|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
 Posted - 08/16/2002 : 06:23:46 [Permalink]
|
obviously you just don't like Bush. You're even willing to believe whatever intel he received as 'proof', you just are not willing to believe the man himself. Condoleeza Rice doesn't sit in on the JCS briefs either (Someone correct if I'm wrong here) as far as I know.
Rumsfeld, along with the other JCS members, the National Security Council, as well as a plethora of analysts all thay Saddam does have WMD, more importantly, they are in a position to know.
So all you are doing is choosing a side based on the opinions of a few, while ignoring the people on the other side. You offer nothing of your own, you just keep spouting quotes from your chosen side. I could come back with cut and paste of the SecDef, JCS, or any number of officials that say he does have them.
That's making no case of your own at all. In fact, having seen your posts all over SFN, that seems to be your usual MO, Gorgo. You cut and paste snippets of whole conversations you think you can make a point on. Alot of quotes, precious few ideas of your own.
You also seem to think Bush can just make any proclimation he feels, even doing a 180 from his analysts (who are telling him that WMD IS there) and just 'make it up'. You certainly don't understand how the presidency works. If there were not clear evidence, the JCS wouldn't support him on an invasion.
UNLESS.........
I'm still waiting to hear the conspiracy theory as tho why we 'really' want to invade.
Ever notice conspiracy nuts always claim there is a 'real' reason for something but never seem to know what it is?
Fact is, we should have taken Saddam down when Bush Sr. was in office. We spent untold billions for the past 11 years paying for that mistake. Hussein needs babysat, at the cost of tax dollars. Leaving him in power only means he can play his little 'block the UN inspectors, violate the no-fly zones, massacre the Kurds and Shiites- games that make the US even have to deal with the scumbag.
"The UN inspectors were co-operated with". You're talking out your ass. Several times during the 90's Clinton had to make deployments back into Saudi to pressure Saddam to let the inspectors do their job. I know, I went to that sandbox over and over again. You sat at home.
You say there is NO evidence. I say you don't have access to even a fraction of what we know, and are therefore talking out your ass with that statement.
You're another government conspiracy nut who will argue any step taking by Bush, because he is the head of the conspiracy.
You already discount his opinion (well, actually that of his analysts) that Saddam has a WMD program and that he represents a serious threat to the US. Despite the access to info that you couldn't dream of.
Instead you cling to the opinions of people with less access to info, and who are not currently charged with the well-being of the entire Amercian populace.
You also cling to WMD as the only reason that is valid for invasion. That is just your opinion. You don't count. Unless Bush calls you into the Oval Office, don't assume that your reason is the only reason Bush can order an attack.
You ignore clear archival evidence of said WMD program and actual uses of it's products on civilians. Just because YOU don't get to see evidence of it NOW is a stupid reason to discount it's existance;
1) Saddam is trying to hide is from the most advanced intelligence collection systems in the world. But oh no, it if his program was active, Gorgo would have heard of it.
2) Any proof of it we had would be classified where only a handful of the top brass in America would have access to it. And Gorgo, of course, because if he hasn't heard of it......
I'm not saying what the US gov't has on Saddam. But at the very least, Saddam has outdone even Milosovic for crimes against humanity, and putting him down like a rabid dog is a blessing to the world.
You can't even argue about the US having used WMD to end WWII. Since then there has been several 'regime changes' to both political parties in the US. The guy running Iraq now is the same bastard that gave the order to slime (use chems) population centers.
You are merely 'blindly' routing for Saddam as an underdog. Part of the big bad US/UN/NWO conspiracy crowd. You've been very selective in who you believe (from statements from UN Inspectors that they never made to Condoleeza Rice) as long as they side with you.
So go on, tell us. What's the 'real' reason? Illuminati tell him to do it? He was in Skull and Bones by his own admission, maybe that's it.
You're a wannabe relic from the 60's. Looking for a war to protest. Makes you think you're all political and stuff. CNN seems to be your sacred cow. Even though they have Rumsfeld on everyday saying we need to take on Iraq.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 07:08:09 [Permalink]
|
SO, you really don't know anything, you're just into calling people nuts who don't agree with you. Gotcha.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 07:16:31 [Permalink]
|
Here's one thing that I haven't been able to find. Not saying it's not out there, just can't find it. Has the administration said something to the effect that we know that Iraq now has the ability to attack the U.S., and has made threats that it will do so?
From what I can see, they're not even claiming to have this information. Tell me that I'm wrong, please.
I'm not saying that this information would justify a war, I'm just saying that I DO NOT (emphasis because of editing) understand why such a thing could even be remotely justified without this information (edited again).
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/06/10/rumsfeld.kuwait/
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/16/2002 07:17:47
Edited by - gorgo on 08/16/2002 08:21:29
Edited by - gorgo on 08/16/2002 09:19:35 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 08:18:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
While I think that an Iraqi atomic weapon is further off than five years, chemical and biological weapons are much closer. He could use these to harm his neighbors. (He currently lacks a delivery mechanism to the US.)
Week before last I visited the WTC. It's a big, very clean, hole in the ground.
As long as there are airlines, RORO ships, and sixteen wheelers on the highways he has a delivery mechanism to the US.
When it absolutely positively has to be there over night Fed Ex and a couple of Zealots can deliver any NCB weapons you want. Who needs an ICBM when you have UPS?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 08/15/2002 15:09:47
What I meant was a delivery mechanism which is not subject to inspection such as a missile. Getting Chemical and biological weapons into the US post 9/11 is very difficult.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 08:21:15 [Permalink]
|
What I have known in the past and know now is not something I can discuss. I signed several forms promising I wouldn't discuss it and can stand prosecution for 'confirming or denying' anything.
But your entire argument rests on the fact that YOU don't know of any proof of WMD, and therefore it is 'illegal' (yeah right) to topple Saddam. You, however have no better access to information than anyone else with AOL. You quote people with that certainly have more access than you, but again, they are not privy to all the information.
You merely discount anything said by the few people with that sort of access. That being the JCS, SecDef, President, NSC, and House Intelligent Commitee.
You suspect these people of hiding an ulterior motive (although you have yet to offer one) and denying that they are privy to anything that would justify a war (TO YOU-it must be WMD and nothing else) because they haven't shown YOU their evidence, it must not exist.
You haven't even decided what 'evidence' would be sufficient to justify said conflict.
You haven't decided where the evidence would have to come from for YOU to consider it valid, considering you already call the people with all the evidence liars. Can Rumsfeld show you? I thought he was part of the conspiracy.
Worse, you offer no explaination for why Bush and a healthy chunk of his cabinet would have for toppling Saddam. At least then we'd know which conspiracy group you fall into.
Even more nauseating is that you have as a signature a quote about how not one life should be expended, as if it might be your own. How many trips to Saudi/Kuwait/Iraq have you made? You run your mouth an awful lot about topics you clearly don't understand or grasp the breadth of. You hide behind quotes from Zinn, when they don't even apply to you sitting behind your computer screen.
You're a fake, man. And you fall right into the conspiracy crowd. You believe Bush is lying, but offer no reason, let alone proof of his 'actual' motive.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 08:32:19 [Permalink]
|
Sadly, it is not hard ot get weapons into the US. If it were difficult to get ANYTHING across US borders, we wouldn't have hundreds of tons of drugs and other contraband here. There wouldn't be millions of illegals from mexico here. Hundreds more get in EVERY DAY across those same borders. One mexican on the take from Al-Queda can certainly smuggle in pathogens, even small amounts of fissile material. We can't keep drugs out of a PRISON, do you think we could keep a vial of pathogen out of the entire US?
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 08:55:25 [Permalink]
|
Condoleeza Rice is on the National Security Council, so I think she'd know something about National Security.
Also as I recall, the Joint Chiefs think attacking Iraq is a dumb idea. Did I get that wrong?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 12:52:36 [Permalink]
|
I'm not saying there is, or is not proof of WMD. There may be just not enough proof releasable to the critics. Hence, we are not invading as I type this.
If Bush goes ahead and makes the attack, that will be evidence that he and his cabinet agree there is 'proof'. Only in conspricacy theories does the President just start wars for his own personal reasons. He may not have to ask Congress, but there IS oversight. There will always be those that oppose any action he takes regardless.
You demand proof. But what proof? The president, with all his sources says there is a threat. He is merely summing up the evidence he has. His position is due to the analysts looking at every source they have.
You accept whatever his opponents say, but you don't demand any proof from them.
Your problem is that you don't get access to that evidence. So you are forced to accept what the president says, since you certainly aren't going to stop him from whatever plans he has. And you don't like it.
Well, you can either get a job with the accesses required to see this mysterious proof, or become the president and don't invade.
Given neither of these jobs, you are in no position to claim there is no 'legal' reason to topple Saddam. You are just parroting talking heads you've seen on CNN.
And you've done marvelously at avoiding the specific questions I've posed to you over the course of this thread.
You demand proof you can't even define.
You don't know who you'd trust the info to come from.
You offer no 'real' reason for the administration to attack.
You insist that your personal litmus test of a WMD program is the only 'legal' reason we could attack.
You are under the impression that the gov't somehow has to prove a damn thing to you. Bush can only make the attack if he has sufficient support- which doesn't include you- from his sources. He will have to show some 'proof' (and has) to certain people-again, not you- to gain enough support for an attack. The president does not operate in a vacuum. More conspiracy crap to think the president can just toss about the armed forces to support a personal agenda. He may not need a declaration of war, but it's fantasy to think he alone will topple a nation because of personal issues. Conspiracy fantasy.
You say we have no reason to attack, I say you are wholly unqualified to make that statement. You aren't qualified to know what 'proof' of a WMD program is, how to tell if one exists, or what to about it if you found one.
All you can do is take the word of people you see on CNN. Which is really all I can do as well. I just chose to believe Bush (considering his sources), you choose to believe other people (lacking those sources) that don't want to attack. I don't discount those people haven't seen evidence of WMD. They may not be cleared to see evidence. If they were, they couldn't disclose that to you anyway because you're not cleared.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 13:26:51 [Permalink]
|
No one is claiming any immediate threat to the United States. What questions are you asking? You just seem to keep repeating words like CNN and conspiracy and calling people nuts and making racial slurs and telling me you have a special line to the president that you can't tell me about and you think that makes you sound credible?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 13:34:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
obviously you just don't like Bush. You're even willing to believe whatever intel he received as 'proof', you just are not willing to believe the man himself.
No, I simply won't take the word of any authority as evidence. I don't know of one President who never lied. I have no way of knowing if he received any proof, so I should make no judgements as to the question of whether it exists or not. That includes not automatically believing what he has proof as well as not automatically believing he is definitely lying. You seem to think that because you don't know whether he has proof, he must have it because he says so. That is an argument from authority and has no business in reaching conclusions.
quote:
You say there is NO evidence. I say you don't have access to even a fraction of what we know, and are therefore talking out your ass with that statement.
No, I say I have seen no evidence and must therefore not make a conclusion as to whether there is or is not evidence. If you had a point, you would not be using this straw man over and over again. You have been making the conclusion that there IS evidence, but you have no reason to believe that other than blind faith.
quote:
You're another government conspiracy nut who will argue any step taking by Bush, because he is the head of the conspiracy.
I said nothing about conspiracies. All I said is that no evidence has been prevented to me so I have no reason to believe President Bush. I also have no reason to assume that he is lying.
quote:
You already discount his opinion (well, actually that of his analysts) that Saddam has a WMD program and that he represents a serious threat to the US. Despite the access to info that you couldn't dream of.
I did not automatically assume that his statement (not necessarily opinion) was a lie. I also did not, unlike you, automatically assume it was true. You continue to assume that because we are able to gather large amounts of detailed intelligence information, we must have this information. You have no reason to assume that the information even exists to have been gathered, just as I have no reason to assume that it does not exist.
quote:
Instead you cling to the opinions of people with less access to info, and who are not currently charged with the well-being of the entire Amercian populace.
I make my own judgements based on what evidence I have seen. I have seen no evidence, so I can't reach a conclusion. You are clinging to an argument from authority with no reason to do so.
quote:
You also cling to WMD as the only reason that is valid for invasion. That is just your opinion. You don't count. Unless Bush calls you into the Oval Office, don't assume that your reason is the only reason Bush can order an attack.
I make no assumptions as to the reason. But he claims that is the reason. No evidence has been presented to support that, so I can't assume it is true or assume it is false. But for the same reason, you can't assume there is a reason to invade Iraq, just as I can't assume there is not.
quote:
You ignore clear archival evidence of said WMD program and actual uses of it's products on civilians. Just because YOU don't get to see evidence of it NOW is a stupid reason to discount it's existance;
1) Saddam is trying to hide is from the most advanced intelligence collection systems in the world. But oh no, it if his program was active, Gorgo would have heard of it.
2) Any proof of it we had would be classified where only a handful of the top brass in America would have access to it. And Gorgo, of course, because if he hasn't heard of it......
I don't discount the possible existence of such evidence, but by the same token, you must not assume it exists. Yes, Saddam has used WMD in the past and I agree he is obsessed with them and will use them if he gets a chance. But that's only suggests he may have them again now or soon. It does not come close to proving it.
quote:
But at the very least, Saddam has outdone even Milosovic for crimes against humanity, and putting him down like a rabid dog is a blessing to the world.
I agree. That is a reason he must be ousted, but is an immediate invasion the way to go? The JCS don't seem to think so, last I checked. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
quote:
You are merely 'blindly' routing for Saddam as an underdog. Part of the big bad US/UN/NWO conspiracy crowd. You've been very selective in who you believe (from statements from UN Inspectors that they never made to Condoleeza Rice) as long as they side with you.
I'm not rooting for Saddam. I'm just not assuming the existance of evidence I have no reason to believe exists. Do I really need to point out to you again that that also doesn't mean assuming it does not exist?
quote:
So go on, tell us. What's the 'real' reason? Illuminati tell him to do it? He was in Skull and Bones by his own admission, maybe that's it.
I can make no conclusion about the reason Bush says we need to invade Iraq; I have seen no evidence suggesting any, so I can't make conclusions as to what reason or even whether or not there is a reason. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but steer clear of your argument from ignorance.
quote:
You're a wannabe relic from the 60's. Looking for a war to protest. Makes you think you're all political and stuff. CNN seem |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 13:50:26 [Permalink]
|
The questions (again):
What is acceptable 'proof'? You wouldn't know the proof if it bit you on your ass.
What must be the source of the proof? You don't believe Bush when he says he has it, so obviously you will only trust certain sources.
What is the 'real' reason that the leaders of the government want to go to war if it's not what they say? You're so convinced it CAN'T be a WMD program (since you claim none exists-there isn't proof) then it must be something else then. What?
Who's definition of sufficient proof do you require? Obviously the president thinks there is proof of something bad enough to justify an invasion. So to him the 'proof' is satisfactory. Is US foreign policy going to be dictated by YOUR definition? If so, you better get more informed than you are now.
Is a WMD program the only legitimate reason for ousting the prick? You seem to fixate on this one crime among many.
I have no line to the president. Nowhere have I claimed it. I said there 'is a world of information' you, and many of the people you quote, do not have access to. So to be making proclimations like there is NO EVIDENCE of a WMD program is just talking out your uncleared ass.
You do not even know what powers the president has as far as deploying US troops around the world without Congressional okay. You claim it to be 'illegal', which it is not. Obviously you have never heard of the War Powers act, nor the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that enable a president to do
just that.
You toss out quotes, as I've heard so few original thoughts from you, about loss of life in a war you have no intention of fighting. You can do this because you are protected by rights you do nothing to defend, except paste other people's thoughts onto a BBS.
I toss out CNN alot because that (TV)is your sole source of information.
I say you are a conspiracy nut because you sound like one. More of the same big, bad US/UN/NWO crap I've heard from far more informed people than you.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 14:11:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I agree with you on Gorgo's quote. It seems to me that it is a bit like saying the Axis forces should be left alone after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Left alone? If not black then white? If not Jesus then the Devil? Look, this is another thread so I'm going to leave that alone.
quote:
Yes, Gorgo, that is exactly what Solly has been doing. He's usually a great critical thinker,
Evidently you know him from other places, because I haven't seen that here.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 14:13:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not saying there is, or is not proof of WMD. There may be just not enough proof releasable to the critics.
You could have fooled me.
quote:
If Bush goes ahead and makes the attack, that will be evidence that he and his cabinet agree there is 'proof'.
No, it will only be evidence that the Bush administration thinks it is in their best interest to invade Iraq, whatever the reason.
quote:
Only in conspricacy theories does the President just start wars for his own personal reasons.
But they don't always start wars for the reasons they give the public.
quote:
There will always be those that oppose any action he takes regardless.
Your point? I don't oppose it regardless. I just have not seen any evidence presented and hence can't reach a conclusion as to the truthfulness of what he claims.
quote:
You demand proof. But what proof? The president, with all his sources says there is a threat. He is merely summing up the evidence he has. His position is due to the analysts looking at every source they have.
This is a very dubious assumption you are making. Just because he says so does not make it true. You claimed in this post that you do not assume the evidence exists. You lied, as that is exactly what you just said here.
quote:
You accept whatever his opponents say, but you don't demand any proof from them.
No, I simply do not automatically accept what he says. You accept what he says, but demand no proof. I, being intellectually honset to myself, will not accept what anyone says without proof, neither Bush nor his opponents.
quote:
Your problem is that you don't get access to that evidence. So you are forced to accept what the president says, since you certainly aren't going to stop him from whatever plans he has. And you don't like it.
No, I am not forced to accept what he says is true. You have combined an argument from ignorance (you don't know, so you must accept the claim) with a special plead (whatever the President says, you must accept it as fact). I can't individually change it, but that does not mean I must believe him on blind faith.
quote:
Well, you can either get a job with the accesses required to see this mysterious proof, or become the president and don't invade.
I don't need to do that to be honest with myself. Only by lacking integrity with oneself can one believe a claim without evidence.
quote:
Given neither of these jobs, you are in no position to claim there is no 'legal' reason to topple Saddam.
No, but I can not assume that there is a legitamate reason to invade Iraq without being dishonest with myself.
quote:
You are just parroting talking heads you've seen on CNN.
No, I am just not believing President Bush on blind faith.
quote:
And you've done marvelously at avoiding the specific questions I've posed to you over the course of this thread.
That is a much more accurate description of what you have been doing. You don't even argue against other people's positions; you invent positions that are easier to attack. You also avoid key points entirely and contradict yourself. You even claimed in your last message that you don't automatically assume there is proof, then you go ahead and assume just that later on in the same message.
quote:
You demand proof you can't even define.
If evidence is ever presented, I will then judge its credibility. It is not for me to invent hypothetical evidence, it is for the claimants (President Bush, et al) to present it to be judged.
quote:
You don't know who you'd trust the info to come from.
Anyone who would have access to such information. But that does not mean I'd just take those same people's say-so without evidence.
quote:
You offer no 'real' reason for the administration to attack.
That is because I'm not "attack(ing)" anyone. I simply will not believe the administration on its say-so.
quote:
You insist that your personal litmus test of a WMD program is the only 'legal' reason we could attack.
The only reason I have been focussing more on WMD than other reasons is because that is the reason the Bush administration claims justifies the invasion.
quote:
You are under the impression that the gov't somehow has to prove a damn thing to you.
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 14:19:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I agree with you on Gorgo's quote. It seems to me that it is a bit like saying the Axis forces should be left alone after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Left alone? If not black then white? If not Jesus then the Devil? Look, this is another thread so I'm going to leave that alone.
Sorry, I misunderstood your quote to be an extreme position. Could you rephrase it so that I can understand how it is a gray area.
quote:
quote:
Yes, Gorgo, that is exactly what Solly has been doing. He's usually a great critical thinker,
Evidently you know him from other places, because I haven't seen that here.
Not many. I've only seen him on four other threads so far. He was rather lucid on three of them, but on one he was like a cross between this and someone who relies on anecdotal evidence. Thanks for the warning, Gorgo, I'll keep my head up for this kind of stuff from him.
Solly, you did not respond to my post; you continued your same illucid, baseless attacks. You also continued 'proving' there is evidence because Bush says so. For the last time, arguments from authority carry no weight.
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” --Voltaire |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
