Quagmire?

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by clocker
Now I'm confused.
Echidna did ask for a response to a fairly inflammatory article, and, when provided, you want to jump on the repondees for being too touchy?

What did you expect, exactly?

You quoted me but I dont think you read what I said. My quote answered the question you asked immediately afterwards.

I dont consider the article to be inflammatory at all. The author criticises my Gvt as well and I can respond without getting 'touchy'. This is what Im talking about when I highlighted the difference between the average US citizens response to criticism of their Gvt and your average UK citizens response.

Getting 'touchy' is usually a substitute for not being able to produce a valid argument to counter the other persons point.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@1 July 2003 - 21:30
A mans religion, nationality and ethnic backround should have no bearing on the validity of his arguments. They are either right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false. I dont see how bringing personal issues into it will clarify the debate...

On the contrary, knowing such things allows an understanding (or, in some instances, a recognition) of which bias one possesses, in order to take it into consideration with the arguments that are being presented. Although, it is unfortunate that to you everything is either right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false.

Agent orange may be the only facts here, and I mean maybe.

Once again, on the contrary. I was going to find some relevant portions from a National Geographic issued last year, which came complete with some rather gruesome pictures, but I have yet to find it. It did go into detail about the aftermath of using Agent Orange in Vietnam. Unfortunately, I've National Geographics dating back to 1960, and I haven't catalogued them by year yet. It may be a while.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The signatories, by signing 1441, vouched their belief Saddam possessed WMD, which was my point.

EBP-I assume you can verify this without my help.[/b]

So how do you explain the need for inspections then? Belief and proof are 2 different things. You also referred to it as FACT not a belief in your previous post. You cant have it both ways.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>One need not be too generous in parsing my last post to grant this; I mentioned nothing about the use of military force, the use for which burden, I&#39;m sure, the U.S. consents to bear.[/b]

You did mention the use of military force.

Originally posted by j2k4

Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

Fact? Belief? The need for inspections as stated in 1441? This is all getting rather mixed up isnt it?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
I hereby exculpate Tony Blair.[/quote]

Errm Im sure Mr Blair is pleased you have cleared him of any blame...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Please do not draw any conclusion as to the balkiness of my posting; the board it giving me trouble-although I suppose even that is open to question, yes?[/quote]

No.. the board seems rather sluggish for me as well... I cant recall criticising your balkiness or accusing you of lying about the responsiveness of the board at your end.

I think you need to take a step back and breath for a couple of seconds friend. I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for saying this but your posts seem a bit well weird at the moment. I mean the parts that dont refer to the Iraq conflict.

[hobbes]

EPB:

A mans religion, nationality and ethnic backround should have no bearing on the validity of his arguments. They are either right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false. I dont see how bringing personal issues into it will clarify the debate. I also dont see anyones posts changing wildly from day to day so I cant understand why you expect echidna&#39;s to change. If they did he would probably be accused of inconsistency and not knowing his own mind.



It seems to me that you guys insist on justifying every little fart. I can only assume that conceding even the most elementary point constitutes treason.

Being upfront about ones potential biases gives the reader an context in which to "couch" a post. If Echidna were a Catholic priest in Boston versus a member of the Taliban in Germany, I think we would view his posts a little differently.

I was rather disappointed when Harvard refused to give me an honorary degree. I explained to them that I was a super-genius and I had a note right there in my pocket from my Mother to prove it&#33;


As to the truth, who defines it. I see it more as observing a "situation", couching in the context of your life experiences, and creating your reality out of the situation.
A person who has been abused all his life will cower at the sight of a raised palm, fearing a slap, while another may view this a same gesture as a friendly greeting. So the "truth" is in the intent of the person raising his hand, and the perception created by the viewer.


So, most of the time we are dealing with perceptions and not truths. That is, in fact, why i post here. The more perspectives I can relate to, or understand, the more likely I am to find common ground with an individual.
That is why I think that certain information is relevant here. It all goes back to what is right, not who is right. The road to truth is paved by credibility, I am often wrong, but I never deceive.



I take great offense at being classed as a defender of farts. I have a long history here of being the skeptical observer and have been openly critical of my government dating back to "Who cares about the Iraqi people".

The difference, really, is that Echidna simply does one thing, post anti-American threads. S&A feels attacked and defends. After all, the article posted was rather blistering.

How would you like to come here everyday and find a sparkling clean pro-America post with "we&#39;re #1" to finish each thread. First, it would irritate you due to it&#39;s lack of objectivity, then you would get frustrated because I just keep &#39;em coming. You would say, "Alright, already Hobbes, we get your perspective, do you have anything else you can talk about?"



I am aware of the authors reputation, but my opinion stands. That article was written to inflame, not inform.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+1 July 2003 - 17:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 1 July 2003 - 17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The signatories, by signing 1441, vouched their belief Saddam possessed WMD, which was my point.

EBP-I assume you can verify this without my help.[/b]

So how do you explain the need for inspections then? Belief and proof are 2 different things. You also referred to it as FACT not a belief in your previous post. You cant have it both ways.

Originally posted by j2k4
One need not be too generous in parsing my last post to grant this; I mentioned nothing about the use of military force, the use for which burden, I&#39;m sure, the U.S. consents to bear.

You did mention the use of military force.

Originally posted by j2k4

Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

Fact? Belief? The need for inspections as stated in 1441? This is all getting rather mixed up isnt it?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
I hereby exculpate Tony Blair.

Errm Im sure Mr Blair is pleased you have cleared him of any blame...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Please do not draw any conclusion as to the balkiness of my posting; the board it giving me trouble-although I suppose even that is open to question, yes?[/quote]

No.. the board seems rather sluggish for me as well... I cant recall criticising your balkiness or accusing you of lying about the responsiveness of the board at your end.

I think you need to take a step back and breath for a couple of seconds friend. I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for saying this but your posts seem a bit well weird at the moment. I mean the parts that dont refer to the Iraq conflict.[/b][/quote]
QUOTE (j2k4)
The signatories, by signing 1441, vouched their belief Saddam possessed WMD, which was my point.

EBP-I assume you can verify this without my help.



So how do you explain the need for inspections then? Belief and proof are 2 different things. You also referred to it as FACT not a belief in your previous post. You cant have it both ways.
Read this very carefully: THE SIGNATORIES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR HAVING SIGNED RES. 1441, VOUCHSAFED THEIR BELIEF IRAQ HAD WMD. I am not attempting to have it two ways.


QUOTE (j2k4)
One need not be too generous in parsing my last post to grant this; I mentioned nothing about the use of military force, the use for which burden, I&#39;m sure, the U.S. consents to bear.



You did mention the use of military force.
Only as it related to the U.S. and U.K.-no matter how hard you try, you cannot twist my meaning to construe it to include the Security Council at large.

QUOTE (j2k4)

Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.



Fact? Belief? The need for inspections as stated in 1441? This is all getting rather mixed up isnt it?
See above.

QUOTE (j2k4)
I hereby exculpate Tony Blair.



Errm Im sure Mr Blair is pleased you have cleared him of any blame...
No reason he should bear our guilt; after all, we played him for a sucker.

QUOTE (j2k4)
Please do not draw any conclusion as to the balkiness of my posting; the board it giving me trouble-although I suppose even that is open to question, yes?



No.. the board seems rather sluggish for me as well... I cant recall criticising your balkiness or accusing you of lying about the responsiveness of the board at your end.
Actually, that was sarcasm, how could you, of all people, miss that?
I think you need to take a step back and breath for a couple of seconds friend. I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for saying this but your posts seem a bit well weird at the moment. I mean the parts that dont refer to the Iraq conflict.

Unlike you, I am only weird on purpose.

[slaphappy]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2003 - 21:25
Saddam could easily have hidden his WMD in such a way as to render them almost impossible to find ... he could be moving about right now with substantial amounts of precurser materials in powdered form (he had this ability also). He could even be using them as a perverted currency to procure accomodations.

This all sounds a like vague conjecture - "could" etc.

Do you seriously mean that the US with all its resources (special forces, technology, satellite imagery, information &#39;extracted&#39; from detainees at Guantanamo and Bagram airfield etc.) cannot find these WMDs if they exist?

Do you really mean that Saddam is still so influential that he has the power organisation to move these things around and trade in them? And all under the noses of the US coalition? If the answer is &#39;yes&#39; then it would appear the the US coalition is nowhere near as in control as it has been saying.

Of course, the other simpler explanation is that the WMDs do not exist. Nor did they when the bombs started falling onto Baghdad.

Slappy.

[evilbagpuss]

j2k4.... your all over the place..

Your original post stated that there was enough evidence to invade Iraq based on 1441. Now... well now I just cant see where your going at all.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Read this very carefully: THE SIGNATORIES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR HAVING SIGNED RES. 1441, VOUCHSAFED THEIR BELIEF IRAQ HAD WMD. I am not attempting to have it two ways.[/b]

Yes but belief isnt enough to invade. They wanted proof which is why 1441 called for more inspections. And you are trying to have it both ways. Fact or belief at the time of 1441? Make your mind up.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Only as it related to the U.S. and U.K.-no matter how hard you try, you cannot twist my meaning to construe it to include the Security Council at large.
[/b]

Look at your original post. Note the bit in capitals.Your twisting your own words.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

At least, fact to the extent supportable by Saddam&#39;s own statements, AND in the opinions of the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that most beloved and reliable of international institutions, in which resides the confidence of the WHOLE WORLD (except the U.S.).
[/quote]

Your main point is related to the Security Council at large. You&#39;ve lost your way through the flames my friend.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Unlike you, I am only weird on purpose. [/quote]

Go on show us your true colours You always start off like Mr Civilized but you can rarely keep it up for more than 5 posts. Wipe the froth from your mouth, put down that can of beer, sober up and come back in a few hours time.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by slaphappy@1 July 2003 - 18:29

Do you seriously mean that the US with all its resources (special forces, technology, satellite imagery, information &#39;extracted&#39; from detainees at Guantanamo and Bagram airfield etc.) cannot find these WMDs if they exist?

Do you really mean that Saddam is still so influential that he has the power organisation to move these things around and trade in them?&nbsp; And all under the noses of the US coalition? If the answer is &#39;yes&#39; then it would appear the the US coalition is nowhere near as in control as it has been saying.

Of course, the other simpler explanation is that the WMDs do not exist. Nor did they when the bombs started falling onto Baghdad.

Slappy.

Yes, I seriously mean that, AND:

There is no doubt Saddam still has influence in an area (the mideast) which still, by and large favors him over the U.S.

If you had read my earlier post, you would have noted my point that the entire Security council was convinced Saddam had WMD; are they now "admitting" they were in error, as you insist the U.S. is?

Clear enough?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+1 July 2003 - 18:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 1 July 2003 - 18:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>j2k4.... your all over the place..

Your original post stated that there was enough evidence to invade Iraq based on 1441. Now... well now I just cant see where your going at all.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Read this very carefully: THE SIGNATORIES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR HAVING SIGNED RES. 1441, VOUCHSAFED THEIR BELIEF IRAQ HAD WMD. I am not attempting to have it two ways.[/b]

Yes but belief isnt enough to invade. They wanted proof which is why 1441 called for more inspections. And you are trying to have it both ways. Fact or belief at the time of 1441? Make your mind up.

Originally posted by j2k4
Only as it related to the U.S. and U.K.-no matter how hard you try, you cannot twist my meaning to construe it to include the Security Council at large.

Look at your original post. Note the bit in capitals.Your twisting your own words.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

At least, fact to the extent supportable by Saddam&#39;s own statements, AND in the opinions of the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that most beloved and reliable of international institutions, in which resides the confidence of the WHOLE WORLD (except the U.S.).

Your main point is related to the Security Council at large. You&#39;ve lost your way through the flames my friend.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Unlike you, I am only weird on purpose. [/quote]

Go on show us your true colours You always start off like Mr Civilized but you can rarely keep it up for more than 5 posts. Wipe the froth from your mouth, put down that can of beer, sober up and come back in a few hours time.[/b][/quote]
j2k4.... your all over the place..

Just following you, pal.

Your original post stated that there was enough evidence to invade Iraq based on 1441. Now... well now I just cant see where your going at all.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Read this very carefully: THE SIGNATORIES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR HAVING SIGNED RES. 1441, VOUCHSAFED THEIR BELIEF IRAQ HAD WMD. I am not attempting to have it two ways.



Yes but belief isnt enough to invade. They wanted proof which is why 1441 called for more inspections. And you are trying to have it both ways. Fact or belief at the time of 1441? Make your mind up.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Only as it related to the U.S. and U.K.-no matter how hard you try, you cannot twist my meaning to construe it to include the Security Council at large.




Look at your original post. Note the bit in capitals.Your twisting your own words.

Wrong again. The capitalized section you reference does not contain the words "military" or "invade/invasion"; what ARE you reading?


QUOTE (j2k4)
Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

At least, fact to the extent supportable by Saddam&#39;s own statements, AND in the opinions of the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that most beloved and reliable of international institutions, in which resides the confidence of the WHOLE WORLD (except the U.S.).




Your main point is related to the Security Council at large. You&#39;ve lost your way through the flames my friend.

Take the liberties you will, EBP, but I choose the main points in my threads, NOT you.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Unlike you, I am only weird on purpose.



Go on show us your true colours You always start off like Mr Civilized but you can rarely keep it up for more than 5 posts. Wipe the froth from your mouth, put down that can of beer, sober up and come back in a few hours time.

I am sober as a judge. I have a proposal, EBP-it is your contention that my posts lack clarity and reason; that I obfuscate my "true" leanings, am inconsistant- that I am uncivilized, yes?

If this is so, please post separately in the affirmative.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wrong again. The capitalized section you reference does not contain the words "military" or "invade/invasion"; what ARE you reading?
[/b]

No but its justifying military action isnt it? Or is it? Have a look and tell me what you think.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

At least, fact to the extent supportable by Saddam&#39;s own statements, AND in the opinions of the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that most beloved and reliable of international institutions, in which resides the confidence of the WHOLE WORLD (except the U.S.).[/quote]

ahh yes there it is "Bush and Blair took us to war based on the FACT Saddam had WMD." and you then go on to justify that "fact" with the opinions of the security council.

wheeee&#33;&#33; And now we come round full circle again&#33;

The security council clearly wasnt convinced enough as they called for more inspections and wouldnt make explicit the threat of invasion in 1441.

I would answer the rest of your post but I&#39;ve allowed you to muddy the waters enough already. Lets stick to this and see if we can convert this flaming session into an intelligent discussion again.