We were right. Cuz' i said so. There.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I am being honest. You're the one saying he was no threat whatsoever. That is clearly false. He was a threat then or in the future. Due to past actions, both to his own people and to his neighbours, the world is far better off with him deposed. You say, 'no.' That is the basis of the entire disagreement.

Your argument says that Iraq could hand off weapons to terrorists.

Okay, so why haven't we invaded:

Pakistan
Iran
North Korea

Well??????

Of all those countries, Pakistan has whored its nuke secrets more than anybody else.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I think lying to world and invading another country and formally endorsing torture is a reason good enough.

THERE IS A DAMN GOOD REASON PEOPLE BASH THIS MAN.

DUH

Don't blow a capillary, Ted. You're cute and I'd like you to stick around.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In this thread, I have consistently pointed out the lie that Iraq was an "immediate threat", which was big in the PR, and repeeated often enough by the Bushies.

That's the bottom line.

Everything ever else used to justify anything else is utter horse crap.

PERIOD

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Don't blow a capillary, Ted. You're cute and I'd like you to stick around.

Course you do, you have a fascination with me. At least your finally admitting it. Nice to show SOME honesty for once.

[Ted Striker]

And, by the way, from Spiffor's link:

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

Now what?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I am being honest. You're the one saying he was no threat whatsoever.

You seem to be the one thinking I'm saying that.
What I am saying is: Saddam was no immediate threat. The Bushies said he was an immediate threat in order to gather support for their war. The American people believed the Bushies.

Now, would Saddam have become a threat is he had stopped being contained? Maybe. Was Saddam threatening to his own population? Most definitely. Is Iraq better off with him out of power? Without a shred of doubt.

I hope you will stop projecting beliefs that are not mine, now. Maybe we can now resume a honest debate. However, should you project absurd claims once more, I'll understand you're not debating with me, but with some invisible partner you believe to be me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Your argument says that Iraq could hand off weapons to terrorists.

Okay, so why haven't we invaded:

Pakistan
Iran
North Korea

Well??????

Of all those countries, Pakistan has whored its nuke secrets more than anybody else.

Good question. Can you come up with a pretext for invading NK? Do you think SK and Japan would go along with it? What about China? It has to be feasible, Ted. Nobody who mattered cared too much what happened to Saddam. NK is a different matter.

Iran and Pakistan are good questions too. Have either of them invaded a neighbour? Have they gassed 100,000s of thousands of their own people?

I can see there might be good reasons for the US and others to take threrats from those regimes seriously, but who have they threatened? Are they the same sort of threat as a country locked in the dictatorial grip that Iraq was?

Is it that unless all bad guys are deposed, no bad guy may be deposed?

Finally, do you understand what a pretext is?

[Ted Striker]

Pretext: Lying to your country about a threat that does not exist.



Cool, so you are justifying an invasion just because we could do it.

Nice moral judgement there.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You seem to be the one thinking I'm saying that.
What I am saying is: Saddam was no immediate threat. The Bushies said he was an immediate threat in order to gather support for their war. The American people believed the Bushies.

Now, would Saddam have become a threat is he had stopped being contained? Maybe. Was Saddam threatening to his own population? Most definitely. Is Iraq better off with him out of power? Without a shred of doubt.

I hope you will stop projecting beliefs that are not mine, now. Maybe we can now resume a honest debate. However, should you project absurd claims once more, I'll understand you're not debating with me, but with some invisible partner you believe to be me.

I hope you stop saying that he was no threat and that everyone should have known it. The definition of threat that some use obviously differs from yours, as does the definition of everyone. Or maybe its the definition of hindsight?

I have pointed out, a few times, that people who were paid to know about Saddam and his toys, and who made it their career, thought he was a threat based on what they thought he had and what was doing. Ignoring them as if they never existed is hardly being honest, is it?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I have pointed out, a few times, that people who were paid to know about Saddam and his toys, and who made it their career, thought he was a threat based on what they thought he had and what was doing.

THOUGHT

being the key word.

thanks.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Pretext: Lying to your country about a threat that does not exist.



Cool, so you are justifying an invasion just because we could do it.

Nice moral judgement there.

One more time... David Kelly.

We know more about this man and what he thought than we do about anyone else in the business of being informed about Iraq and weapons programs. We know this because of his unfortunate circumstances, but he seems to have believed that Saddam was a threat, and that some of the threat was being overblown. Ironic isn't it? It was his job to know about it. Now you and others, based on hindsight, are saying that he didn't think what he thought, or you simply want to ignore the fact that he ever existed. That's quite the conceit.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker



THOUGHT

being the key word.

thanks.

What underlies a lie, Ted? What does 'guilty mind' mean?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I hope you stop saying that he was no threat and that everyone should have known it. The definition of threat that some use obviously differs from yours, as does the definition of everyone. Or maybe its the definition of hindsight?

Please tell me how I could define the following statement in a fashion that doesn't indicate that the threat is immediate, and that the American people are threatened. "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." (D. Rumsfeld)
I am curious about what I missed in that statement.

I have pointed out, a few times, that people who were paid to know about Saddam and his toys, and who made it their career, thought he was a threat based on what they thought he had and what was doing. Ignoring them as if they never existed is hardly being honest, is it?

The question is: paid by whom? If these people were paid by the US government, their expertise sure won't weight much against my accusation of a Bushie-orchestrated lie. If the people are paid by the UN (like the Blix mission), they happen not to have concluded on Iraq being an immediate threat.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


One more time... David Kelly.

We know more about this man and what he thought than we do about anyone else in the business of being informed about Iraq and weapons programs. We know this because of his unfortunate circumstances, but he seems to have believed that Saddam was a threat, and that some of the threat was being overblown. Ironic isn't it? It was his job to know about it. Now you and others, based on hindsight, are saying that he didn't think what he thought, or you simply want to ignore the fact that he ever existed. That's quite the conceit.

Can you point me to a smoking gun?

ANY hard proof WHATSOEVER?

Colin Powell slides showing fictional drawings of things that don't exist don't count.


Thanks.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


What underlies a lie, Ted? What does 'guilty mind' mean?

I think it has something to do with lying.