Is this true?

[Iwentsouth]

Originally posted by: whalen
38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history.
A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief

...because i really care what a child porn freak said.

Statement of

SCOTT RITTER

September 3, 1998

at

UNITED STATES SENATE

Snip..Iraq, today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those Americans who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership...snip

full text

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: whalen
38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history.
A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief

...because i really care what a child porn freak said.

Yep, foolishly I was taking this Q & A with some legitamicy, that is until I came to the question and answer with Scott Ritter in it. I stopped reading after that.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Perstake if for what you will...but you people certainly prove that american democracy has no merit

you missed the new plan; once they have Benjamin Franklin's body spinning in his grave fast enough, they'll be able to power an internal combustion engine with it.

 

[DT4K]

Good job guys.

You pointed out just a couple of the many lies in that Q&A and Pers and Morph just seemed to disappear.

Good to see not everyone falls for the liberal propaganda.

 

[DT4K]

40 billion would ensure the essentials of life for everyone in the world ???

Hmmm, 40 billion dollars divided by 6 billion people equals less than 7 dollars each.
Damn, I didnt know my essentials of life could be provided for 7 dollars.

I guess I need to rethink my budget.

 

[DoctorPizza]

...because i really care what a child porn freak said.

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm

What Ritter said is not made right or wrong by his sexual preference.

I think some of the numbers are a little wrong (though not significantly). And some of the refutations are incorrect too.

The spirit is largely accurate:
The US spends an absurd amount on "defense" (though it seems more interested in "offense")
The West had no problem with Saddam's behaviour for a long time
The West gave him the WMDs he once had
The sanctions have killed many
The wars have/will also kill many
Iraq is not the biggest threat to either Middle Eastern or global stability

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
The US spends an absurd amount on "defense" (though it seems more interested in "offense")
The West had no problem with Saddam's behaviour for a long time
The West gave him the WMDs he once had
The sanctions have killed many
The wars have/will also kill many
Iraq is not the biggest threat to either Middle Eastern or global stability

It is not absurd. It is needed to protect us from terrorists and madment like Saddam.
We supported him because he was at war with Iran who we considered to be an even bigger threat to world security.
The sanctions have not stopped Saddam from building multi-million dollar palaces and bunkers with gold-plated toilet seats. It is Saddam and his regime that have killed many, not the sanctions. If the oil for food program was actually used to feed the people, they wouldn't have died.
Iraq is the biggest threat that we have the ability and authority to deal with right now. If we don't deal with it, it will become a much bigger threat in the future.

 

[DoctorPizza]

It is not absurd. It is needed to protect us from terrorists and madment like Saddam.

It is ineffective against terrorists, and Saddam poses no threat to the US.

We supported him because he was at war with Iran who we considered to be an even bigger threat to world security.

Ye-es.

The sanctions have not stopped Saddam from building multi-million dollar palaces and bunkers with gold-plated toilet seats. It is Saddam and his regime that have killed many, not the sanctions. If the oil for food program was actually used to feed the people, they wouldn't have died.

If the oil for food programme worked worth a damn, they wouldn't have died.

Better yet, if free trade were possible, they wouldn't have to go through Saddam in the first place.

Iraq is the biggest threat that we have the ability and authority to deal with right now. If we don't deal with it, it will become a much bigger threat in the future.

Iraq poses no threat whatsoever. North Korea poses a threat, al Qaeda poses a threat. Iraq is not even close. The Iraqis have neither the motive nor the means to pose a serious threat against the US.

Though perhaps you'll piss some of them off so much that they'll become Wahabbist terrorists, thereby creating a threat where none previously existed.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
The West had no problem with Saddam's behaviour for a long time

Fool.

It's the UN's fault we didn't march on to Baghdad and take him out when we first had the chance. We were stupid enough to listen to their calls for retreat then.

And Clinton was in office while the West was "having no problem" with his behavior. It's his fault relations with the Middle East degraded to the point where they are now.

It's taken a decent leader to overcome popular sentiment and do not what people think should be done, but what NEEDS to be done. Once a democratic state is set up right in the middle of the Arab world, it will help bring stability to the area, and may make resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict a real possibility in our generation.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tcsenterThe burden is on you to prove the information is correct, not on anyone to prove the information is incorrect, since you're the one making the claim it is correct.

I'm waiting...

What about American's burden to prove we needed to attack Iraq? Did we receive any evidence? I'm still waiting for that

 

[kylebisme]

no kidding, and i thought it was innocent until proven guilty. :disgust:

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: DoctorPizza

It is not absurd. It is needed to protect us from terrorists and madment like Saddam.

It is ineffective against terrorists, and Saddam poses no threat to the US.

We supported him because he was at war with Iran who we considered to be an even bigger threat to world security.

Ye-es.

The sanctions have not stopped Saddam from building multi-million dollar palaces and bunkers with gold-plated toilet seats. It is Saddam and his regime that have killed many, not the sanctions. If the oil for food program was actually used to feed the people, they wouldn't have died.

If the oil for food programme worked worth a damn, they wouldn't have died.

Better yet, if free trade were possible, they wouldn't have to go through Saddam in the first place.

Iraq is the biggest threat that we have the ability and authority to deal with right now. If we don't deal with it, it will become a much bigger threat in the future.

Iraq poses no threat whatsoever. North Korea poses a threat, al Qaeda poses a threat. Iraq is not even close. The Iraqis have neither the motive nor the means to pose a serious threat against the US.

Though perhaps you'll piss some of them off so much that they'll become Wahabbist terrorists, thereby creating a threat where none previously existed.

You make me laugh.

 

[exp]

Ugh. That list is soooooooooooooo OLD (repost #5,240,372), and is truly a textbook example of low-quality propaganda. The strategy employed is a time-honored method of deception that I think we have all seen before (personally I am most familiar with it in the context of the creationist argument against evolution) --> flood your target audience with "facts" so that, overwhelmed by the preponderance of "evidence", they begin to think, "Hey, with all this data to back up their argument, it must be true. Right?" Meanwhile those on the other side of the debate can only respond to the avalanche of drivel by making a point-by-point rebuttal, and while that is easy enough to do for any given point on the list, the sheer volume makes it a rather inefficient use of one's time. By the time the rebuttal is complete the spammer has a new pile of puke ready to spring on their opponent, and so the cycle of BS begins again.

Most people don't have the patience or desire to waste much time responding to such a crude argument, though I applaud those who do. LH posted a rather lengthy rebuttal of most of those points a few weeks ago. Wish I could remember what thread it was in...maybe LH could repost it if he's reading this.

 

[syf3r]

MachFive said:

And Clinton was in office while the West was "having no problem" with his behavior. It's his fault relations with the Middle East degraded to the point where they are now

I think you're mixing up the years there... Not trying to start a new argument here, but the point being made that the west had no problems with his behavior was *way* before clinton was in office... We're talking before Bush1 and before Reagan, in fact, when our government was in full support of Hussein (he was a CIA asset at the time) in the Iraqi war against Iran. When our goals were aligned with his (both Iraq and U.S. considered Iran a threat), we gave Hussein our full support and the fact that he was terrorizing his own people was kind of ignored. It wasn't a good idea to deal with those crimes while he could, in essence, be used as a proxy against Iran. In fact, the arguments we've all heard about Hussein and his crimes against humanity as a cause for us going into Iraq, actually took place during the years when the U.S. was fully supporting Iraq (the gassing of the Kurds notwithstanding). It's just that, back then, his goals were aligned with ours (defeating Iran), but now those same crimes which were conveniently ignored, are brought into light as a justifiable reason for us to go into Iraq.

/syf3r

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: exp
Ugh. That list is soooooooooooooo OLD (repost #5,240,372), and is truly a textbook example of low-quality propaganda. The strategy employed is a time-honored method of deception that I think we have all seen before (personally I am most familiar with it in the context of the creationist argument against evolution) --> flood your target audience with "facts" so that, overwhelmed by the preponderance of "evidence", they begin to think, "Hey, with all this data to back up their argument, it must be true. Right?" Meanwhile those on the other side of the debate can only respond to the avalanche of drivel by making a point-by-point rebuttal, and while that is easy enough to do for any given point on the list, the sheer volume makes it a rather inefficient use of one's time. By the time the rebuttal is complete the spammer has a new pile of puke ready to spring on their opponent, and so the cycle of BS begins again.

Most people don't have the patience or desire to waste much time responding to such a crude argument, though I applaud those who do. LH posted a rather lengthy rebuttal of most of those points a few weeks ago. Wish I could remember what thread it was in...maybe LH could repost it if he's reading this.

Translation:

I hate when people show me facts. It hurts my head to learn things which contradict my implanted ideal that America is a wonderful country led my fair, just leaders who would rather frolick in the fields of bright flowers than to bring disasterous wars to other people.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: lozina

Translation:

I hate when people show me facts. It hurts my head to learn things which contradict my implanted ideal that America is a wonderful country led my fair, just leaders who would rather frolick in the fields of bright flowers than to bring disasterous wars to other people.

What facts? Pretty much all of the 'facts' have been debunked or further qualified.

Still in denial, eh?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Format C:
You idiots make even the Iraqi Information Minister look intelligent.

Lets give the anti-war protesters explosive pens!

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: exp
Ugh. That list is soooooooooooooo OLD (repost #5,240,372), and is truly a textbook example of low-quality propaganda. The strategy employed is a time-honored method of deception that I think we have all seen before (personally I am most familiar with it in the context of the creationist argument against evolution) --> flood your target audience with "facts" so that, overwhelmed by the preponderance of "evidence", they begin to think, "Hey, with all this data to back up their argument, it must be true. Right?" Meanwhile those on the other side of the debate can only respond to the avalanche of drivel by making a point-by-point rebuttal, and while that is easy enough to do for any given point on the list, the sheer volume makes it a rather inefficient use of one's time. By the time the rebuttal is complete the spammer has a new pile of puke ready to spring on their opponent, and so the cycle of BS begins again.

Most people don't have the patience or desire to waste much time responding to such a crude argument, though I applaud those who do. LH posted a rather lengthy rebuttal of most of those points a few weeks ago. Wish I could remember what thread it was in...maybe LH could repost it if he's reading this.

Translation:

I hate when people show me facts. It hurts my head to learn things which contradict my implanted ideal that America is a wonderful country led my fair, just leaders who would rather frolick in the fields of bright flowers than to bring disasterous wars to other people.

I just hate it when people show me "facts" that are incorrect. The OP didnt even get straight what percentage of the world's population the US comprises. Followed by facts that are irrelevant, such as #3. Last I heard, we were not invading S.A., we were attacking from their with their permission.

 

[DoctorPizza]

Fool.

Thank you.

It's the UN's fault we didn't march on to Baghdad and take him out when we first had the chance. We were stupid enough to listen to their calls for retreat then.

And Clinton was in office while the West was "having no problem" with his behavior. It's his fault relations with the Middle East degraded to the point where they are now.

It's taken a decent leader to overcome popular sentiment and do not what people think should be done, but what NEEDS to be done. Once a democratic state is set up right in the middle of the Arab world, it will help bring stability to the area, and may make resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict a real possibility in our generation.

I'm referring to what happened in the 1980s, when the UK, US, France, Germany, supplied Iraq with weapons to fight the Iranians.

It was a democratic state in the Middle East that secretly developed nuclear weapons, has refused to let UN inspectors inspect them, and has kept the man responsible for revealing the secret programme in prison since 1986.

The mere existance of democracy is no guarantee of stability.

Given the absence of credible opposition to the Iraqi government, stability is in any case extremely unlikely. A weak coalition government looks to be the best bet, judging by the present exiled opposition.

 

[Pers]

that list had over 50 questions...

you managed to prove a couple of them wrong -- *clapping my hands*

41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over 65
42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?
A: 30+


someone look those up... someone tell me why we adamantly support israel --

while you're at it -- please reveal some of your knowledge regarding Paul Wolfowitz and Richard perle

Explain their obstinate stance at making sure Palestinians are killed, in an effort to expand Israel

most notable of this iron circle pro-Israeli group -- Donald Rumsfeld, whose infamous referral to the

Palestinian occupied territories as "so-called occupied territories (being) a result of a war which (Israel) won",

left many pondering whether the US was at all committed to peace and stability in the Middle East.

It's no secret that Israel uses American weapons to kill Palestinians, money to build and expand its illegal

settlements and political backing to thumb its nose at international law and the international community.

 

[etech]

Pers, Is it your contention that all of the problems in the Middle East are based on the Israel/Palestinian conflict?

Is it possible that it is being used as a scrapegoat to distract the 'Arab street' from the real problems of that region?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech
Pers, Is it your contention that all of the problems in the Middle East are based on the Israel/Palestinian conflict?

Is it possible that it is being used as a scrapegoat to distract the 'Arab street' from the real problems of that region?

I do not know what his point is, but the people in the region consider the palestine/israel conflict to be far more significant than Saddam ever was, in fact THE most important single issue. Any hope of lasting peace in the Middle East will happen after the resolution of this conflict. One may argue that this is overblown, but that is from an American perspective, not those of the majority of Arabs.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Pers
yeah..it is..


i honestly don't care what a bunch of hopeless cretins think

If we're such obvious cretins, then why are you still here? Nobody is forcing you to post in this forum with the rest of us uneducated rabble.

This war has proved to me that a false democracy is as bad as NO democracy at all

here we boast of our democracy, when we have an unelected president calling ALL the shots (ie. taking power

away from congress -- is this sh!t legal -- would the founding fathers approve?) YEt...so much propaganda is

spewed over tv, news papers, magazine....the average 17 year old genuinely believes they know_war_is_the_iminent_solution

anyway... land of the free [grazing sheep....]

take if for what you will...but you people certainly prove that american democracy has no merit

Bush won the election based on the number of electoral votes received. If you need evidence of why we have an electoral college, please refrence my sig.

 

[DoctorPizza]

If you need evidence of why we have an electoral college, please refrence my sig.

Because you believe that a vote in a densely populated area is worth less than a vote in a sparsely populated area?

Can you explain why?

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: DoctorPizza

If you need evidence of why we have an electoral college, please refrence my sig.

Because you believe that a vote in a densely populated area is worth less than a vote in a sparsely populated area?

Can you explain why?

Sure I can. The question is, do I want to explain to you why we have the electoral college....that I'll have to think about.

Hrmm....I guess I can. Give me a few to dig up some of my old Poly Sci textbooks.