by Simon 865 Replies latest social current
question to all native english speakers....what does [sic] stand for?
It is Latin for "so" or "thus." As the Oxford dictionary says, "The word sic is placed in brackets after a word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original."
okay
This George Bush guy? He's running for re-election. Credibility is an issue. If he was lying about WMD he would have saved his own ass immediately and covered that lie and WMD would have been "discovered" having been planted to facilitate that lie.
That hasn't happened. He's still running for re-election. Credibility is still an issue.
hmmmm
But instead of seeing something that simple we can go off in this direction or that and re-hash a bunch of stuff already discussed to death and attack each other personally. That still doesn't change a thing.
If it had been a lie the lie would have been covered up already. CYA.
XW
dubla.
I have already said what I think and you have chosen to ignore things and try and change the subject to distract attention.
A quick recap: I say that the US government told us they knew that Iraq had WoMD and that they knew this for a fact because they knew where they were (in fact, how else could they claim to have positive proof?)
Note that these do not say suspected:
You can claim what you want, but that is what the UN and the world were told.
Now, you are claiming that the evidence they showed was that things had been destroyed ... but how could this be proof that they had WoMD? Are you saying that the US government is really that dumb?
"We give as proof that Iraq has not destroyed their WoMD, evidence that they have"
No, the whole reason Powell was at the UN with his slide projector was to try and convince the world that Iraq was an immediate threat. This was because they have no legal basis for invading another country unless they are first attacked / invaded or there is an imminent threat.
Now, they have stretched that out to some indefinite timescale and claimed that Iraq could be a threat in the future. Shakey ground and you know it. They know it too and it will come back and bite the world on it's ass.
Do you, or do you not agree that the proof that the US gave of Iraq having WoMD was bogus and fabricated?
Think carefully, if you think they gave proof then explain why they cannot produce the hard evidence now. If you think they didn't ... then why did they use it as an excuse to go to war?
Now, I have neither the time or the inclination to waste my time trying to debate with someone who will not accept or comprehend the basic facts and logic of an argument and instead tries to twist the conversation onto another topic.
"A quick recap: I say that the US government told us they knew that Iraq had WoMD and that they knew this for a fact because they knew where they were (in fact, how else could they claim to have positive proof?)
Do you, or do you not agree that the proof that the US gave of Iraq having WoMD was bogus and fabricated?
Think carefully, if you think they gave proof then explain why they cannot produce the hard evidence now. If you think they didn't ... then why did they use it as an excuse to go to war?"
Simon I wish I would have said this a weeks ago and saved the hard feelings. You really make the case as to why so many Americans simply say your question and demands do not matter, that they are irrelevant. I'm sorry you can't understand that. Go fishing, it helps me. With your last sentence I just nodded. I agree and end it with that.
Jayson
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BACK TO THE TOP TERRORISM PROJECT HOME LINKS CDI HOME
simon-
thank you for your response, even if overdue....i appreciate your answer. im sorry that you think ive tried to twist the argument on to another topic.....that has never been my intention. it has always been my intention to discuss wmd, which i thought was your intention as well....if you read back over my posts to you, i think youll find that they all center on wmd. the main point i was making was and still is that the u.s. never claimed to know exactly where wmd were....if they knew exact whereabouts, the inspectors wouldve found them long before the war, this is simple logic.
I have already said what I think and you have chosen to ignore things and try and change the subject to distract attention.
again, its okay to make a claim, but you have to back it up simon......please show me where ive ever tried to divert this conversation away from the subject matter, namely wmd, and whether or not they are in iraq.
A quick recap: I say that the US government told us they knew that Iraq had WoMD and that they knew this for a fact because they knew where they were (in fact, how else could they claim to have positive proof?)
and it is still very obvious to me after reading your links, that the u.s. never claimed to know the exact whereabouts while going to war. question simon: if the u.s. wouldve known the exact locations as you claim, and if this was supposedly public knowledge (that they claimed to have the coordinates)....why wouldnt they have simply targeted these locations during the war? wouldnt this have been an easy target? with all the questioning and skeptism from the "war experts", why didnt any of these experts question the decision to avoid the known wmd sites during air raids? the answer, as i see it plain and clear, is that they didnt have coordinates for confirmed sites, only suspected sites.
Note that these do not say suspected:
do you ignore the words given after that picture was displayed? do you simply think no one else will care what powell said after that picture? here was his words (again, bold/italic mine):
Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji. This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapons shells.
Here you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.
How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions. The arrow at the top that says "security" points to a facility that is a signature item for this kind of bunker. Inside that facility are special guards and special equipment to monitor any leakage that might come out of the bunker. The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong. This is characteristic of those four bunkers. The special security facility and the decontamination vehicle will be in the area, if not at any one of them or one of the other, it is moving around those four and it moves as needed to move as people are working in the different bunkers.
Now look at the picture on the right. You are now looking at two of those sanitized bunkers. The signature vehicles are gone, the tents are gone. It's been cleaned up. And it was done on the 22nd of December as the UN inspection team is arriving, and you can see the inspection vehicles arriving in the lower portion of the picture on the right.
The bunkers are clean when the inspectors get there. They found nothing.
can you not comprehend what a "cleaned up" bunker is? simon, the inspectors were AT THIS SITE, as powell states.....do you think the u.s. would be so stupid to claim there were active wmd at a site where inspectors just were? what would they say, "you guys must have missed the chemical weapons being stored there"..?? no, powell was claiming that taji was a major chemical site that had been "cleaned up". your willful ignorance about this fact is very troubling.
You can claim what you want, but that is what the UN and the world were told.Now, you are claiming that the evidence they showed was that things had been destroyed ... but how could this be proof that they had WoMD? Are you saying that the US government is really that dumb?
"We give as proof that Iraq has not destroyed their WoMD, evidence that they have"
you say im simply claiming this, as if i have no backing.....but all i have done is quoted powell directly. how is that an empty claim? and no i wasnt implying that they destroyed their wmd....only evidence of wmd....big difference. cleaning up a site (moving chemical weapons to another site, bulldozing evidence) is not the same as destroying the actual weapons that were stored there. heres a very simple question, and in order for you to prove your point, it should be very easy for you to answer: what did powell mean by the bold/italic portion of his above quote?
Now, they have stretched that out to some indefinite timescale and claimed that Iraq could be a threat in the future. Shakey ground and you know it.
i honestly havent seen that anywhere.....can you show me a link? i didnt realize anyone was still claiming that iraq could be a threat in the future.....im not sure how they could even claim that, considering the u.s. and u.k. are currently ruling the country.....i would have to agree thats a shaky argument.
Do you, or do you not agree that the proof that the US gave of Iraq having WoMD was bogus and fabricated?
i think that the proof powell gave the u.n. will either prove to be fact or fabrication, depending on what is found or not found in iraq. if nothing matching any of his descriptions turns up, then the entire report will be invalid, imo.
Think carefully, if you think they gave proof then explain why they cannot produce the hard evidence now. If you think they didn't ... then why did they use it as an excuse to go to war?
as far as why they cannot produce hard evidence "now", ive already stated my stance on that several times, and youve ignored it every time. the last link i provided said that 60 major sites had been searched out of 700.......time will show whether the evidence is there or not. one conservative estimate had the search lasting until september. obviously this wont be quick enough for the skeptics, but either the evidence will be found, or it wont....and one of us will inevitably be proven right in our opinion. ive stated and re-stated that if no hard evidence is found, i will be seriously questioning the motives for this war. you are unable or unwilling to say the same for your side of the coin, namely that if evidence is found, you will re-think your skeptism. will you?
Now, I have neither the time or the inclination to waste my time trying to debate with someone who will not accept or comprehend the basic facts and logic of an argument
another empty claim, and i again must ask: where is your backing? what "basic facts" have i ignored? are they "facts" simply because you label them as such? i find this insulting, especially with the numerous times youve ignored key points in my arguments.....who has really done the ignoring? should i produce a list of my points that youve completely ignored? its a long list simon. you have accused me of picking points out of your posts to argue, while ignoring the rest.....but do you engage in this tactic? do you only respond to what you deem is valid? is that how a rational discussion works?
aa
Do you, or do you not agree that the proof that the US gave of Iraq having WoMD was bogus and fabricated?i think that the proof powell gave the u.n. will either prove to be fact or fabrication, depending on what is found or not found in iraq. if nothing matching any of his descriptions turns up, then the entire report will be invalid, imo.
Well now, this is interesting. Basically, what you are saying is the "proof" will turn out to be fact or fabrication depending on what is found or not found.
I'm sorry, but THIS IS NOT WHAT EVIDENCE IS. Evidence is incontrovertible PROOF and this is NOT what has been presented but it is what is has been present as. ie. they have told us they have evidence and proof when they do not and we have gone to war over this.
What you are describing here is more 'wishful thinking':
"we hope that WoMD are found in Iraq because it will mean the excuse we put forward for going to war worked and we are not embarassed politically."
QED: They lied.
Think carefully, if you think they gave proof then explain why they cannot produce the hard evidence now. If you think they didn't ... then why did they use it as an excuse to go to war?as far as why they cannot produce hard evidence "now", ive already stated my stance on that several times, and youve ignored it every time. the last link i provided said that 60 major sites had been searched out of 700.......time will show whether the evidence is there or not. one conservative estimate had the search lasting until september. obviously this wont be quick enough for the skeptics, but either the evidence will be found, or it wont....and one of us will inevitably be proven right in our opinion. ive stated and re-stated that if no hard evidence is found, i will be seriously questioning the motives for this war. you are unable or unwilling to say the same for your side of the coin, namely that if evidence is found, you will re-think your skeptism. will you?
If they find WoMD it will not alter the fact that the 'evidence' they claimed they had was fabricated.
I think it would be good politically and for stability if WoMD are found and are verified independently (ie. by UN inspectors for instance) as it will go some way to deflecting the animosity that will build up towards the west and the US / UK in particular.
I'd love to know how many resources they have allocated to finding these WoMD. I wonder if the yare just enough to appear that they believe some could be found (and worth searching for) as they can't really not look (even if they know they are not there). Funny that the main reason for the war (one of the ever changing ones) was that they needed to stop WoMD falling into the hands of terrorists ... yet now, little priority seems to go into searching for them. Likewise, humanitarian assistance seems to be poorly thought out and unplanned with little real zeal for it.
If WoMD were oil, I suspect they would have found them by now.
simon-
Well now, this is interesting. Basically, what you are saying is the "proof" will turn out to be fact or fabrication depending on what is found or not found.
I'm sorry, but THIS IS NOT WHAT EVIDENCE IS. Evidence is incontrovertible PROOF and this is NOT what has been presented but it is what is has been present as. ie. they have told us they have evidence and proof when they do not and we have gone to war over this.
What you are describing here is more 'wishful thinking':
"we hope that WoMD are found in Iraq because it will mean the excuse we put forward for going to war worked and we are not embarassed politically."
QED: They lied.
you are misunderstanding what i meant by my statement. let me clairfy.......i cannot form a definitive opinion on powells evidence until he proves it to me with the goods in iraq. the "proof" will turn out to be fact or fabrication IN MY MIND.....IN MY OPINION. thats the big difference between you and i.....im willing to leave the jury out on the issue, whereas youve already convicted the defendant.
i would also take issue with your definition of "evidence".....is every piece of evidence incontrovertible proof?
dictionary.com says:
evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place.
when someone presents something as "evidence" in the courtroom, is it not in the jurys hands to decide if it was actually impossible to dispute (incontrovertible) that the evidence proves a certain crime?
to explain further, imagine you and i are the jury.......yes there is evidence that bunkers were cleaned up a day before inspectors arrived....but cleaned up of what? i suppose if they find large chemical vats, we could then assume thats what they were "cleaning up", couldnt we? did powell say, "look at this drum of chemicals.....we can test the photograph in the lab and prove its contents"? no, he made the case that there were chemical weapons in those sites, but obviously he couldnt prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt without hard evidence on the ground......surely you can understand this line of thinking..? of course if he could have proved it beyond any doubt, there wouldnt have been any countries opposing the war, now would there? its pretty simple logic to me, but i think you complicate it and twist it in order to fit your predetermined opinions on the issue.
If they find WoMD it will not alter the fact that the 'evidence' they claimed they had was fabricated.
i disagree.....if trucks are found matching the exact description powell gave of mobile bio-labs, and they are determined without a doubt to be these mobile labs, how could you possibly say powells description was "fabricated"? this is very close minded thinking on your part....it shows your complete lack of objectivity.
I think it would be good politically and for stability if WoMD are found and are verified independently (ie. by UN inspectors for instance) as it will go some way to deflecting the animosity that will build up towards the west and the US / UK in particular.
I'd love to know how many resources they have allocated to finding these WoMD. I wonder if the yare just enough to appear that they believe some could be found (and worth searching for) as they can't really not look (even if they know they are not there). Funny that the main reason for the war (one of the ever changing ones) was that they needed to stop WoMD falling into the hands of terrorists ... yet now, little priority seems to go into searching for them. Likewise, humanitarian assistance seems to be poorly thought out and unplanned with little real zeal for it.
If WoMD were oil, I suspect they would have found them by now.
there are considerable resources allocated to finding the weapons (i know weve sent at least two thousand additional experts over since the war ended alone).........in addition to the three million other tasks that have to be cared for in iraq. we lost another chopper, maybe you heard.....yes there are still operations going on, and soldiers are still in danger.......every soldier doesnt have the freedom to roam around all day searching for a needle in a haystack....thats why much of the searching comes from defector tips at this point, in order to minimize wasted resources. you say there is "little priority" in the search, but this is only an empty statement, with absolutely zero backing, as the majority of your opinions are. in discussions, it helps to back your opinions with facts, numbers, etc......it adds credibility....just a tip.
btw, thank you for once again ignoring any and all tough questions that i posed. ill keep pointing out that you completely ignore anything you dont have an answer for......you remind me of youknow in that way. again, arent you the one who called me to the mat for only answering portions of your posts? how is what you do any different?
aa
Why don't you ask yourself this, would this "proof" hold up in a US Court of law. LOL
t h-
well, considering the o.j. case, im not sure what it takes to get a conviction in a u.s. court of law........ apparently a whole lot more than solid evidence though.
aa
