What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Non-Compliance

  • #61
ah! ok..so if the defination is inconvenient, (WMD's) just change it to suit your beliefs.

so when you said "and Saddam did not have WMD's"..period.. you get to change the defination of WMD until your defination makes your statement correct.

gotcha..
that explains a lot!

thanks,
Scot
 
  • #62
I was not using "twisted logic" in saying that he did not have WMDs. This has been admitted to in a CIA report authored by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group..

How much of my response did you actually read? It was never MY definition. Glad we could clear that up.

Edit: He didn't have any more of that nerve agent left anyway... that's retroactive punishment, when in fact we said he still had them. So, he had WMDs at one point, sure... But he didn't have them during 9/11. I said he didn't have WMD's. I didn't mean he didn't have WMDs 10+ years ago. That's just retarded. Why would I argue that? Talk about twisted logic.
 
  • #63
Nepenthes and scottychaos,

Either way both sides of the argument are going to biased in some way from something some ones read, heard or watched. Its hard convincing some one who's headstrong about what they beleive in as right.

Which is why I have ended up just not trying to explain to kids who SEEM interested in the way I think things happened cause it always ends up in a stressed out debate. They have the support of more people so they are right, making me the bad guy.
 
  • #64
You're right Nep AK. This will be my last post in this thread. We can sit here and argue semantics all day long but this is the facts of what I said.

(Even though it has been proven the hijackers were not from Iraq, and Saddam did not have WMD's).

Those "WMD's" which you are referring to are the gas nerve agents which were created with the help of a U.S. corporation (who also help him set up factories to produce the chemical). I even mentioned them as you can see in my above quote. I did not regard them as WMDs, however, because we all knew he had used that nerve agent prior to 9/11. When it was said he had WMDs, they were referring to other forms of WMDs, not the ones we had supplied to him, and of which there was no doubt of his posession.
Although this posession was over 10 years ago.
I was not using "twisted logic" in saying that he did not have WMDs. This has been admitted to in a CIA report authored by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

U.S. invasions were not based as retroactive punishment, but as a response to his current posession of WMDs, WHICH WAS FALSE. Twist whatever I say how you want, but the facts are all there.
 
  • #66
I am not going to get into the here there and everywhere of this but in one respect Scott is correct. Saddam did have WMD other than what you are thinking Nep. Saddam was confirmed at one time of having something along the lines of 10 million gallons (I think, it has been some 10 years since it was reported) of Botulism toxin. He also had a long standing record of not allowing UN weapons inspection teams to do their jobs. If you do not have something to hide then you do not keep people from looking.

Scott also makes a good point about how Saddam's regime was given ample warning before anyone started looking for his WMD so it is erroneous to say he did not have them. It is accurate to say none were found when we looked. There is a difference between those conditions

Also, please do consider one other thing that so many people choose to over look when they bring up the WMD issue. It is confirmed that a huge number Class 4 biohazard suits were discovered in Iraq during the invasion. I do not recall the exact number but I seem to remember hearing 50,000. That is a pretty good number, enough to outfit a good portion of an army. And to all those people who would like to argue that just cause he had them does not mean he was going to use them... I say this; you don't buy kleenex to wipe your nose on your sleeve, you don't buy a box of condoms to let them gather dust in the closet.

Now, just to quick address some specifics Nep directed to me:

-4000 vs 3000. Last I heard the confirmed was 3600 and I prefer to round up and over shoot rather than round down and "forget" anyone.

-"war on terrorism". Believe it or not I actually agree with you. I recall getting in a huge fight with my father after hearing Bush make his address to the nation where he said we would fight all nations harboring terrorists. I said that that meant we would be fighting ourselves. Because flat out our nation does harbor terrorists.

-U.S. government as terrorists. I see what you are getting at with your comments but your logic is skewed. Yes, our government did place blockages on Iraq... Under wartime conditions. Yes we bombed Iraq... Under wartime conditions. However, you have to understand that, regardless of whether you personally feel it is right or wrong, actions carried out under a declaration of war are "acts of war" and not "terrorism". By analogy, if a cop is at your residence officially and declares himself and that he is armed before kicking your door in and you pull a gun and he shoots you then you got shot in a "police action" and technically he is in the right. If, however, the cop has no right to be there, and does not declare himself but instead just kicks the door in and starts shooting then he is in the wrong and should be brought up on B&E and assault wit a deadly weapon. There is a difference in the two situations just as there is a difference in the situations you noted.
 
  • #67
Try to rein this in, unless the question of whether or not Iraq had WMDs or was an imminent threat in 2003 is relevant to whether it's acceptable to remain seated during the pledge of allegiance. I think it isn't.
 
  • #68
No its OK, I have the ACLU calling my principal hopefully, I'm also calling the school board.
 
  • #69
Hope that all works out well for you.
 
  • #70
Good luck. If it doesn't work out, consider moving to Massachusetts! j/k
 
  • #71
ACLU asked me some questions, just if Ive been punished or not, or how my track record at school was, and saying they might let the media know.
 
  • #72
No its OK, I have the ACLU calling my principal hopefully, I'm also calling the school board.

i would be careful what you talk about to a school board member outside of a school board meeting......state the basics of the case and ask to be put on the agenda but thats it.........atleast if your laws are anything like Montana's..........otherwise if you call every school board member you have pretty much screwed yourself and opens up the school to be sued by other members of the public....you need to state your whole case during the public meeting infront of the board and the public
 
Back
Top