Incredibly depressing poll.

[cybrsage]

Still trolling up the place.

Stop thread crapping. Go make a thread where you lie about what I said if you want to discuss it. This thread is about a depressing poll and nothing else, per the requerst of the thread creator.

 

[cybrsage]

as we can see from Cybrsage's various rationalizations

Yeah, using US law in the US is a not a rationalization, it is how things work. Or do you think US law should not apply in the US?


If you guys want me to stop talking about how US law shows there were WMDs found in Iraq (as reported to the UN by Hans Blix) you really have to stop bringing me up in relation to it.

 

[shira]

For purposes of this section - the section talks about what is and is not WMDs as determined by the FBI.



Sigh...why on Earth would we invade a nation simply because it has WMDs? Are you really stupid enough to "forget" that the UNSC issued resolutions banning WMDs from Iraq but NOT from all the other nations on the planet (such as the UK which has nuclear weapons). Seriously, you need to engage your brain when you post things - you show yourself to be an indiot when you do not, such as here.

You have yet to show that the US law does not apply to the US...and call me a liar for posting the US law and saying it applies to the US. Remember, the US is the nation which invaded over WMDs, so US law applies. Unless, of course, you are going to continue to try and argue that US law does not apply to the US.

Seriously, you are getting worse and worse with your pathetic attempts to say I am lying.

So you're saying that the UN banned "WMDs"?

Hoist by your own petard:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8076.doc.htm

SECURITY COUNCIL DECIDES ALL STATES SHALL ACT TO PREVENT PROLIFERATION OF MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS

Resolution 1540 (2004), Adopted
Unanimously, Focuses Attention on Non-State Actors​

Following last week’s public debate on weapons of mass destruction (see Press Release SC/8070 of 22 April), the Security Council this afternoon adopted a non-proliferation resolution by which it decided that all States shall refrain from supporting by any means non-State actors that attempt to acquire, use or transfer nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their delivery systems.

So you, yourself - in saying that the United Nations Security Council has banned WMDs - have just used the term "WMDs" to refer to "nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their delivery systems." Because CLEARLY the UN did not ban "any bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or [similar device]." And since the UNSC did NOT ban these divices, yet you yourself have characterized what the UNSC as "banning WMDs," it's clear that you clearly know that "WMDs" refers to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons."

You didn't say, "the UNSC issued resolutions banning some classes of WMDs" No, you used the term "WMDs" without qualification. Clearly then, you know EXACTLY what "WMDs" means when used in news reports, political discussions, and in polls. You've tried to insert a legalistic definition that NO ONE - not former president Bush, not the poll writers, not those answering the polls, not news reporters, not the UN, AND NOT EVEN YOURSELF WHEN YOUR TROLL PERSONA GETS CARELESS - uses.

You've just lost. Now go away.

 

[cybrsage]

From Iraq...you know, the words right after where you stopped bolding. It is odd you did not notice them...or did you read them and instantly "forget" that you did?

EDIT: That resolution is also dated 2004 - which is AFTER we found the WMDs in Iraq and the POTUS invaded Iraq because of their continued violations.

Hope that clears things up for you and exlains why your desire to stare lusitly at my butt as I walk away is not going to be satiated.


But seriously, if you guys do not want to keep talking about the WMDs which were found in Iraq, you need to stop bringing me up in relation to them. If you do, then you are wanting me to respond

 

[shira]

From Iraq...you know, the words right after where you stopped bolding. It is odd you did not notice them...or did you read them and instantly "forget" that you did?

EDIT: That resolution is also dated 2004 - which is AFTER we found the WMDs in Iraq and the POTUS invaded Iraq because of their continued violations.

Hope that clears things up for you and exlains why your desire to stare lusitly at my butt as I walk away is not going to be satiated.


But seriously, if you guys do not want to keep talking about the WMDs which were found in Iraq, you need to stop bringing me up in relation to them. If you do, then you are wanting me to respond

You can run, but you can't hide.

Here is the main UNSC resolution sanctioning Iraq:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Now, show us in this or any other UNSC resolution where IRAQ is banned from acquiring, developing, or using "any bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or [similar device]".

Unless you can show us where the UNSC has banned these devices from Iraq, then your use of the phrase "banning WMDs from Iraq" clearly must be referring to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. And by your very own use of "WMD" to refer to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, you are admitting that using "WMDs" to mean anything else is arrant nonsense.

Edit: Checkmate.

 

[cybrsage]

You can run, but you can't hide.

Here is the main UNSC resolution sanctioning Iraq:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Now, show us in this or any other UNSC resolution where IRAQ is banned from acquiring, developing, or using "any bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or [similar device]".

Unless you can show us where the UNSC has banned these devices from Iraq, then your use of the phrase "banning WMDs from Iraq" clearly must be referring to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. And by your very own use of "WMD" to refer to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, you are admitting that using "WMDs" to mean anything else is arrant nonsense.

Edit: Checkmate.

You say checkmate when you are playing candyland. You do not understand the game you are playing and yet cry out that you are a winner. There is not checkmate in candyland - just so you know.

I noticed you cherry picked which resolution you wanted - skipping over lots of them when they failed to give you the ability to claim checkmate while playing candyland. You picked the Plumpy card - so you have to go all the way back to almost the start!

RESOLUTION 707 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 3004th meeting,
on 15 August 1991
3. Demands that Iraq

(i) provide full, final and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, without further delay,

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0707.htm

Oh look, I picked the Queen Frostine card...

 

[Jhhnn]

Moreover, it seems that the crowd which has continued to stick with it through waning popularity is the libertarians/Paulbots. Not really sure what to make of that one.

Delusional people often entertain multiple fantasies, a clustering of beliefs around a common nexus.

Your observation is inaccurate, anyway, given that 2/3 of repubs still believe the WMD lie, yet 2/3 of repubs aren't paulbots or libertopians, either.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Even Bush used the qualifiers "Biological, Chemical and Nuclear" on the front of "WMD's" whenever he used it in a speech or formal address.

He was told by his advisers to differentiate them so as to avoid any future confusion or nit-picking in the political arena.

But the bottom line was simple. All the things that were said to have been in active development and deployment by Iraq were simply not found. Saddam was just Saber Rattling to get attention and keep his rabble in line.

Now that we "freed" them, we are seeing how difficult it is to keep three rather polarized religious elements from attacking each other.

The only other thing that irritated me is that, while the administration never directly accused Iraq of 9-11, just about EVERY SPEECH that concerned 9-11 slipped right into talking about C/B/N "WMD's" and our need to attack Iraq.

Basically, a political window opened for Bush and Co. to attack Iraq (something they were planning even before elected) and when they started getting that magical 90% approval rating on just about anything they said, they jumped through that window on an item that would normally meet with much dissent and questioning.

The only problem is, they jumped perfectly. They just did not plan on how they were going to land.

 

[cybrsage]

Even Bush used the qualifiers "Biological, Chemical and Nuclear" on the front of "WMD's" whenever he used it in a speech or formal address.

He was told by his advisers to differentiate them so as to avoid any future confusion or nit-picking in the political arena.

But the bottom line was simple. All the things that were said to have been in active development and deployment by Iraq were simply not found. Saddam was just Saber Rattling to get attention and keep his rabble in line.

Correct. No active development programs nor large stockpiles of any of those types of WMDs. Some still existed, but nothing to worry about with the exception that they showed a continued violation of UNSC resolutions...which while a reason to go to war is not a good reason to go to war.

 

[woolfe9999]

Delusional people often entertain multiple fantasies, a clustering of beliefs around a common nexus.

Your observation is inaccurate, anyway, given that 2/3 of repubs still believe the WMD lie, yet 2/3 of repubs aren't paulbots or libertopians, either.

Not sure what is inaccurate here. My reference to libertarians was in conjunction with 911 conspiracy theories, not WMD's in Iraq. In case this requires clarification, I meant theories that Al Qaeda was not behind 911, that it was actually the US government, Israel, or some someone else. This was a conspiracy theory not of mainstream conservatives but rather, of liberals and libertarians, for the most part. My point was that these conspiracy theories seem to have waned in recent years, and it appears to be the libertarians who have stuck with them. Which gives rise to the inference that most of the liberals who said they believed it adopted it as a matter of political convenience while Bush was in power. Either way, it is one of the most ridiculous, and damaging, conspiracy theories to have reared its ugly head in recent years.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not sure what is inaccurate here. My reference to libertarians was in conjunction with 911 conspiracy theories, not WMD's in Iraq. In case this requires clarification, I meant theories that Al Qaeda was not behind 911, that it was actually the US government, Israel, or some someone else. This was a conspiracy theory not of mainstream conservatives but rather, of liberals and libertarians, for the most part. My point was that these conspiracy theories seem to have waned in recent years, and it appears to be the libertarians who have stuck with them. Which gives rise to the inference that most of the liberals who said they believed it adopted it as a matter of political convenience while Bush was in power. Either way, it is one of the most ridiculous, and damaging, conspiracy theories to have reared its ugly head in recent years.

Thank you for the clarification.

OTOH, try to imagine what would have happened had Gore been in the White House...

 

[woolfe9999]

Thank you for the clarification.

OTOH, try to imagine what would have happened had Gore been in the White House...

If you mean with respect to 911, then I don't think it would have been different. There may have been some systemic problems with our intelligence system which pre-dated Bush, but I doubt another administration would have averted the attack.

If you mean the Iraq war, then yes, I agree it wouldn't have happened. I'm not even so sure a different republican would have invaded Iraq. Bush SR didn't even invade in spite of the fact that we were right there and poised to do it, because his advisers recognized what a mess the occupation would have been. This was a peculiar foreign policy decision that was specific to Bush Jr. and the personalities and predilections of his advisers. A very unfortunate confluence of the wrong people in office, at the wrong time.

 

[First]

You can run, but you can't hide.

Here is the main UNSC resolution sanctioning Iraq:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Now, show us in this or any other UNSC resolution where IRAQ is banned from acquiring, developing, or using "any bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or [similar device]".

Unless you can show us where the UNSC has banned these devices from Iraq, then your use of the phrase "banning WMDs from Iraq" clearly must be referring to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. And by your very own use of "WMD" to refer to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, you are admitting that using "WMDs" to mean anything else is arrant nonsense.

Edit: Checkmate.

lol, ouch.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you mean with respect to 911, then I don't think it would have been different. There may have been some systemic problems with our intelligence system which pre-dated Bush, but I doubt another administration would have averted the attack.

If you mean the Iraq war, then yes, I agree it wouldn't have happened. I'm not even so sure a different republican would have invaded Iraq. Bush SR didn't even invade in spite of the fact that we were right there and poised to do it, because his advisers recognized what a mess the occupation would have been. This was a peculiar foreign policy decision that was specific to Bush Jr. and the personalities and predilections of his advisers. A very unfortunate confluence of the wrong people in office, at the wrong time.

I think it was GHWB himself who overruled his warhawk advisors wrt Iraq, iirc... When he asked for an exit strategy, they didn't have one. I think they were deeply disappointed at the time- basically the same people advised GWB, and were more than happy to oblige when he went all gung-ho.

I mean the whacked out conspiracy theories that the right wing loves so dearly, a la Vince Foster, Birtherism, deliberately arming the Mexican Mafia so as to grab yer guns, so forth & so on. You know, the vast Progressive conspiracy to enslave us all in Stalinist work camps & make the baby Jesus cry. We were only spared that because their guy was in charge at the time...

 

[Sonikku]

Of course Obama's not a citizen of America. If any of you actually stopped being taken in by all the liberal media (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, basically anything not FOX) you'd actually know that.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Stop thread crapping. Go make a thread about yoru lustful desires for me if you want to discuss them. This thread is about a depressing poll and nothing else.

Actually, it isn't, since you are a member of that depressing poll and are one of the 63% of willfully ignorant GOP members.

So once again, when tasked with proof, you bail and refuse to post anything. You are the one that claims if someone doesn't refute a claim, you are admitting it is true right?

You did say this didn't you:

Refusing to answer is the same as saying you think it is fine

So you refused to answer, so you have to be agreeing that there are no WMD.

Unless you want to admit you intentionally lied when you posted that, which would of course be admission that you were trolling.

Which is it?