman said:Of the oranizations listed in the cite, which of them were out of the control of Baghdad? Support your claim.
Goobieman said:Rewarding the families of suicide bombers -- and therefore giving incentive for others to become suicide bombers -- is supporting terrorism.
Goobieman said:The "insurgency" is primarily deposed Ba'thists and Sunnis.
Goobieman said:That doesnt change the fact that there are islamofascist terrorists here NOW and therefore Iraq is part of the war on terror NOW.
Goobieman said:That doesnt in any way translate to an operational capability, especially in a nuclear context. Thats not to say they won't have that capability (and thus, the most obvious argument for the GBI/NMD), but they dont have it NOW -- so there wasnt any danger of them doing as you suggested.
Goobieman said:And in any case -- if they were of a mind to lob a nuke at us, the location of our conventional forces really doesnt matter.
Goobieman said:A nuclear exchange in the ME is everyone's problem.
Please see the 1st post and the attached poll. I aluded to nothing; I was speaking in context of the topic.Napoleon's Nightingale said:You illuded to it.
The phrase "if Iraqi WMDs are found in Syria" presumes this. Don't argue the givemNo because 1) You'd have to prove that the weapons did indeed come from Iraq
YOU claimed that there was no contact with the black market, and that this lack of contact was the reason Iraq was not a threat.2) You'd have to prove that Iraq did have wmd black market
See (2), above.3) You'd have to provide proof of contacts, transactions, and intent of being involved in a wmd black market with terrorist organizations.
So, you dont have any way to show that the instances in the citation I reported were outside baghdad's control. So much for that point.Read page 61 of the 9/11 Commission report to get a better idea.
I'll take that as a concession of the point.The U.S. did more to support Hammas than Saddam ever did.
In the context of islamofascist terrorist operating in Iraq, thereby showing that Iraq is NOW a part of the war on terror -- why does it matter where the Insurgency gets anything?Which gets additional men from where? Which gets arms and amunition and funding from where? I want you to say it.
How is citing the fact that the present Islamofascist presence in Iraq is part of the war on terrorm a strawman?Such a strawman. The administration couldn't establish a solid relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda so they created one after the fact.
OK... and?The North Koreans do have a chemical and biological weapons stockpile which is even more dangerous than a nuke.
Where do you get the idea that I'm willing to let NK attack us before we do something to keep them from doing so?And herein lies the hypocricy. You want to go in after Saddam who doesn't have the capability yet you're willing to lose x amount of lives in an attack on our mainland before attacking North Korea which does have the capability to launch such an attack.
really.Not really.
The voting results (middle row).Originally posted by Goobieman
How do you come up with that?
Billo_Really said:The voting results (middle row).
Goobieman said:So...
-Iran lobs a nuke or two into Israel, virtually destroying the country.
-Israel sends 100 or so over to Iran, virtually destroying the country, especially its ability to produce oil.
I can't make that determination.Originally posted by Goobieman
Ok... and how do you figure that all of the 18 people that voted "I already support the war, and this doesnt surprise me." thought he was lying?
M14 Shooter said:If we found them - and there's some reason to believe we might - would you change your mind about the war?
Another story regarding their movement to Syria:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=2
Goobieman said:Please see the 1st post and the attached poll. I aluded to nothing; I was speaking in context of the topic.
Goobieman said:The phrase "if Iraqi WMDs are found in Syria" presumes this. Don't argue the givem
Goobieman said:IF there were WMDs that could have gone on the black market, how do you then support your claim that there were no contact w/ said market?
Goobieman said:So, you dont have any way to show that the instances in the citation I reported were outside baghdad's control. So much for that point.
Goobieman said:I'll take that as a concession of the point.
Goobieman said:In the context of islamofascist terrorist operating in Iraq, thereby showing that Iraq is NOW a part of the war on terror --
Goobieman said:why does it matter where the Insurgency gets anything?
Goobieman said:How is citing the fact that the present Islamofascist presence in Iraq is part of the war on terrorm a strawman?
Goobieman said:You're admitting that NK could not deliver a nuke, as you suggested, and so you're re-characterizing the threat?
Goobieman said:Where do you get the idea that I'm willing to let NK attack us before we do something to keep them from doing so?
Goobieman said:-Iran lobs a nuke or two into Israel, virtually destroying the country. -Israel sends 100 or so over to Iran, virtually destroying the country, especially its ability to produce oil.
Goobieman said:Don't you think that just the effect on the world's oil supply and (especialy) oil prices is something that will be of concern to everyone?
Be careful, hurt his feelings too much and he will lobby to have you turned in to the FBI.Originally Posted by Napoleon's Nightingale
There's no option for Nope and I still support the war.
Colin Powell took 'intellegence' to the U.N. and told them that the United States knew "Exactly" where the WMD's were.
Well they weren't there.
How could we possibly now know that they're in Syria?
You're just a warmonging hatefilled jerk who thinks it's cool to kill people because they're brown.
Well let me be the first to tell ya... Jesus was brown too dumbass!
Billo_Really said:Be careful, hurt his feelings too much and he will lobby to have you turned in to the FBI.
Billo_Really said:Be careful, hurt his feelings too much and he will lobby to have you turned in to the FBI.
Billo_Really said:I can't make that determination.
Saboteur said:You're just a warmonging hatefilled jerk who thinks it's cool to kill people because they're brown.
Well let me be the first to tell ya... Jesus was brown too dumbass!
Absolutely not. No one has voted for Bush not lying. My statement was correct.Originally Posted by Goobieman
So... your statement was in error.
What! Your not Nappy Night?Originally Posted by Saboteur
Hi, just so we don't get Napoleans Nightengale in trouble I'm going to have to take responsibility for my words.
I've been kinda irritable lately and I'm pretty much fed up with the way things are going in the U.S. and these guys living in this fantasy world that this is how our country is supposed to be behaving in the world.
It's just stupid and to think that there are idiots like M14 and Goobboy, or whatever, out there crappin' up the place with their ass breath while blowin' all this hot air about 'I hate liberals because this' and 'I hate people that aren't for this country becoming a theocratic dictatorship with Fascist values because that'. Is just puttin my balls in a salkad shooter if ya know what I mean and I think I'm gonna punch the next Republickdick I see!
Whew... I'll probably get banned so, so long and thanks for all the fish.
And as for the FBI, who do you think I'm watchin' the Super Bowl with?
I must be drunk.Originally Posted by Napoleon's Nightingale
Methinks you've attributed those words to the wrong guy lol.
I know what I wrote. Cite me.Napoleon's Nightingale said:Read your own posts.
In a hypothecital, like this topic, you are given certain assumotiuons.You must argue the "given" becuase the "given" is not an established fact.
YOU brought up the black market:Even IF there were wmds, which there weren't, it doesn't automatically mean that Saddam was selling them on the blackmarket. You have to provide proof that said black market existed, proof that Saddam was interested in said black market, and proof that Saddam had contacts with the black market first.
OMFG. You're kidding, right?Do you have any proof that Saddam was directly involved in those instances?
Which is only relevant if the actions drescribed above were taken inside the no-fly zone and involved aircraft. So, you'll show that to be true -- right?No. The no-fly zone was not within the scope of Saddam's control therefore any organizations operating in the no-fly zone were outside Saddam's scope of control. Again, read page 61 of the 9/11 commission report for proof and a further example.
That changes the fact that Iraq was involved in terrorism before the war and that it is now currently part of the war on terror...how?Again, this was created by the U.S.
In other words, you really dont have anythng to say, or you can't back up what you want to say.:shock: You've got to be kidding! There would be no insurgency if they had no resources to use. I'll let you figure out the rest.
1) Thats not a strawmanStrawman - A person (or in this case a nation and cause) who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
And that threat would change if we didnt have troops in Iraq?No. North Korea has the technology to deliver a nuke..whether or not they have a nuke to deliver is up for debate It is not a re-characterization of the threat. The threat is their ability to use chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads to target a U.S. city.
.Perhaps you should think about what you say before you type it. You basically said that it doesn't matter if NK has the ability to target a U.S. city because of our troop presence in SK. By that logic we never should have invaded Iraq because of our troop presence in Saudi Arabia
I've seen estimates that Israel has up to 200.ROFL! Such an exageration! Israel doesn't even have 100 nuclear warheads and even if they did they certainly wouldn't use them all on Iran.
1) The loss of Iranian oil, and potentially almost all ME oil, will cause a worldwide shortage. A worldwide shortage will drive up the price of oil no matter where it comes fromNo..we only import a small amount of oil from the middle east to begin with and even if your whacked out scenario did take place it could be balanced out by forcing the Big Five to build more refineries here in the U.S.
Billo_Really said:Absolutely not. No one has voted for Bush not lying. My statement was correct.
Saboteur said:Hi, just so we don't get Napoleans Nightengale in trouble I'm going to have to take responsibility for my words.
I've been kinda irritable lately and I'm pretty much fed up with the way things are going in the U.S. and these guys living in this fantasy world that this is how our country is supposed to be behaving in the world.
It's just stupid and to think that there are idiots like M14 and Goobboy, or whatever, out there crappin' up the place with their ass breath while blowin' all this hot air about 'I hate liberals because this' and 'I hate people that aren't for this country becoming a theocratic dictatorship with Fascist values because that'. Is just puttin my balls in a salkad shooter if ya know what I mean and I think I'm gonna punch the next Republickdick I see!
Whew... I'll probably get banned so, so long and thanks for all the fish.
And as for the FBI, who do you think I'm watchin' the Super Bowl with?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?