1) Uh...where/when did I say that? What I said...what virtually everyone but the US said was, yeah, disbelieve him, but until an actual threat is evident...until 'proof' of that threat is put forth, there are means to accomplish our goals other than war. 2) What does his record have to do with anything. Consider: In the period where he invaded two nations...( one of them with our approval at least) ie in 30 years...we have attacked several more. Does this indicatte that we ought to be automatically disbelieved more than him? We also used WMD more than him...I know, I know...history only counts when it agrees with you. 3)" There is no other word to describe this other than STUPID. It amazes me the depths to which you will stoop in order to slander the Republican leadership." One last time....idiot...I am not anti-Republican. I supported Bush before the war. If you are going to accuse others of blind bias, try actually looking with any version of clarity yourself. You are the one whose position on this is determined by affiliation, not me. 4) Uh...sorry to say, but if you are going to raise the burden of proof, it's on the prosecution. If you are going to cite the UN agreement, it clearly claimed the UNSC as the deciding body on whether it was being followed, and what measures would be taken if it wasn't....UNSC...not US....UNSC....not US....educate yourself.
Please point out to me where or how "And, no, sorry, when you are the nation to invade another nation...when you are the country to go against the UN in support of the UN resolutions AS YOU SEE THEM...when you do all this on a claim of WMD, you sure as hell better have more to back it up than a clerical discrepency from 5 years agao. " proves that I trust Saddam at his word? I understand the basis for war that we calimed...do you? Revisionist history doesn't wrok as well when we have videotape.
This has been nothing short of beautiful! MacBeth, who is the smartest person in the world (don't believe me? -- just ask him), has been completely shouted down at his own foreign policy game. Watching him run in circles attempting to salvage some sort of pride is highly entertaining! Have any more questions to ask, or have you given up yet? Ah yes, remind me, when you *unconditionally surrender* in a war, where does the burden of proof lie when a conflict emerges? When you are unable to reconcile a list of deadly weapons, and you have a history of provoking conflict, are you going to get the benefit of the doubt? Apparently in MacBeth's little bubble you are. It's been fun. Thanks for playing, rookie.
Does any of this actually make sense to anyone? A) When have I ever claimed to be particularly intelligent? I have voiced no opinion on the matter. B) Shouted down? When and where? This is the best response you have to my actual responses to your previous leaps from your supposition to conclusion?!? T_J, seriously, I'd like to say I expected better, but that wouldn't really be true... C) Uh...what circles am I running in? D) Do you know anything about war, surrenders, burden of proof, or anything? You are firslty mixing apples and oranges...I tried to point that out to you, but to no avail. The 'burden of proof' usually has nothing to do with peace treaties...first of all, that's a select legal term which applies only to certain nations legal systems. Secondly, it doesn't apply here. Thirdly, if it did, it would b on the accuser, if we are usung the US is all standard you seem to ascribe to. I really am amazed that you believe you make any sense here. E) Let's for a second accept the groundless claim that there is some sort of accpeted universal 'burden of proof' regarding peace treaties and unconditional surrender...Several problems still pop up with regards to your supposition. Unconditional surrender is a military term dictating the concessions the surrendering party can expect/demand when negotiating the post war agreement. It does not, T_J, mean that any agreements are only to be met by the surrendering party. Not at all. It merely sets the parameters of expectation for that negotiation. Once an agreement is rached, bith parties are held to it. You really don't know what you're talking about here. F) The agreement that you claim Saddam violated, and that you say was the basis for the war was A) With the UN, and UNSC...and B) To ne determined to be in breach by the UNSC alone, and C) Subsequent measures if breached were to be determined by the UNSC. If this, as you claim, was the 'reason for the war', then we waged an illegal war, and certainly have no grounds upon which to stand regarding expectations of Saddam supporting the UN agreement which we oursleves breached.
I followed you until the last sentence... they were looking for stuff as they were working on the list. We fed the inspectors "intelligence" relating to places and WMDs, yet they were unable to find anything new. Perhaps this is because most of the "intelligence" came through Rumsfeld's minions in DOD through the very questionable sources related to the folks they wanted to put into power after the war. And there is nothing in your paragraph that justifies war and our forcing the inspectors out. I care. And since your first sentence doesn't agree with the rest of your paragraph, I suspect you care as well. I agree that if they exist, they are a much greater threat to us now than before the war. And by the way, the UN agreed based on US and British intelligence, which is now extremely suspect. In the later deliberations before the war, many members of the UN refused to accept the US position. Hardly.
just ignore T_J it is obvious that he has no interest in other's opinons.. he is just sittin by the radio, waiting for Rush to tell him what to think next...
I continue to be baffled by "the endless stupidity that spews from the radical right" minority that has captured the Republican Party. When someone points out a new series of "talking points" that show up one after another, what is the response? The response is typically like yours, T_J. It has nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with attacking and belittling the intelligence of whoever disagrees with the narrow mindset that prevails among the Republican Leadership and their supporters. Supporters who are a minority in their own party, which, again, has been captured by a small group of wealthy right wing/religious fundamentalists who have ... to their credit... done this dispite the fact that the Republican Party is made up of conservative, middle-of-the-road Americans who don't share those beliefs. And this will come back to bite the GOP. That time will come. I find your complaint of "personal attacks" especially amusing. You don't hesitate to call moderate Democrats part of a "left-wing radical liberal fringe" group when they are nothing of the sort. If you fling your own assaults about at the drop of a hat, don't be surprised if some find it offensive. I certainly do.
Just thought I'd point this out. We all come from differing perspectives about this war, and there are those of us who cand and do try and see the truth where uit leas. There are others who somehow see what they want where they want, and probably always will. Case in point; for those of you who read this thread, this is Trader_Jorge's assesment of how the discussion unfolded... " SWTsig-- Not really sure who you are, maybe you're new or something... I don't think you understand what took place between me and MacBeth. In the GOP Talking Points thread, I gave MacBeth a dose of his own medicine, by completely shouting him down on the issue of why we went to war. I closed the case and walked away victorious. He could not accept that. So, after I was done for the day, he spent about 4 hours attempting to save face by posting numerous longwinded, rambling rants about who knows what (I sure didn't read them). He also spent some time attacking me personally and cursing. Very sad. It's all an elaborate attempt for him to reconvince himself that he is the smartest poster on this BBS after a very embarrassing display. I hope that in his mind that was time well spent." Hope it entertains and baffles you as much as I...
*bump* Purpose of bump...T_J still claims that his version of this thread is accurate, and he feels that my last post was an appeal for those who agree with me about his delusion to come out and say so. Intention was and is to reveal his claims and the actuality at the same time, so that we can all see T_J for what he is.
