Page 20 of 44 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 436

Thread: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

  1. #191
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Don't be silly. He hadn't been bombed in years, and still had no new wmds. He had no ability. Wanting is not equal to having. And not equal to making either.
    I know. Clinton saying Saddam has WMD even though he didn't is not equal to Bush saying Saddam had WMD even though he didnt'. We get it. You're a partisan hack.

  2. #192
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    I couldn't disagree more and believe people who "buy" that excuse are gullible.

    We were building up on Iraq's border for months including bringing in heavy weapons. Everyone and their dog was aware that war was imminent, just not the "exact date or time".

    The authorization was passed in october and the war restarted in march.

    Perhaps some congressmen use the excuse that "they didn't think Bush would go to war". I believe that such people who buy that excuse are gullible unless they concede that their congressman is a moron.

    I'm supposed to accept your news articles because YOU think your news articles are credible?

    Once again I note the EXCUSES provided by Boo for not citing the PRIMARY source that the news articles supposedly represent.
    Your agreement is not required. And no matter of reading in mean anything. What means something is what was written and said. But, you're in real denail here. I thought you knew something about the subject, but prove repeatedly here that known elements have escaped you. That happens when one has his head in the sand.

    This is not a formal debate where one side is given points or deemed a winner or loser, such as in highschool debate classes or clubs.
    I've repeatedly requested that you support your claims by citing the PRIMARY source that you claimed backs your position. Instead you have offered excuses, offered news articles, and speeches rather than the source you claim supports your position.

    Such behavior is typical of those who are unwilling or unable to defend their claims, to show they speak truth rather than presenting opinion, speculation, and conjecture.
    Yiou've had more than enough support. Only a person closing thier eys and sticking their fingers in their ears yelling Nah nah nahh I can't hear you would behave as you are. There is little to no speculation here. Facts have been presented. I always laugh at how the Obama is a muslim socialist marxist comunist racist from Kenya who hates America is accept without the smallest amount of evidence, but overwhelming evidence against Bush is mere opinion and speculation. You guys are sure funny.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #193
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I know. Clinton saying Saddam has WMD even though he didn't is not equal to Bush saying Saddam had WMD even though he didnt'. We get it. You're a partisan hack.
    Do we know Saddam didn't when Clinton said it? After all, that was much closer to our leaving than 2003 was, less would have degraded. And Bush's claim was not that Saddam had wmds, but that he not only had stockpiles, but had a growing and gathering program (with vague links to al Qaeda). Bush's claim went much farther than Clinton's and after Clinton had bombed and made Saddam even less of a threat.

    Again, you take different things and pretend they are the same. That is the definition of bias.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #194
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Do we know Saddam didn't when Clinton said it? After all, that was much closer to our leaving than 2003 was, less would have degraded. And Bush's claim was not that Saddam had wmds, but that he not only had stockpiles, but had a growing and gathering program (with vague links to al Qaeda).
    Yeah, I know. Clinton's claim that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD and he is developing them is not equal to Bush's claim that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD and is developing them.

    It was asserted by you, or someone you thanked that the WMD was destroyed after the first gulf war. Some of the weapons inspectors also indicate that they agree with Saddam that the WMD were destroy in 1991, which was, in case you are confused, prior to operation desert strom.

  5. #195
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Yeah, I know. Clinton's claim that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD and he is developing them is not equal to Bush's claim that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD and is developing them.

    It was asserted by you, or someone you thanked that the WMD was destroyed after the first gulf war. Some of the weapons inspectors also indicate that they agree with Saddam that the WMD were destroy in 1991, which was, in case you are confused, prior to operation desert strom.
    Not exactly Clinton's claim, but as it was years earlier and before he bombed and declared that threat over (his people said), yes it would be different.

    And yes, most of the wmds were distoryed while the inspectors were there. I never said they all were destroyed. I also said Saddam had no way to store them, so they would degrade over TIME. You should not be so selective in what you latch onto.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #196
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not exactly Clinton's claim, but as it was years earlier and before he bombed and declared that threat over (his people said), yes it would be different.

    And yes, most of the wmds were distoryed while the inspectors were there. I never said they all were destroyed. I also said Saddam had no way to store them, so they would degrade over TIME. You should not be so selective in what you latch onto.
    I know. Partisan hacks are more than happy to make excuses for those they support. I am prone to do it to, but try to be aware of it and stop myself.

  7. #197
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I know. Partisan hacks are more than happy to make excuses for those they support. I am prone to do it to, but try to be aware of it and stop myself.
    Yes they are, as you have been trying to do. But different things are not equal. Pretending they are is the definition of bias.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #198
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yes they are, as you have been trying to do. But different things are not equal. Pretending they are is the definition of bias.
    Oh, i'm not defending Bush. Not necessary because I don't think he should be defended, but just because that's not what we are discussing.

    You, Saddam and some weapons inspectors claimed that Saddam destroyed his WMD after the first Gulf war in 1991. Clinton claimed Saddam had stockpiles of WMD in 1998, prior to Operation Desert Fox. He combed Saddam's weapon depots specifically to get rid of the WMDs that he had. Now, if the weapons were destroyed in 1991 as you guys claimed, then Saddam obviously didn't have them when Clinton indicated that he did. So, was Clinton lying, or were you, Saddam, and some weapons inspectors lying?

  9. #199
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Your agreement is not required.
    Required for what?

    You've made claims and I've challenged those claims.

    I've asked you to support your claims with primary sources. The primary sources which you claim support your position, yet you repeatedly FAIL to present these sources and make EXCUSES for not doing so. Instead you post secondary sources: news articles, speeches, etc, which I do not accept because they are unreliable, opinions, and refer to the primary source.

    Are you conceding that your primary source does NOT support your claim? Why do you continue to avoid presenting it to show that your argument is valid and supported by it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    What means something is what was written and said.
    Many things have been written and said. Many of which are false, flawed, and incorrect.

    Whatever personal "meaning" you derive is irrelevant in debate if you cannot demonstrate or show its truth to others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    But, you're in real denail here. I thought you knew something about the subject, but prove repeatedly here that known elements have escaped you. That happens when one has his head in the sand.
    I see. When you can't defend your claims you make accusations and personal attacks. Thank you for demonstrating your lack of integrity and naivete in debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yiou've had more than enough support. Only a person closing thier eys and sticking their fingers in their ears yelling Nah nah nahh I can't hear you would behave as you are. There is little to no speculation here. Facts have been presented.
    You have claimed that certain Inspector Generals report supports your claims but then FAIL to produce this report to support your claims. Instead you post new articles, speeches, and other opinion pieces. Do you think it goes unnoticed that you repeatedly FAIL to support your claim with the primary source that you won't produce?


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I always laugh at how the Obama is a muslim socialist marxist comunist racist from Kenya who hates America is accept without the smallest amount of evidence, but overwhelming evidence against Bush is mere opinion and speculation. You guys are sure funny.
    What in the world are you ranting about? I haven't mentioned Obama once in this thread nor do I believe he is a "muslim socialist marxist communist racist from Kenya who hates America."

    Once again this appears to be another smokescreen in an attempt to avoid producing the documents that YOU claim support your argument.

    I think I'm about done here. You've demonstrated quite clearly your capacity for debate.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  10. #200
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

    [QUOTE=scourge99;1059084258]
    You've made claims and I've challenged those claims.

    I've asked you to support your claims with primary sources. The primary sources which you claim support your position, yet you repeatedly FAIL to present these sources and make EXCUSES for not doing so. Instead you post secondary sources: news articles, speeches, etc, which I do not accept because they are unreliable, opinions, and refer to the primary source.

    Are you conceding that your primary source does NOT support your claim? Why do you continue to avoid presenting it to show that your argument is valid and supported by it?
    I have supported my claim. no one outside of you disputes my claim. Even Fieth addresses the report, and aknowledges what it says. Your silliness is just that, silliness.

    Many things have been written and said. Many of which are false, flawed, and incorrect.
    Mostly on your side. Remember Rumsfeld, :absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That literally means there was no evidence.


    I see. When you can't defend your claims you make accusations and personal attacks. Thank you for demonstrating your lack of integrity and naivete in debate.
    The claims have been supported. repeatedly.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/ig020907-decl.pdf

    (oh, see page 14)

    You have claimed that certain Inspector Generals report supports your claims but then FAIL to produce this report to support your claims. Instead you post new articles, speeches, and other opinion pieces. Do you think it goes unnoticed that you repeatedly FAIL to support your claim with the primary source that you won't produce?
    Again, it has been supported, repeatedly.



    What in the world are you ranting about? I haven't mentioned Obama once in this thread nor do I believe he is a "muslim socialist marxist communist racist from Kenya who hates America."

    Once again this appears to be another smokescreen in an attempt to avoid producing the documents that YOU claim support your argument.
    This isn't the only thread here.
    Last edited by Boo Radley; 11-05-10 at 02:13 PM.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 20 of 44 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •