1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A funny thing happened while reading a UN resolution...

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Halfsek, Oct 22, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Funny, its the liberals who claim to be open minded - but resort to name calling when confronted with truth.
     
  2. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    HGL can't and he knows it.
     
  3. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Happy, you're a work of art.
    I simply copy and paste from a UN resolution, and you accuse me of twisting.
    This, of course, is after you were utterly wrong regarding the date of this resolution.

    My favorite part is when you call the security resoluion, "irrelevant and meaningless material".

    You claimed once that you were a debate champion, yet even your sig says that requests for proof are "obnoxious".
    That's nice.

    So your statement that the whole word knew that Saddam didn't have WMD's in 2003 is just your opinion, right? There really is no fact behind that.

    It's been a while, but I finally get to see Happy in action using tactic #1- Bush's fault, and tactic #3- deflecting away facts which you do not like.

    Fact:
    In 2002 the United Nations said that Iraq had WMD's and had kicked out inspectors.

    Opinion:
    The world knew that Saddam had no WMD's in 2003.

    You do nothing to dispute easily verifiable facts except call them meaningless, blame Bush and accuse me of twisting.
     
  4. olgeezer

    olgeezer Guest

    1,833
    0
    Dec 5, 2003
    Getting back to the more meaningful topic of french kissing and french fries. To show how open minded i now am i will hence forth call American fried potatoes by their real name German fried potatoes and the frogs are horny folks --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    French Kiss
    A French kiss is an open-mouthed kiss in which the tongue of one partner is manipulated by the tongue of the other. But what makes this French?

    The specific origin is unknown. It dates from at least the 1920s.

    It is, however, certainly derived from the idea that the French people are sexually liberated or even promiscuous. Similar phrases include, "pardon my French," the French way (i.e., oral sex), French postcards (pornographic pictures), French pox (syphilis; ironically in France it is sometimes called the "English disease"), and French letter (a condom).
     
  5. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Guess what? The inspectors were IN IRAQ days before Bush invaded. They knew, and told the world, that there were no WMDs. Let's see, when was that? In 2003, perhaps? Much more recent information than your 2002 resolution.

    Face it. You're wrong. So very wrong.
    I don't have to do anything, your errors are self-evident. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. You provide outdated 2002 material that was already outdated before Bush invaded Iraq.

    Another point I find humorous is that Bushies will use U.N. material and statements when it suits them, but then deride and denounce the U.N. with every other breath. Such hypocrites.
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Of course. :angel:

    Stop by for communion anytime. :)
     
  7. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    So let me get this straight. In 10 years of inspections, the inspectors couldn't prove that Iraq didn't have WMD's.
    But suddenly, in the span of a year or less they knew there were no WMD's.

    It is this gullibleness in which Hussein was banking on when he suddenly started playing nice after seeing how serious Bush was.

    Keep it up. This is great. Bush invaded Iraq based on one year old out dated information. Of course you desregard the fact that the buildup took about 18 months before the actual invasion. But that's a petty little fact, who cares about that?

    I do denounce the UN. But since you put so much faith into the organization, I thought that their words might do a little to persuade you. My feelings regarding our invasion really arent affected by what the UN says.
    But apparently the words of the UN, which were used to begin the buildup of the invasion aren't good enough for you.

    So, following Happy logic, I should make the following argument:

    The UN lied. And it is this lie which is getting our kids killed in Iraq.

    What I find interesting is how your tactics shift from post to post...

    First you shoot from the hip:
    Then, after being proven monumentally wrong, you change tactics and steer the argument towards me:
    Bearing in mind that you haven't actually shown any proof on your side. But that's explained because you think proof is irrelavent.

    Then in a last gasp effort, you lose control of all logic and come up with this gem:

    And finally, you top it off with a personal insult, which, interstingly enough seems to describe exactly what you're doing:

    The evolution of a Happy argument.
    Sling whatever comes to mind.
    Personal attacks.
    Lose logic.
    Personal attack.

    You like the UN, Happy. Yet when the words of the UN are shown to prove you wrong, you deride the UN as meaningless.

    That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
     
  8. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    The world is still waiting for the proof Bush claimed to have had. You can dig and twist and spin all you like, everyone with a brain cell that isn't clouded by neocon-koolaid knows Bush lied and Iraq is a monumental catastrophe. I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but the rest of us don't need your documents and irrelevant memos to see what is plainly evident. The reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq were a lie. After the invasion, when the lies were clearly evident, THEN the Bushies frantically start digging for other viable, and not-so-viable, reasons to justify what they'd done. And people like you simply buy into the spin like lemmings. Be careful of that next step, it's a long way down off that cliff.
    :sure:
     
  9. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Just in case you missed it the four other times I posted it:

    Resolution 1441, passed in 2002 said that Saddam had WMD's. It also said that Saddam had kicked out all inspectors since 1998.

    These are the words of the French, Germans, Russians, and the other merry members of the UN Security council.

    You deflect and attack and accuse. But you never specifically respond to the main point of this thread. As late as 2002, the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's.

    I can only imagine if this situation was reversed:

    Bizzaro world:

    UN resoution 1441 states that Iraq has successfully dismantled it's WMD program and has allowed for free elections. It also states that Iraq is well on it's way to joining the world community as it's newest democracy
    One year later, George Bush invades.

    2004 rolls around. Even though Halfsek (who loves the UN) knows what 1441 says, he claims that the direct quoting of this resolution is in fact, spin. It's all a lie and is irrelevent information. He knows, in his heart, in his mind, that the UN was either wrong or lying when it said that Iraq didn't have WMD's. And since Halfsek get's to set the rules, he can say anything he wants without the fear of actually having to prove it.
    He refers to inspectors who were saying that Saddam did have WMD's in 20003. And he clings to that "fact" while blinding himself to all others.

    In Halfseks's mind, every other resolution is good, but the one which specifically proves him wrong is useless drivel.

    Your problem, Happy, okay, one of your problems, is that you're so willing to prove Bush wrong on everything, that you'll grab any tiny example to try to prove your point; all the while totally overlooking major facts such as UN security council resolutions.
     
  10. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    It doesn't matter how many times you post it, the facts are still the same: Bush deceived the American people and the rest of the world. The reasons Bush gave for invasion proved false and it is only after the fact that those reasons have been manipulated to better suit the findings. People like you continue to dig and produce anything you can possibly use to excuse the actions of Bush, but you're too little, too late.

    Are you living in a cave? The rest of the world has moved on already, even a majority of those who say they still support Bush believe that the invasion of Iraq was wrong and that the information given by the Bush administration was misleading at best.

    It doesn't matter what the U.N. said in 2002. It doesn't matter what Clinton did or didn't do. Bush is the one who wrongly invaded Iraq in 2003 even though the best information AT THAT TIME suggested that was wrong.

    You can continue to beat a dead horse all you want, but I see no point in correcting you any more if you're just going to spew the same meaningless drivel. Yeah, you believe Bush and support everything he does as a commandment from God. So be it. Just realize that there ARE a vast number of people like me who know otherwise.
     
  11. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Exactly.
    It doesn't fit with your desire to blame Bush for everything and accuse him of lying.
     
  12. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Halfsek, who do you think was supplying the "intelligence" (I use the term loosely and in a generic way) to the rest of the world that convinced them that Iraq had WMDs? We did, we convinced them that Iraq had WMDs, and now you want Bush to be excused because we convinced them with lousy information. :lol:
     
  13. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Sorry, but I don't buy that theory. Sure, the US presented their case. But I doubt they share a lot of their intelligence data with foriegn governments, many of whom are hostile to the best interests of the US. Add to that a host of international observers watching Iraq, refusal to honor long standing UN resolutions which certainly made Iraq look guilty, ... And Iraq/Hussein are not innocent - its clear they have had chemical weapons in the past AND USED THEM! They don't let you perform proper checks, they've had them in the past, they're not afraid to use them, they have missiles which can carry these warheads beyond their borders,... you start highly suspicious. Even if you can somehow successfully argue that US intelligence drove this conclusion - Tenet was CIA director for BOTH Clinton and Bush. This is not something that gets dreamed up by the president and somehow magically materializes in documented testimony. These are career professionals, probably a mix of democrat and republican. Add to that Great Britain reached the same conclusion from its intelligence sourses and there was data from an Iraqi defector that Saddam was looking to build nukes, it was deemed a credible threat. You may in hindsight question the validity of that intelligence, but you cannot lay it at the doorstep of Bush solely. Even Clinton himself have said he believed Iraq had WMD up until the fall of Hussein. (perhaps you are questioning the former presidents ability to tell the truth then?? :D )
     
  14. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    No, I am questioning the validity of the intelligence, and the interpretation of that intelligence. And just when was it that Clinton acted on that intelligence to invade Iraq?
     
  15. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Bogy, please.
    Help me figure this out.

    I get Happy on one end telling me that the whole world knew that Iraq didn't have WMD's. I assume due to their intelligence.

    I have you on the other end telling me that the whole world didn't have any intelligence since they had to use US provided intelligence on Iraq.

    Which is it?

    Do you expect me to believe that the whole security council chucked everything they knew about Iraq just so they could vote on 1441 in favor of the US?

    Remember, the whole reason we had inspections is becuase the whole world knew that Iraq had WMD's. If they knew otherwise, there would have been no need for inspections.
     
  16. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Before Bush invaded Iraq there were many people, like Hans Blix, Richard Clark, etc., saying that Iraq had no WMDs. You know, people who had the KNOWLEDGE that there were no WMDs. Bush ignored them because their information did not fit with his agenda.

    The fact that BEFORE HE WAS SWORN IN as president, Bush had people planning an Iraq invasion tells me all I need to know about the lies he and his people are willing to tell to get their way.

    Strangely, you'd think with all that planning, someone in that team would have thought of planning for AFTER the invasion.
     
  17. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,741
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    How exactly did Richard Clark know that there were no WMD's?

    Edit:
    Reading Tommy Frank's book now. Excellent.
    You should read what he has to say about Richard Clark. He didn't say much, but it said a lot.
     
  18. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    You should watch Robert Greenwald's documentary, "Uncovered: The War on Iraq". It is available many places and is being shown on the Sundance Channel.

    Or better yet, go to http://www.truthuncovered.org and find out for yourself.
     
  19. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Halfsek, when in doubt always believe a man of the cloth. :)

    That being said, we had inspectors in Iraq to determine for sure if Iraq had WMDs. They found a few things, but nothing significant. This evidence was leading many to believe there were no WMD's. Yes, we all knew that in the 80's Iraq had WMDs. They used them, and that was well documented. The question was, did they still have them, and the evidence of the inspectors was at that point inconclusive, but nothing significant had been found.

    The U.S. however claimed it had irrefutable proof that Iraq had WMDs, and knew exactly where they were. However, they refused to share this information with the inspectors. Other nations had to make a choice on whether to believe the U.S. when it said they had irrefutable proof. They decided to trust us. France sent a General to confer with our military and to make plans for their participation in the invasion. When he saw the "proof" he evidently was not impressed. Evidently he was better at interpreting the "proof" than our "experts", or at least our administration, who really wanted to believe.

    I am sure that no conservative will remember any of this ever taking place and will ask for proof. :lol: :p :sure:
     
  20. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    I don't normally get involved in political debates, simply because, well, people are generally set to believe what they want to believe. However, there are two issues with Halfsek's original post.

    The full text of resolution 1441 can be found at here, at the United Nations website.

    The title and the resolution sponsors are at the top.
    This was written by the US and UK. Therefore, information fed into this resolution came directly from the US and UK.

    However, even worse is that the phrase Halfsek believes tells everyone Iraq had WMD's is being deconstructed improperly:
    This is not a sentence; it is a phrase. This participial phrase (participial since it starts with the the participle "Recognizing") has one object and two identifiying phrases. If one were to break the phrase out correctly into two pieces, this is the result:
    In order to make the orignal phrase read as interpreted by Halfsek, the phrase should read (the word I've added is in bold):
    The word "and" joins two phrases or clauses. Thank you, School House Rock. :)

    Compound phrases (phrases enjoined by "and") reflect back to the subject of the phrase. The subject of this participial phrase is "the threat". The conjunction "and" simply links the two identifying phrases back to "the threat". The conjunction "and" does not refer both parts of the phrase back to "Iraq's".

    This is the end of the English lesson. We now take you back to your originally scheduled mine-is-better-than-yours fest. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page