Springer

Every other reader of this thread accepts the material that I have presented, and understands that the conflict arises out of a different scope of the issues.

An argument on how the war was presented and marketed is different to an argument about what the war is actually for.

I have discussed both for some time at ATS, without crayons or coloring in books or resorting to capital letters in attemps to emphasise non-points.

Nothing that I have raised here or elsewhere has been irrelevant at all.

I am sorry that you do not have the same focus or attention to detail in your argument, but there are other pictures that you could continue to color in in other threads, with the children.

Seekerof

Be sure to consider just how long the UN inspections program was in place immediately prior to being booted out, and all other inspections (with all the varying levels of co-operation) before that time.

Or do you believe that the US is the approved inspector of weapons?

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Some unbridled 'foreign' (English) commentary on the animal that is David Kay.

Both the reports from David Kay, and this statement about him, must be taken with a grain of salt but it is always worthwhile to know the background and the angle of the person you might at any time quote as a provider of 'facts':

You are AMAZING! NOBODY but YOU and those that play to your political avarice has any integrity right?

You just BACK PEDALED as wloquently as I have ever seen, switching from "Illegal WAR" to Illegal OCCUPATION" but alas, I caught it.

What is it YOU want MA? Anarchy? Surely you are too smart to want Wesley (a TRUE war criminal) Clark...

Just WHAT is it?

P...
m...

Springer

No, I have not back-pedalled at all.

I have moved forward, in official terms.

AFTER an illegal war comes an illegal occupation.

"I am sorry that you do not have the same focus or attention to detail in your argument, but there are other pictures that you could continue to color in in other threads, with the children."

About what I would expect from a WHIPPED opponent.

VERY Classy...

m...

Springer

Yes, I agree with you.

When an opponent is whipped, he will no longer focus on the argument and contribute to useful discussion, but will instead resort to silliness. Your coloring in book would be the same as me putting Eric Estrada naked on your beloved Harley in emulation of you, except my image would be funnier. And it's not my point.

You are truly whipped, indeed.

However, I have decided to expand the changing definition of the 'WMD cult' from 'those who blindly believe there are WMDs still to be found in Iraq' or 'those who beileve there are no WMDs in Iraq at all' to 'those who visit this thread to argue about whether WMDs will still be found or that there are no WMDs or that WMDs do not matter'.

I am sorry to have initiated the Cult, and certainly did not intend for children to fall into it.

My apologies to any parents or spouses of children who are rescuing their children from the WMD Cult after viewing this.

I'm shattered! (rolling stones -ca. 1980's)

MA, you have totally CRATERED. I have NEVER said I beleive there are WMDs in Iraq. I have explained that and so has Leveller in several posts you might think about reading.

Calling you betters a child is beneath you, sir, it's not so bad to be beaten in a cyber environment, relax. All you have to do is turn the switch to *OFF* and it all goes away!

Your back pedalling, (which is very similar to when you attack someone and then deny the attack in your next post by attempting to say "THAT'S NOT what I meant" which, as YOU know has been noticed by several people in this forum) is an acceptable means of concession and I ACCEPT it.

PEACE...
m...

Seekerof

On the 97 vials:

1. Refer ThomasCrowne's statement distinguishing WMDs, and the 'ready deployability' in the definition used by the Bush admin officials.

2. I don't think these qualify at all. How they qualify as 'evidence of weapons programs' is uncertain to me until I read more fully.

3. I am genuinely interested though, to see what you have cut & pasted, to check the date and the context and how they came to be in the scientist's residence, and where. If you already pasted the link but I couldn't find the correct one, my apologies. Just let me know which one it was.


Springer

Don't confuse my volcano top with the hole you have dug for yourself!

I haven't suggested anywhere that you said there are WMDs in Iraq. I have read all the posts in this cultish thread, including the one you awarded yourself a prize for in terms of its self-perceived brilliance, as well as your coloring in efforts on my avatar, which I like just the way it is.

No, there is no back-pedalling from me.

I back up what I have already said. You have brought no facts here at all, whatsoever, only self-adulation and children's coloring in and insults! Well done! That must be what ATS is for in your view of things!

Anyway, we will leave it to others to review the preceding material and see who has got the upper hand, if that is important to you. I am comfortable that I have expressed my position concisely and with enough coherence that adults will understand it. And I'm not competing with anyone here, or insulting anyone, but I'll give as good as I get.

And as we both know, YOU'RE A FAG!

While you continue to PRAY to your Deities that I will one day join you in man love I am very sorry to inform you that it will not happen, UNLESS Val turns into a man in which case I'll have no choice, but that STILL leaves you out in the cold as I will remain monogamous...

However, I like the premise you offer up, the ADULTS will be the final judges of who makes sense/presents the better argument and who doesn't.

Shall we leave it to them?

Good enough...

PEACE...
m...

Springer

Yes.

But as people read the material, they will recognise those points where you are unwittingly pulling you own hair out, and this may make them perceive that you are much older than your four decades, leading them to a sense of sympathy for the aged. (Expanding and contracting age is a characteristic I have observed in a recent R.A.T.S. thread).

I hope that works all right for you.

It even seems to work for guys like Yassar Arafat some days.

BTW, if we were to concede hypothetically that the Bush admin believed they knew where the WMDs were, and did not suspect that any WMDs been dismantled and removed or smuggled out by the time the US Forces invaded, then WHY did Rice and Powell state with unequivocal confidence in February and July 2001 that they knew Saddam had dispensed with all WMDs and was not a threat? Why?

I ask this in terms of the inherent lack of logic of the Bush admin's position, not because I believe that Iraq went from massive WMD capability to zero in the quiet period before the invasion.

I am genuinely interested in why those statements were made by Rice and Powell before 9/11, followed by the about face afterwards with all the remarkable intelligence used to state that the readily deployable WMDs were in precisely known locations.

At your leisure, or ignore if you wish, if that would be easier for you.

[Edited on 5-10-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

I know you have no hair (via your avatar) or you would have pulled it out ages ago from the absolute frustration you must be dealing with in having your aganda CRUSHED...

The age thing is BIZARRE isn't it? Well consider the source I always say, which brings me to my next point...

Ahhhh, the good stuff that comes from out of context gossip...

The paraphrasing of Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell that you incesantly attempt to hang your porverbial "hat" upon is the HOLE into which your argument falls.

You have YET to show ONE SOLID peice of evidence that either one of them said anything even close to this in the context by which you have decided to present it as the basis for your argument.

It intigues me how you swing from a "Bilderberg/PNAC Conspiracy" (whatever the # that is!) to the Rice/Powell misquote.

Really I expect so much MORE from you!

PEACE...
m...

MA,

Every other reader of the thread accepts what I have said...

Isn't that a bit presumptious?

Is there not more views of a thread than posts?

Originally posted by THENEO
MA,

Every other reader of the thread accepts what I have said...

Isn't that a bit presumptious?

Is there not more views of a thread than posts?

You have misquoted me slightly.

I said "Every other reader of this thread accepts the material that I have presented, and understands that the conflict arises out of a different scope of the issues."

My point is that readers take the material that I brought here for what it is. See for example, the discussion with Leveller, where when we worked out that there was a difference of scope, he accepted there were contradictions in the Bush admin's statements pre 9/11 and post 9/11, and that was the limit of the material I intended to bring.

You are absolutely right about the second point. Not all readers are posters. Some might even ignore me, and not accept any material. Such is the sweeping generalization that I injected as I pointed out to Springer that I couldn't accept anything he had said as being in the domain of 'facts'.

You ahve proven my point for me! CRAP! Some left wing LOW RENT psuedo journalist CLAIMS he knows Rice/Powell discredited blah blah blah...

My man, THIS is the CRAP of which I speak so eloquently in derision of your "facts"...

The "venture to" quote is taken TOTALLY out of context as well. When Powell made those comments the question put to him was "What's going to stop Hussein form going at it again?" His reply in THAT context (the REAL ONE) is as MEANINGLESS to your conspiracy dream as the first one!

REALLY... This is pure BUNK. There is a GREAT BIG world out there full of LOONS that are willing to kill our CHILDREN and WIVES simply because they have been taught to since they could comprehend spoken language THAT my friend is the SCARY part of this world.

NOT some fantastic PNAC/Bilderberg/Cabal/Evil conspiracy flight of fancy.

The PEOPLE getting KILLED FOR REAL in Israel TODAY (19 already just on 05 Oct, 2003!!!!) by #ing NUTSO Fanatics is the REAL danger in the world today.

THAT'S what we need to FIGHT. NOT EACHOTHER.


P...
m...

Is a #ING left wing NUT JOB! NOT a credible source.

I left that out of my previous by mistake...

P...
m...

Someone help me out here I'm just not getting it. Here is a list of UN resolutions against Israel since it's birth as a country. Why isn't Sharon overthrown with a shock and awe campaign? I don't understand.

Also, why has the US given $84,854,827,200 to Israel since it's birth as a nation? Isn't that about the amount Bush is asking for Iraq reconstruction.

Something just doesn't add up. I'm trying to see the Bush side but it's just not coalescing. Someone please help with this and tell me what I'm missing here.



Res 101 (Nov 24, 53): Expressed 'strongest censure' of Israel for the first time because of its raid on Qibya.
Res 106 (Mar 29, 55): Condemned Israel for Ghazzah raid.
Res 111 (Jan 19, 56): Condemned Israel for raid on Syria that killed 56 people.
Res 127 (Jan 22, 58): Recommended Israel to suspend its no-man's zone in Jerusalem.
Res 162 (Apr 11, 61): Urged Israel to comply with UN decisions.
Res 171 (Apr 9, 62): Determined 'flagrant violation' by Israel in its attack on Syria.
Res 228 (Nov 25, 66): Censured Israel for its attack on Samu in Jordan.
Res 237 (June 14, 67): Urged Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
Res 248 (Mar 24, 68): Condemned Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
Res 250 (Apr 27, 68): Called on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
Res 251 (May 2, 68): Deeply deplored Israel's military parade in Jerusalem and declared invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as its capital.
Res 256 (Aug 16, 68): Condemned Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation'.
Res 259 (Sep 27, 68): Deplored Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
Res 262 (Dec 31, 68): Condemned Israel's attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.
Res 265 (Apr 1, 69): Condemned Israel for air attacks on Salt in Jordan.
Res 267 (July 3, 69): Censured Israel for administrative acts to change status of Jerusalem.
Res 270 (Aug. 26, 69): Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon.
Res 271 (Sep 15, 69): Condemned Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
Res 279 (May 12, 70): Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Res 280 (May 19, 70): Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.
Res 285 (Sep 5, 70): Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res 298 (Sep 25, 71): Deplored Israel's change of status of Jerusalem.
Res 313 (Aug 8, 72): Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
Res 316 (June 26, 72): Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
Res 317 (July 21, 72): Deplored Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.
Res 332 (Apr 21, 73): Condemned Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.
Res 337 (Aug 15, 73): Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.
Res 347 (Apr 24, 74): Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Res 425 (Mar 19, 78): Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.
Res 427 (May 3, 78): Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res 444 (Jan 19, 79): Deplored Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peace forces.
Res 446 (Mar 22, 79): Determined Israeli settlements as a 'serious obstruction' to peace, and called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Res 450 (June 14, 79): Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
Res 452 (July 20, 79): Called on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
Res 465 (Mar 1, 80): Deplored Israel's settlements and asked all member States not to assist Israel's settlement programme.
Res 467 (Apr 24, 80): Condemned Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.
Res 468 (May 8, 80): Called on Israel to rescind illegal expulsion of two Palestinian Mayors and a Judge, and to facilitate their return.
Res 469 (May 20, 80): Strongly deplored Israel's failure to observe the Council's order not to deport Palestinians.
Res 471 (June 5, 80): Expressed deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Res 476 (June 30, 80): Reiterated that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'.
Res 478 (Aug 20, 80): 'Censured in the strongest terms' Israel for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'basic law'.
Res 484 (Dec 19, 80): Declared it imperative Israel re-admit two Palestinian mayors.
Res 487 (June 19, 81): Strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.
Res 497 (Dec 17, 81): Decided Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demanded that Israel rescind its decision forthwith.
Res 498 (Dec 18, 81): Called on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Res 501 (Feb 25, 82): Called on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
Res 508 (June 6, 82): Demanded Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and un-conditionally from Lebanon.
Res 515 (July 29, 82): Demanded Israel lift its seige of Beirut and allow in food.
Res 517 (Aug 4, 82): Censured Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demanded Isreal withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Res 518 (Aug 12, 82): Demanded Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
Res 520 (Sep 17, 82): Condemned Israel's attack into West Beirut.
Res 573 (Oct 4, 85): Condemned Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO Headquarters.
Res 587 (Sep 23, 86): Took note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urged all parties to withdraw.
Res 592 (Dec 8, 86): Strongly deplored the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
Res 605 (Dec 22, 87): Strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices denying human rights of Palestinians.
Res 607 (Jan 5, 88): Called on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requested it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Res 608 (Jan 14, 88): Deeply regreted that Israel had defied the UN and deported Palestinian civilians.
Res 636 (July 6, 89): Deeply regreted the Israeli deportation of Palestinians.
Res 641 (Aug 30, 89): Deplored Israel's continuous deportation of Palestinians.
Res 672 (Oct 12, 90): Condemned Israel for violence against Palestinians at Jerusalem's Haram Al-Sharif.
Res 673 (Oct 24, 90): Deplored Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN.
Res 681 (Dec 20, 90): Deplored Israel's resumption of deportation of Palestinians.
Res 694 (May 24, 91): Deplored Israel's deportation of Palestinians and called on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Res 726 (Jan 1, 92): 'Strongly condemned' Israel's decision to resume deportation of Palestinians from 'Palestinian territories... including Jerusalem.'
Res 799 (Dec 19, 92): Deplored Israel's mass deportation of some 400 Palestinians and called for thir immediate return.

Springer

Sorry, but John Pilger did not put words in the mouths of Rice, Powell, or any other official at all.

They said what they said. In the case of Rice and Powell, Pilger was nowhere near them, he just sourced their live in-front-of-camera material from elsewhere, unexpurgated.

I cannot fathom how you see your last two posts as contributing to the discussion at all.

That would be like me saying (if you ever introduced an actual fact to the discussion) "that doesn't count, because it was Springer that provided the evidence of what actually happened, and I don't like his bald head, so it is not acceptable".

Focus on the facts, and not your impression of the person who happened to front the collection of them for a documentary. Pilger had no influence on anything that Powell and Rice said in 2001 whatsoever.

The ignorance demonstrated in your rebuttal of what Powell and Rice have actually said, must hereby be denied, by command of the Supreme Sceptic Overlord.