Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception.

[Doctor X]

crackmonkey:

You raise a very important point--conspiracy makes one "important."

You have to be important to merit a conspiracy against you!

As for Butler being a "Bushman"--well . . . he is Australian [Stop that!--Ed.]--he did much of the work during the Clinton years, methought . . . which . . . means . . . Clinton and Bush were WORKING TOGETHER!!!! [!--Ed.]

Stranger things . . . I may have mentioned I once dealt with a guy who claimed the Bush Family, Nazis, and Mossad were behind 9/11. . . .

Roswell!!! Roswell!!!

--J. "Should not have had that extra mocha this morning" D.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Regarding the review: it seems to be merely the reader's opinion.

Yes, that's all I meant it to be.

 

[Doctor X]

Not to appear dismissive of it, but it reminds me of a review from a distinguished professor from the University of Chicago who made claims for containment and then stated Pollack argued for "such and such" despite the fact that Pollack did not!

Of course, he does not cite where Pollack makes the arguments he attaches to him.

One can very well read the book, I suppose, and then claim, "I am still not convinced." However, one should then come up with a better plan. Just claiming that containment will work when Pollack demonstrates that it has not requires refuting Pollack directly.

--J.D.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Of course, he does not cite where Pollack makes the arguments he attaches to him.

It is not clear to me who "he" is in the above sentence. The Chicago professor? The review to which I linked for your interest did cite page numbers (374, 421, 174, 266) and direct quotes.

 

[Doctor X]

"Ah HA! Pronoun problem!"

"He" refer'd to the Chicago professor. The review was read to me over the phone.

--J.D.

 

[subgenius]

Well this could prove interesting:
Saddam's bodyguard warns of secret arsenal

02feb03

SADDAM Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal.

His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war.
Abu Hamdi Mahmoud has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited.

They include:

AN underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad;

A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea;

TWO underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is "the smoking gun".

"Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam," Tierney said.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220^663,00.html

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Well this could prove interesting:
Saddam's bodyguard warns of secret arsenal...

"Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam," Tierney said.

Why is this being publicized before the weapons inspectors have the opportunity to visit the sites?

 

[rikzilla]

Ahh Wayne,

When are you going to admit that the preponderance of evidence against Saddam's government is overwhelming? In order for you to rebut all that is coming out you will have to do exactly what creationists do...ie; ignore evidence you don't like while clinging to what little evidence supports your claim that Iraq and Saddam are not dangerous.

As I type Colin Powell is laying out more evidence...so much that it will take some time to append it all to this thread. The original 10 points will soon become 30....then 100.....how much info do you need to see? When will you admit to simply being wrong?

Were I you, I'd have done it by now. You, and other anti-war/anti-Americans here are just plain wrong. There is proof of your wrongness and you usually fail to accept this proof. This makes you and your friends look intellectually dishonest. Hell, I won't even go into the fact that the anti-war movement is led by the historically discredited and irrelevant communists.

What is it going to take to convince you Wayne?? That's the burning question.

-z

 

[Guest]

Ahh Wayne,



As I type Colin Powell is laying out more evidence...so much that it will take some time to append it all to this thread. The original 10 points will soon become 30....then 100.....how much info do you need to see? When will you admit to simply being wrong?

I am listening to it right now, and it's certainly interesting and pretty convincing.

Were I you, I'd have done it by now. You, and other anti-war/anti-Americans here are just plain wrong. There is proof of your wrongness and you usually fail to accept this proof. This makes you and your friends look intellectually dishonest. Hell, I won't even go into the fact that the anti-war movement is led by the historically discredited and irrelevant communists.

Is it really necessary to call all us loyal Americans who simply haven't made up our minds yet anti-American? That's the sort of thing you probably wouldn't (definitely shouldn't) say to my face.

The Communists are trying to take advantage of the peace movement, yes. That neither invalidates the movement nor makes all its members communists. You are right not to "go into this" because it's completely irrelevant.

I and others will make up our minds by ourselves, based on facts presented to us, not the screams that plenty of proof already exists. Our natural skepticism should be an understandable trait around here and certainly does not make us less loyal than you.

 

[rikzilla]

I am listening to it right now, and it's certainly interesting and pretty convincing.


Is it really necessary to call all us loyal Americans who simply haven't made up our minds yet anti-American? That's the sort of thing you probably wouldn't (definitely shouldn't) say to my face.

The Communists are trying to take advantage of the peace movement, yes. That neither invalidates the movement nor makes all its members communists. You are right not to "go into this" because it's completely irrelevant.

I and others will make up our minds by ourselves, based on facts presented to us, not the screams that plenty of proof already exists. Our natural skepticism should be an understandable trait around here and certainly does not make us less loyal than you.

Nope....no free pass

A skeptic remains a skeptic on any given topic only when that topic has not been proved by either a preponderance of evidence, or solid proof. (There is no real skeptic that expects to remain perpetually skeptical on a topic which can indeed be known.) Since both have existed since 1995 when Hussein Kamal defected I can only assume that persons such as yourself are either uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid. I am assuming you are claiming to be the first of those things. ....and yes, I'll say it to your face...and anyone else's face...that makes such a remark.

I find it telling that the anti-war movement has been co-opted by the communists....just because it's relevance is not yet fully known does not mean that it is irrelevant. The communists are not going into full gear worldwide for altruistic reasons. To ignore their involvement is to not care about the big geopolitical picture. If you don't care, then I'd have to ask why?

-zilla

 

[Guest]

Nope....no free pass

A skeptic remains a skeptic on any given topic only when that topic has not been proved by either a preponderance of evidence, or solid proof. (There is no real skeptic that expects to remain perpetually skeptical on a topic which can indeed be known.) Since both have existed since 1995 when Hussein Kamal defected I can only assume that persons such as yourself are either uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid. I am assuming you are claiming to be the first of those things. ....and yes, I'll say it to your face...and anyone else's face...that makes such a remark.

I find it telling that the anti-war movement has been co-opted by the communists....just because it's relevance is not yet fully known does not mean that it is irrelevant. The communists are not going into full gear worldwide for altruistic reasons. To ignore their involvement is to not care about the big geopolitical picture. If you don't care, then I'd have to ask why?

-zilla

No free pass, yourself. You consider the case proved; I don't. I have -at the very LEAST - as good a brain as you. A large portion of the world agrees with me. If you are capable of dismissing all of them with the four adjectives you mention, you reveal yourself to be nothing more than what you appear to be: a raving right-wing idiot. Even Rush doesn't go that far.

The idea that everyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or a traitor reveals you to be no skeptic. Join the woo-woos in the "I'm right, you're an idiot" line. You stand revealed as just another nut with an agenda.

I love America as much as you. MORE than you, actually, since I don't hate half the people in it.

(edited to remove juvenile muscle-flexing)

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Ahh Wayne,

When are you going to admit that the preponderance of evidence against Saddam's government is overwhelming? In order for you to rebut all that is coming out you will have to do exactly what creationists do...ie; ignore evidence you don't like while clinging to what little evidence supports your claim that Iraq and Saddam are not dangerous.

As I type Colin Powell is laying out more evidence...so much that it will take some time to append it all to this thread. The original 10 points will soon become 30....then 100.....how much info do you need to see? When will you admit to simply being wrong?

Were I you, I'd have done it by now. You, and other anti-war/anti-Americans here are just plain wrong. There is proof of your wrongness and you usually fail to accept this proof. This makes you and your friends look intellectually dishonest. Hell, I won't even go into the fact that the anti-war movement is led by the historically discredited and irrelevant communists.

What is it going to take to convince you Wayne?? That's the burning question.

-z

Ahh, Rick. I have been working and the television has not been on. I'll have to view the replay on C-SPAN later and read about it in the meanwhile, which I haven't done yet because I forgot about today being the day for Powell's presentation.

Your post prejudices my reaction to Powell's presentation, which the White House forewarned would not contain a "smoking gun," so there may be good reason to dispute the conclusions you've reached. Remember, it's not the quantity of the evidence, but it's quality that matters. However, I don't know what my reaction will be. Why should you? On the whole, your post is insulting. (Anti-war = anti-American: sounds like Archie Bunker.) However, I will take it as a compliment that you are so focused on my opinion over all others.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Ahh Wayne,

When are you going to admit that the preponderance of evidence against Saddam's government is overwhelming? In order for you to rebut all that is coming out you will have to do exactly what creationists do...ie; ignore evidence you don't like while clinging to what little evidence supports your claim that Iraq and Saddam are not dangerous.

As I type Colin Powell is laying out more evidence...so much that it will take some time to append it all to this thread. The original 10 points will soon become 30....then 100.....how much info do you need to see? When will you admit to simply being wrong?

Were I you, I'd have done it by now. You, and other anti-war/anti-Americans here are just plain wrong. There is proof of your wrongness and you usually fail to accept this proof. This makes you and your friends look intellectually dishonest. Hell, I won't even go into the fact that the anti-war movement is led by the historically discredited and irrelevant communists.

What is it going to take to convince you Wayne?? That's the burning question.

-z

Ahh, Rick. I have been working and the television has not been on. I'll have to view the replay on C-SPAN later and read about it in the meanwhile, which I haven't done yet because I forgot about today being the day for Powell's presentation.

Your post prejudices my reaction to Powell's presentation, which the White House forewarned would not contain a "smoking gun," so there may be good reason to dispute the conclusions you've reached. Remember, it's not the quantity of the evidence, but it's quality that matters. However, I don't know what my reaction will be. Why should you? On the whole, your post is insulting. (Anti-war = anti-American: sounds like Archie Bunker.) However, I will take it as a compliment that you are so focused on my opinion over all others.

 

[Guest]

On the whole, your post is insulting. (Anti-war = anti-American: sounds like Archie Bunker.)

His position is to the right of Rush Limbaugh, to the right of Pat Buchanan, to the right of Bill O'Neill, to the right of EVERY conservative who has voiced an opinion. NO pro-war advocate has come out and said anything on this scale. He stands revealed as an unthinking bigot of the worst sort.

For heaven's sake, not even all the Republicans are on board. Are they traitors too?

He has completely destroyed his credibility as a skeptic: "I'm convinced I'm right; if you don't agree, you are either misinformed, deluded, traitorous or stupid. Furthermore, you are not a skeptic, because I think the case has been proved." This sort of delirious rant could have come from any of our local woo-woos. One thing we can say for certain, a person capable of logic and rhetoric like this is CERTAINLY no skeptic.

Not much of an American, either, in my opinion. In America we work together to come to a consensus. We don't draw a line in the sand and say "I'm an American and you're a Commie".

 

[DavidJames]

"His position is to the right of Rush Limbaugh, to the right of Pat Buchanan, to the right of Bill O'Neill, to the right of EVERY conservative who has voiced an opinion. NO pro-war advocate has come out and said anything on this scale. He stands revealed as an unthinking bigot of the worst sort."

Except one. Has anyone ever seen JK and Rikzilla at the same place at the same time

Consumed by the dark side, he has.

 

[subgenius]

Really un-American to declare that anyone who is anti-war, even if everyone else is pro-war, is unpatriotic. Hate to mention the "N"(azi) or "H"(itler) words, but they sure used that technique to the hilt.
There are some good quotes by our founding fathers and other great patriots on this....I'll try and find some.
Also, does anyone in their right minds think the Commies anywhere, much less here, are even relevent? Time to come up with a new out-group thread to strengthen the in-group bonds.
Joe McCarthy is dead (or is he just sleeping?)

 

[rikzilla]

No free pass, yourself. You consider the case proved; I don't. I have -at the very LEAST - as good a brain as you. A large portion of the world agrees with me. If you are capable of dismissing all of them with the four adjectives you mention, you reveal yourself to be nothing more than what you appear to be: a raving right-wing idiot. Even Rush doesn't go that far.

The idea that everyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or a traitor reveals you to be no skeptic. Join the woo-woos in the "I'm right, you're an idiot" line. You stand revealed as just another nut with an agenda.

I love America as much as you. MORE than you, actually, since I don't hate half the people in it.

(edited to remove juvenile muscle-flexing)

Well,

It is you and others like you who dismiss a mountain of evidence of Saddam's breaches of UN resolutions. I have taken it upon myself to point out all this evidence on this thread. It has been refuted...by whom??? I see a board full of extremely bright people....and no refutation to the points I provided. Evidence which has existed YEARS!

Now there is yet more....and still you pick one thing and call it "not credible". So who is the idiot here? You wish to get personal and call me "worse than Rush"?? Well, this "raving right-wing idiot" as you have called me is pro-choice, pro-gun control, and against the president's "faith based initiatives". Somehow I feel pretty strange defending my own politics on a thread that is expressly regarding something other than, and more substantial than my personal political views.

Why don't you, instead of calling me names, show me either how my evidence is wrong....or provide data bolstering your own POV? If you can't do this then it merely points out that you are acting from your heart and have no real leg to stand on in this debate.

Ad-hominums will not help you here. I consider the case proved only because it has been. It's called a "preponderance of evidence"....you do know what the term means?? The ability to ignore evidence which does not corespond to one's own belief system is a trait that is certainly very non-skeptical.

-zilla

 

[Guest]

Consumed by the dark side, he has.

Have to admire his courage, though, if he really is willing to walk up to a 250-pound 6'6" Texan in prime physical shape and tell him he's anti-American...

"Fighting words" is still a valid legal concept in Texas.

 

[Guest]

Ad-hominums will not help you here.
-zilla

Oh, Jesus. That one breaks the irony meter.

It is not an "ad-hominum" (sic) to point out that your views on the subject are to the right of virtually every commentator.

 

[subgenius]

One can assume all the worst claims to be true, still be opposed to a war, and still be patriotic.
Can we agree on that?