Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak? [W:92]

[obvious Child]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

You did it again, just like the Tax Thread. You undermined the foundation of your arguments in the sentences above. I really only need to post the first sentence. End of story.

This is why lawyers do not want clients to take the stand, for fear they'll do exactly you just did... Screw themselves.

I had a long rebuttal to your sometimes snarky post, but in the end you proved my point.

BTW... I did criticize Bush43, not for Iraq, but for his spending... and said it often enough.

That's all you can post? Seriously? Wow. How does the quoted line prove anything you said?

The more you run from, the more you show who's right. And every post you run from more and more and more.

Excuse me for believing you did no such criticizing whatsoever.

 

[zimmer]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

That's all you can post? Seriously? Wow. How does the quoted line prove anything you said?

The more you run from, the more you show who's right. And every post you run from more and more and more.

Excuse me for believing you did no such criticizing whatsoever.

It's all that's required. You did yourself in... yet again.

 

[obvious Child]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

It's all that's required. You did yourself in... yet again.

You funny. Keep destroying what's left of your reputation.

FYI, you ran away again from a question. You always run.

 

[zimmer]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

You funny. Keep destroying what's left of your reputation.

FYI, you ran away again from a question. You always run.

You, the kid who can't shoot straight is the decider of "reputation"... ROTFLOL... tell me another hilarious one. That's where your Lt. Hauk of Good Morning Vietnam fame comes shining through.

As noted earlier, just as with THE TAX THREAD... you blabber on, and on... and then (drum roll)... at the end, put a noose around your argument, and kick the chair out from underneath it. In other words, you shot yourself in the face. You killed your own argument.

When that happens, the only thing required is to point it out... and I did.

Then you come prancing back here playing little games in an attempt to deflect reality.

It might work with others... not here.

 

[obvious Child]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

You, the kid who can't shoot straight is the decider of "reputation"... ROTFLOL... tell me another hilarious one. That's where your Lt. Hauk of Good Morning Vietnam fame comes shining through.

As noted earlier, just as with THE TAX THREAD... you blabber on, and on... and then (drum roll)... at the end, put a noose around your argument, and kick the chair out from underneath it. In other words, you shot yourself in the face. You killed your own argument.

When that happens, the only thing required is to point it out... and I did.

Then you come prancing back here playing little games in an attempt to deflect reality.

It might work with others... not here.

Is that why you get no respect here from anyone?

Also, you do realize that every time you insult me, I report you right? Your infractions must go on for pages and pages.

FYI, you haven't even attempted to show how my quote actually does anything you said it does.

Again, you always run. You always have and you always will. You can't prove a single claim against me. Remember your constant whining about the fuel efficiency thread? You made a bold face lie I was talking about hybrids AFTER YOU QUOTED ME SAYING NO SUCH THING. Seriously, you need to let you anger go. It doesn't help you.

 

[zimmer]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

At some point. Doesn't mean he had them in 2003.

Let’s see… the weapons inspecteurs de la UN were booted out during Clintons reign of error. We had no inspectors, and when Saddam finally did allow inspectors (after Bush put troops on the border), he played games.

In the past. Doesn't mean he had them in 2003.

Well, let's go back down memory lane and listen to a certain Hans Blix.

Is he a liar too?

Hans Blix said the following (Zimmer notes in red):
Monday, January 27, 2003

While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991,...

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.
(Zimmer note: Obviously there was a lacking of trust after 12-years and as many years of games)

Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number.

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.


In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.
CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's remarks - Jan. 27, 2003

So after 12-years and 17UN resolutions, and after America getting smacked on 911, Bush decided to eliminate this threat. He went to the UN, and Congress. Got approval from both.

Saddam, perhaps believing Bush was the same show of weakness as Clinton, and having bought off the UN through the oil-for-food scandal, didn’t come clean. Who knows? But what we do know is BLIX believed he hadn't come clean.

Now… it’s odd don’t you think? Obama wants to disarm Syria in … a war zone… in… a couple years, and we couldn’t get Saddam to come clean in 12?

And....your point is?

He had proven himself hostile to the United States of America.

And as we saw in the occupation, Saddam did disarm. I see how you left that out. But no one here considers you honest.

Well... it seems to me in 2003... Hans Blix had other ideas about the level of forthrightness of Saddam. The above more than supports Bush's claims, and makes you look poorly informed.

Go and run a check on this bit by Blix and you'll see I've been using it for years. I've also read the testimony of David Fay before the Senate (Armed Services Committee(?). You should try reading the testimony too. It works wonders.

Which is actually stupid. First, Saddam was wanted dead by a great many Islamic terrorists. Second, Saddam was wanted dead by terrorists backed by Iran. Third, terrorists are generally very hard to control and thus states rarely give them advanced weapons. What did we give the contras? Light arms. What does Iran give Hezbollah? Light arms and medium explosives. What do the Russians give their Paramilitaries? Light arms. You don't give groups you cannot control heavy weapons or WMD. The chances of Saddam giving terrorists WMD was nil. If Iraq was going to deploy WMD, they'd do it themselves. Not rely on an unreliable third party. Your ignorance about basic terrorist operations and state relations is show.

"The chances of Saddam giving terrorists WMD was nil" you say? ROTFLOL... You trust Basher Asshat too I suppose? And Putin... ROTFLOL...

The enemy of your enemy is your ally... never heard that? And you running a nation would risk trusting Saddam? Only a fool. It's why leftists are best left watching the blinking lights and kept away from the levers of power.

I think you just got your lunch eaten, or is Blix a liar too?

 

[zimmer]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

Which is actually stupid. First, Saddam was wanted dead by a great many Islamic terrorists. Second, Saddam was wanted dead by terrorists backed by Iran. Third, terrorists are generally very hard to control and thus states rarely give them advanced weapons. What did we give the contras? Light arms. What does Iran give Hezbollah? Light arms and medium explosives. What do the Russians give their Paramilitaries? Light arms. You don't give groups you cannot control heavy weapons or WMD. The chances of Saddam giving terrorists WMD was nil. If Iraq was going to deploy WMD, they'd do it themselves. Not rely on an unreliable third party. Your ignorance about basic terrorist operations and state relations is show.

Just continuing to dismantle your blue-eyed, ill informed world view.

You seem to trust Saddam... how nice of you. It seems you wouldn't make it as a despot, but as perhaps... Baghdad Bob!

Christopher Hitchens w/ Charlie Rose & others before Iraq War 2. From 15:48 to 16:25

QUOTE
Then there is the question Dr. Koh seemed to be underestimating, the connection between Saddam Hussein and international gangsterism. Last weekend Saddam Hussein called for a common front of Jihad with the al Queda forces in Kuwait against the British, the Americans and the Jews.... he's the man who organized the Abu Nidal network... all the pieces that we do have are at least very suggestive of a non-aggression pact between the Iraqi Ba'ath Party and the al Queda .
END QUOTE

Or are Christopher Hitchens and Hans Blix liars??????????????

 

[zimmer]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

Which is actually stupid. First, Saddam was wanted dead by a great many Islamic terrorists. Second, Saddam was wanted dead by terrorists backed by Iran. Third, terrorists are generally very hard to control and thus states rarely give them advanced weapons. What did we give the contras? Light arms. What does Iran give Hezbollah? Light arms and medium explosives. What do the Russians give their Paramilitaries? Light arms. You don't give groups you cannot control heavy weapons or WMD. The chances of Saddam giving terrorists WMD was nil. If Iraq was going to deploy WMD, they'd do it themselves. Not rely on an unreliable third party. Your ignorance about basic terrorist operations and state relations is show.

Abu Nidal had been in Baghdad for months as Saddam's personal guest, and was being treated for a mild form of skin cancer.

While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal... came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa'eda fighters... after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies.

When Abu Nidal refused, Saddam ordered his intelligence chiefs to assassinate him.

Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row - Telegraph

Seems Saddam was a little pissed off. It appears he was hot for teacher... I mean terrorists to do harm to Americans. But of course... having used WMD the thought would never cross his mind (see video below).

Obvious Child... a little common sense on matters concerning horrifically evil men goes a long way. You seem to trust them. A president with an IQ larger than 3 cannot.

The Leftists Baghdad Bob view of Saddam... or should I say the Michael Moore view... either way, two tools of majestic proportions is dangerous. Here is the Saddam the press should have made public but failed to do. It's why we have the leftist idiocy we have.

 

[obvious Child]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

Let’s see… the weapons inspecteurs de la UN were booted out during Clintons reign of error. We had no inspectors, and when Saddam finally did allow inspectors (after Bush put troops on the border), he played games.

So? All this proves is he played games. What are you after? Is this going to end with you going on another meltdown after you utterly fail to prove anything other than I'm right as usual?

Well, let's go back down memory lane and listen to a certain Hans Blix.

Is he a liar too?

Misinformed. As the occupation showed, Iraq simply didn't have the logistical framework much less paper trail and accident trail to show they had any of such weapons. As we've agreed, the inspectors were only getting bits and piece of information. Blix had to work with what he got, which was less than the whole picture. Blix was never a liar, merely someone making guesses off of small bits and piece of information.

So after 12-years and 17UN resolutions, and after America getting smacked on 911, Bush decided to eliminate this threat. He went to the UN, and Congress. Got approval from both.

And what threat was that? Iraq's military was in shambles. Its economy was in shambles. As we learned, Iraq had no WMD. So what threat were you talking about? And you have this asinine notion that Saddam wasn't on Bin Laden's hit list. Attacking him actually served Bin Laden's purpose of removing a secular leader from an Arab regime. Congress was wrong too. As I've repetitively said (and you repetitively ignore because you're extremely dishonest), Kerry and Clinton both saw the NSA white paper which reduced the level of intelligence from "probable" to "possible." Both are culpable in the mess of Iraq. I've never once defend either on their votes. In fact, I BLASTED Kerry for doing just that.

Unlike you, who is a raging partisan with a bias so out of control that everyone can see it, I have no problems attacking both parties. In fact, I regularly refer to Obama as Bush the 3rd. Pointing out that he got approval from Congress. The UN did not authorize an invasion per the security council. Resolution 1441 was not the UN security council vote to allow the US to legally lead an invasion.

Saddam, perhaps believing Bush was the same show of weakness as Clinton, and having bought off the UN through the oil-for-food scandal, didn’t come clean. Who knows? But what we do know is BLIX believed he hadn't come clean.

And your point is what? Doesn't change the fact that we never found the weapons. Never found the facilities. Never found the storage tanks. Never found people with accidents from production.

Now… it’s odd don’t you think? Obama wants to disarm Syria in … a war zone… in… a couple years, and we couldn’t get Saddam to come clean in 12?

Obama is looking for a way out of his ultimatum now that the British have refused any action. Obama likely doesn't believe this will work. I personally think it's merely a grab for time. Chemical weapons control takes decades in peace time. It will not work in a war.

He had proven himself hostile to the United States of America.

So? Lots of people and countries are hostile to the US. What's your point? Do you even have one?

Well... it seems to me in 2003... Hans Blix had other ideas about the level of forthrightness of Saddam. The above more than supports Bush's claims, and makes you look poorly informed.

Come again? You're citing a guy who was working off of bits and piece of information and you're calling me, who has total hindsight with the admission of Curveball that it was all lies "poorly informed?"

Who are you kidding? Grasping for straws as always Zimmer.

Nothing you said even attempts to refute my point about how the occupation totally failed to find even the logistical framework for a weapons program. You can harp on Blix all you want but it changes nothing about what we found from the basic ingredients to make chemical weapons, to the facilities to build them, to the places to store them and the people to use them. All of which we found none. The notion that Iraq had chemical weapons relies upon a crackhead belief that Saddam made them in a secret world, stored them in a secret world, trained people to use them that vanished and had no accidents in production in a secret world. The Ether is the only explanation that gets around the total lack of logistical framework that such weapons require.

Go and run a check on this bit by Blix and you'll see I've been using it for years. I've also read the testimony of David Fay before the Senate (Armed Services Committee(?). You should try reading the testimony too. It works wonders.

Why do you think that citing people who were working on bits and piece of information is a better argument then working off of what we found during a multi-year occupation where we have control to go wherever we wanted whenever? This is a pathetic argument. Even for DP.

The notion that less information means you're informed is downright asinine.

"The chances of Saddam giving terrorists WMD was nil" you say? ROTFLOL... You trust Basher Asshat too I suppose? And Putin... ROTFLOL...

Yes. Because dictators have a desire to stay in power and maintain control. Giving such weapons to people you cannot control and may lead back to you is not in their best interests. You act as if Putin and Assad are not rational beings. Iran has long armed terrorists, but arms them with low grade weapons. They do not give Hezbollah or Hamas their best stuff. When Iran won't even give them their best conventional, why would any leader give them WMD?

Your ignorance is showing and rather than address my points, you go off on tangents that show you do not understand how rational people think and that you have virtually no grasp of the last 50 years of WMD relationships.

The enemy of your enemy is your ally... never heard that?

That does not logically translate to any state giving non-state actors WMD. Merely because someone may temporarily be your ally does not mean you arm them with weapons capable of killing thousands in seconds. Your argument makes huge assumptions without any factual or rational basis.

And you running a nation would risk trusting Saddam? Only a fool. It's why leftists are best left watching the blinking lights and kept away from the levers of power.

Saddam wanted to stay in power. Giving WMD to people he could not control would ultimately get himself blamed. Why would Saddam risk his own power base? You won't answer that, you'll just run from it

I think you just got your lunch eaten, or is Blix a liar too?

On the contrary, you just demonstrated massive ignorance as well as using the idiotic argument that limited information is better than 20/20 hindsight.

This is going end exactly as I predicted it will....with you going on another meltdown after you utterly fail to prove anything other than I'm right as usual

 

[obvious Child]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

Just continuing to dismantle your blue-eyed, ill informed world view.

Meaning you're going to fail, say I put words in your mouth and have another meltdown. Which would be par for the course.

You seem to trust Saddam... how nice of you. It seems you wouldn't make it as a despot, but as perhaps... Baghdad Bob!

Actually, I trust what our troops found in Iraq. Which was nothing. You however, are casting my faith in what they found to be lies, which suggests you have a very low opinion of our men and women who serve in the armed forces. As I have repetively said, my argument stems from what we found during the occupation. You seem to think that relying on arguments pre-occupation that were built on bits and piece of information provides better arguments then a wholesale scrubbing of Iraq to find anything that would have shown a WMD program. That is absolutely asinine.

Then there is the question Dr. Koh seemed to be underestimating, the connection between Saddam Hussein and international gangsterism. Last weekend Saddam Hussein called for a common front of Jihad with the al Queda forces in Kuwait against the British, the Americans and the Jews.... he's the man who organized the Abu Nidal network... all the pieces that we do have are at least very suggestive of a non-aggression pact between the Iraqi Ba'ath Party and the al Queda .
END QUOTE

Or are Christopher Hitchens and Hans Blix liars?????????????

Again, this makes no sense. Why would Saddam who was hated by Islamists (after all they tried to kill him several times) agree to this? We did Bin Laden's work by removing Saddam for him. If there was a non-agression pact, why did al Queda try to kill Saddam numerous times? A non-aggression pact means non-aggression. Not repeated assassination attempts.

You're still running away from explaining why a leader would give WMD to groups he cannot control when no one in the world's history has ever done so.

 

[obvious Child]

Re: Will Obama's thin "Red Line" become a Thick Brown Streak?

Seems Saddam was a little pissed off. It appears he was hot for teacher... I mean terrorists to do harm to Americans. But of course... having used WMD the thought would never cross his mind (see video below).

Yawn. Still citing old data as proof of current events eh? You never learn do you?

Obvious Child... a little common sense on matters concerning horrifically evil men goes a long way. You seem to trust them. A president with an IQ larger than 3 cannot.

On the contrary, rational people can be predicted. Furthermore, the occupation showed you were wrong as you almost always are.

The Leftists Baghdad Bob view of Saddam... or should I say the Michael Moore view... either way, two tools of majestic proportions is dangerous. Here is the Saddam the press should have made public but failed to do. It's why we have the leftist idiocy we have.

And this is suppose to mean what?

You are running wholesale from my arguments showing how Iraq never had such weapons and our basis for existence was based on a drunken liar who admitted he made it all up. Keep posting with the asinine argument that working off of little bits of data is better than viewing it from a 20/20 hindsight position.