It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weapons Meet WMD Criteria

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   

You think about that. Erase the American Eagle of Freedom from your head and all the symbols that you believe in for this minute.


I can't get it off!!!! I've tried everything...


To answer the rest of the post. One step at a time. Build a foundation of Democracy in Iraq, then work for it to spread.

Semper




posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
but semper by what right do we impose that democracy on Iraq? Also...simple historical fact...democracy is not easily transplanted, it has to be developed and grown through trial and error, seldom if ever from invasion.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I wish to say this:

There are many on here that I whole heartidly agree with, and those whom I vehemantly stand in opposition (to their politics anyway) and many, like Semper with whom we have agreed to disagree and to sometimes presuade the other to examine their views and sometimes change them (he's really a closet moderate don't let him fool ya
:lol
but just because we disagree does not mean that we cannot be civil. There is the old adage that is sorely missing in these terribly polarized days..." I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I fully understand that the people who support Bush and the war in Iraq do so out of love for their country and regard for its saftey.

To you: understand there are many of us...especially those of us who have been opposed from the very beginning, refuse to support this war from deeply held moral grounds. I am one of those. I am no pacifist, but the grounds to fight for one such as I who have been affilated with at various times with groups such as the Quakers and the Unitarians and the Baha'i's, have to be unequivicable.

I can support your love of country (I love it too)...can you support my convictions?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I am not attacking you muaddib....I really could care less one way or the other.....but don't go claiming that you don't insult or belittle people who disagree with you without expecting to be called on it because scarasm or not....you do. If you can't take it....too bad.


Now again you are trying to derail this thread. I make my point, if you respond with sarcasm then i respond in kind manner, what I don't do is throw personal attacks such as saying "up yours" as you have done, etc, etc... I wasn't attacking ceci personally, I was attacking her argument and claims, and now you are trying to derail this thread.

[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
.............

I can support your love of country (I love it too)...can you support my convictions?


You can have your own opinion, it is your right, but what is not right is people exagerating, taking statements out of context and then claim the are right because of those exagerations and sometimes even lies which apparently they believe to be true.

if i see someone make an exageration, or even if without their knowledge they make a false statement, I am in my right to prove that statement and claim is wrong. You also have the right to do so, but you need to provide evidence to back you up. that's what a civil discussion is all about.

[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
you provoked me...what can I say I was deeply annoyed. Yes you do attack. You have questioned my intelligence and you have questioned whether I have read any of the things that I say that I have or whether they even said what I asserted that they did. If that is not attacking I do not know what is. Be that as it may...can you at least contemplate what I wrote above and respond civilly?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I asked an old maine farmer at the first town meeting I attended what was going to happen and he replied: "you have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to call you a damned fool."



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
so who appointed you in charge of correcting people that YOU think to be wrong? That is awlfully arrogant of you to take on that right. So who has the right to correct you?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
you provoked me...what can I say I was deeply annoyed. Yes you do attack. You have questioned my intelligence and you have questioned whether I have read any of the things that I say that I have or whether they even said what I asserted that they did. If that is not attacking I do not know what is. Be that as it may...can you at least contemplate what I wrote above and respond civilly?


You claimed to be very intelligent yet you could not present any evidence to back your argument and instead resorted to insulting... i called you on your claim and asked for you to present the evidence and you insulted more without presenting any evidence.

Now can we go back to the topic at hand? if you have anything else to say that has nothing to do with this thread send a u2u...


[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
ahh the rub is that "you claimed to be very intelligent"....so who gives you the right to question anyone on here's intelligence. YOU have said some pretty dumb things...has anyone questioned your intelligence? Face it Muaddib...you are a bully. Anyone disagrees with you and you browbeat them to death.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

but semper by what right do we impose that democracy on Iraq? Also...simple historical fact...democracy is not easily transplanted, it has to be developed and grown through trial and error, seldom if ever from invasion.


My conviction that we are doing the right thing was confirmed for me with the 12million voter turn out even in the face of death threats.


(he's really a closet moderate don't let him fool ya :lol but just because we disagree does not mean that we cannot be civil. There is the old adage that is sorely missing in these terribly polarized days..." I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


GROVER!!! You promised not to tell....


Yes, there has been enough hostility on here, some even from me. (I am truly sorry for any offense) I believed it a wonderful article for debate, but I'm on the verge of asking the Mods to close it if we can't debate in a civil manner.
Come on guys!!! This is an emotional topic granted, but we are all Intelligent people (well I am sometimes) and we can get by this and really talk about what we feel without the use of personal insults.

An yes, Grover, I have, am and will continue to fight so that you can disagree with me to your hearts content. I appreciate that you would fight for my rights as well!!!!


Face it, what kind of world would it be if we all agreed all the time? BORING!!!


I can support your love of country (I love it too)...can you support my convictions?


YES YES YES I do!!

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
You are an honorable man semper. And I have no grudge here with anyone including Muaddib...I still say a round or three of beers and we could probably work out our differences civilly.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I have said what I have to say in regards to Muaddib so we can return to the topic at hand...ain't ceci a cutie?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Let's all just stop taking it personally and submit with some detachment.

I just posted a submission from the Advisor about a very positive action in Iraq, it just got PUMMELLED by a lot of people against everything going on over there.

That's ok though, it does not in anyway take away from the validity of the news story or the reasons I put up good news. Even if it never sees the light of day and is not approved, I have done what satisfies my conscious by posting it.

Stepping back, evaluating my position and READING and UNDERSTANDING the other posts, brings to me many new considerations into my world view. The posts on here included.

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
ahh the rub is that "you claimed to be very intelligent"....so who gives you the right to question anyone on here's intelligence. YOU have said some pretty dumb things...has anyone questioned your intelligence? Face it Muaddib...you are a bully. Anyone disagrees with you and you browbeat them to death.


Again....your opinions about me have nothing to do with this thread... If i present facts, people don't like the facts and presume i must be a bully because of those facts which contradict their claims, that's your, and their opinion.... it doesn't make it a fact. if you and other people don't like to be called on your claims, then the solution is simple. Get your facts straight.


[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
No I say you are a bully because you browbeat people who disagree with you and distort what they say to justifiy your opinions of both their viewpoints and of them.

If you think that a command of facts alone are a criteria for intelligence you are way off base. "Facts" are easily manulipated just as logic is. They are tools and only tools, they are not and never have been the acid test for truth no matter what Deacarte had to say about it. Neither is the sole standard for intelligence....mind, conciousness, spirit, intelligence what ever you might call it is beyond category and is if anything fluid. Ten people witnessing the same event, would give the same account of the incident, one would think but time and time again this has been proved false. This is especially true in the context of how each and everyone of us looks at the world. A simple survey of the attitudes and opinions voiced on this website are enough to show that.

This is the point I keep trying to make...is that you filter what you assume to be true through the lense of your expectations just like I do and just like everyone else on here does. It is how conciousness processes the world, and when we change our opinions, our preceptions of the world changes along with it.

The big difference is I know this and accept it to be true.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
....Bullies don't present facts...bullies resort to name calling, demeaning and insulting...which is what you are doing...

Again....are you going to stop with your insults and demeaning attempts or are you going to present proof to back your arguments?.... Statements with nothing but rhetoric are no proof, and much less when they are accompained by name calling and attempts to demean the messenger.

if you are going to continue with your devious tactics i will just put you in ignore, and that will be the last i hear from you.

[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
touchy!!!

You do not present facts or knowledge any more that I do. You read what supports your viewpoint and call it facts. I know I do this, apparently, you do not. The BIG LIE of the information age is that information equals knowledge and it simply is not true. Knowledge is what you get when you get your hands dirty doing...knowledge is built on personal experince. If you were in Iarq with say, your Russian defector when he was doing what he claimed he did, then that would be knowledge...to read it is hearsay.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Goodbye grover.

Now can the rest of us concentrate on what this thread is about? thanks.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally quoted by Muaddib
No ceci, there is a difference between you and me, i am not trying to insult you or anyone else, but as i have already pointed out, and proved so many times, some people exagerate and make generalizations just to make a point, to bring forth a political agenda.


I see you haven't read the BQB thread. Because if you did, you would understand why the logo is turned upside-down.

I have learned the wisdom of accepting and respecting points from Benevolent Heretic. Of all our talks, she has taught me about the grace and humility of listening to other people.

So, Muaddib, I accept your point of view. You are a staunch supporter of Bush and his policies despite the obvious. But I truly disagree with you. I have no agenda. And I did not make generalizations in my statements. I just have to accept the fact that you see things differently and you cannot be negotiated with.


I prove my points with facts without exagerating. If there is anything which could be wrong about my statements i say it clearly and even acknowledge it when i am proven wrong.


Like what happened between you and Jamuhn? I beg to differ. Yes, you do speak clearly. But in your clarity, you insult and belittle others who have a different point of view. We're all intelligent people here. You make it your point to make sure the rest of us are not privvy to sharing our knowledge while yours must always be right.

But here, I accept it. But I don't agree with you. You never admit when you are wrong.




BTW, it has never been about politics, even when the president said that there were no stockpiles of wmd, what did i say and what evidence did i bring forth?... i am not presenting the party line, I am presenting the facts.


If you did present all the facts, by all due respect, you would acknowledge Scott Ritter's and Hans Blix's opinions about the WMD's. They have both written books about their experiences regarding this area.



Take as an example you bringing out once again the claim that the president has been changing the reasons for going to iraq. i have presented, in these same forums, several times now the speech that the president made before the war in Iraq to the UN and to the world, and in that speech there are several reasons given for going after Saddam's regime, yet you and others like yourself keep trying to claim that the only reason given at first was wmd, and then the reasons changed....well, that is not true at all.


This is one speech, Muaddib. A speech made early in the second Iraq war. I would truly believe you if you did a content analysis of all the speeches Mr. Bush, Gen. Powell and others have given during the three years of the war.

Mr. Bush and others have flip-flopped so much about this war that it puts Mr. Kerry to shame.

(did I just say that?)




It has been presented in these forums several times already that there were declarations even made by the Clinton administration to change the regime of Iraq. That is nothing new and it does not corroborate your other claims.


We're not talking about the Clinton Administration, Muaddib. We're talking about Mr. Bush's Adminstration. That's the difference here.




Now that's "speculation" on your part, and taking comments out of context, but again, why don't you mention that Chinese officials wrote a book in 1999, with statements which are not taken out of context, which explains that in the future China needs an "unrestricvite warfare" using terrorists like Osama Bin Laden to attack places like the WTC??....


PNAC exists, Muaddib. And yes, they talked about bringing about another "Pearl Harbor". It's not speculation. It was said.


America ‘Pearl Harbored’
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.

The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9-11.

A Pentagon spokesman told AFP that $17.5 billion of that initial allocation went to defense.The U.S. defense budget for 2002, including a $14.5 billion supplement, came to $345.7 billion, a nearly 12 percent increase over the 2001 defense budget.





and who is working with propaganda, exagerations and statements taken out of context?...


Judging from your hysterical tone, you are.


Grover, thanks for your defense of me. I especially like what you said. I too admire, respect and like Semper. He is a true gentleman who does love his country just like the rest of us. And I respect his point of view and truly honor his service to America.

Semper simply debates the issue and respects different points of view. He even asks questions and makes compliments. That is what I appreciate.







[edit on 10-7-2006 by ceci2006]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join