 |
|
 PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
2. August 2012, 22:27:42 Subject: WMD liberal logic  Since they didn't find WMD's in Iraq, Bush lied. The truth: Did liberals believe that Iraq had WMDs? YES Did liberals give their approval to invade Iraq? YES Did conservatives think that Iraq had WMDs? YES Did conservatives give their approval to invade Iraq? YES Did other countries believe that Iraq had WMDs? YES Did Iraq have WMDs and use them on its people? YES Was it likely that Saddam was still hiding WMDs? YES Did we find any when we went into Iraq? NO Was any evidence found that WMDs had existed in Iraq? YES Does it follow (logically) that someone lied about WMDs in order to invade Iraq? NO - That is stupid logic. - we know Saddam was a liar. And he stonewalled inspectors at every turn. As a buffer in the Middle East, it was in Iraq's interest to keep the world guessing about WMDs. Also it served to keep Iran in check. Was invading Iraq a mistake (in hindsight)? Depends on whom you ask. Are liberals morons for continuing to bring up WMDs? YES. Will they ever shut up about it? NO - You can't fix stupid. 2. August 2012, 22:52:24 Subject: Re: WMD liberal logic Artful Dodger: "The truth: Did liberals believe that Iraq had WMDs? YES No, not in this country.. stereotyping because of US 'liberal' (but not really that liberal generally) is bad. "Did liberals give their approval to invade Iraq? YES" Only because those in decision placement were lied to, they didn't think that Bush and Blair would tell such BIG lies. "Its informal use simply means: somebody or something that is identical to or very much like somebody or something else." I extrapolated on the use of the words. I know such a concept is big, but... maybe you and your alter ego could discuss it? 2. August 2012, 23:53:14 Subject: Re: WMD liberal logic (V): Assertions about lying aren't proof. neither is "blah blah blah" You made an incoherent statement regarding my use of the idiom carbon copy. I corrected you. Simple as that. I know you believe that Iamon lyme and I are one in the same but you can't be further from the truth. You're not even being clever about it.  BTW, proof is not just evidence open to interpretation but something solid, definitive, and just not just a "you say so." If you have none, then drop it already. Who cares at this point. Isn't that horse dead enough for you? 3. August 2012, 00:15:51 Subject: Re: Assertions about lying aren't proof. Artful Dodger: Not assertions.. fact as shown by various inquiries in the UK. It was claimed that Iraq could attack UK forces in "45 minutes" by Blair in Parliament as one of the major reasons we as a country should attack and invade Iraq. That WAS A LIE. "You made an incoherent statement regarding my use of the idiom carbon copy." To you... but my knowledge is different, and in reference to what Russell Brand said regarding "Role Models". "You're not even being clever about it." I didn't intended to be. 3. August 2012, 02:08:33 Subject: Re: Assertions about lying aren't proof. (V): Saying something you KNOW isn't the case is lying. Saying something you believe to be the case isn't. Wise Up 3. August 2012, 10:35:51 Subject: Re: Saying something you KNOW isn't the case is lying. Saying something you believe to be the case isn't. Artful Dodger: Deceptions, exaggerations and half truths..... as stated in various reports on the case, documents and evidence were "sexed up". ""Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US in 2001, Mr Carne said, the presentation of the intelligence relating to Iraq changed significantly. The now notorious claim in the “dodgy dossier” of September 2002, which implied that Saddam had the capacity to launch WMD within 45 minutes, had “no basis in firm intelligence”. "This process of exaggeration was gradual, and proceeded by accretion and editing from document to document, in a way that allowed those participating to convince themselves that they were not engaged in blatant dishonesty,” he said. "But this process led to highly misleading statements about the UK assessment of the Iraqi threat that were, in their totality, lies." "" Get IT 3. August 2012, 16:51:34 Subject: Re: Saying something you KNOW isn't the case is lying. Saying something you believe to be the case isn't. (V): You're the one who doesn't get it. You are the one who is highly exaggerating what happened. The majority of "experts" who looked at the intel knew Saddam had possessed WMDs and had used them against his people. And Saddam was happy keeping the world guessing about his possession of such weapons. With all his stonewalling of inspectors, it's little wonder that combined with the intelligence available, most concluded he was hiding something. The wimps of the world would rather trust the terrorists than to rely on the might of the military. It's you liberals who are the liars (and by US standards, you're a far left liberal loon). It's you who can't be trusted. Cherry picking quotes from your Google search isn't solid evidence. Get it? 3. August 2012, 18:31:03 Subject: Re: The majority of "experts" who looked at the intel knew Saddam had possessed WMDs and had used them against his people. Artful Dodger: Yes.. HAD, we all know Uncle Sam gave him WMD's ability. Just as many people know IF Kuwait hadn't been drilling underneath their border into Iraqi oil fields, then Saddam wouldn't have felt the need to invade them. "With all his stonewalling of inspectors, it's little wonder that combined with the intelligence available, most concluded he was hiding something.!" Most where? With millions here in the UK protesting and hearing on the news that the weapons inspectors saying Saddam hadn't any.. "It's you liberals who are the liars ..... It's you who can't be trusted. Cherry picking quotes from your Google search isn't solid evidence. Get it?" So, you say. But seeing as you keep saying I'm a liar, I sense it's best I interpret such moans as you just being Richardy about being in the wrong. 3. August 2012, 20:20:58 Subject: Re: The majority of "experts" who looked at the intel knew Saddam had possessed WMDs and had used them against his people. Modified by Papa Zoom (3. August 2012, 20:24:27) (V): Your argument is the epitome of obfuscation. It can't be that they made a MISTAKE regarding WMDs, it has to be they lied. That line of argument is the reason many US conservatives turn off to the liberal rhetoric. You claim that the WMD issue was a "fiasco." But you've never explained how this is so. As in all politics, the "other side" seizes on an opportunity to make the mole hill a mountain. That is what not finding huge quantities of WMDs were and are: a small issue. The issue of what to do about Saddam and Iraq was much larger than a single thing. That is factual. Whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq is open to debate. There are good points being made on both sides of that question. It's dishonest to ignore that reality. BTW, the meaning of Richard is "powerful leader." So thanks. 3. August 2012, 00:32:46 Subject: Re: WMD liberal logic Artful Dodger: "I know you believe that Iamon lyme and I are one in the same but you can't be further from the truth. You're not even being clever about it." Now now, alter ego, let's not be too hard on him. I like it when he complains to the moderator when we pretend to be the same person, and then comes back to imply that we are the same person. This guy is a laugh riot, and I really do look forward to his posts. I'm not just saying that (V), I really really do. Really... Do. |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |