Re: It all comes full-circle ... WMDs found in Iraq


Bob wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2005 11:12:22 -0700, "David Fritzinger"
> <dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bob wrote:
>
> >>
> >> no. because his numbers are as good as anyone elses. there are no poll
> >> results for fundamentalism in islam.
> >
> >IOW, it's a guess, that you want to believe in. Thanks for the
> >admission.
>
> yep. again..where are your numbers?
>
> oh. you dont have any.

I'm not the one trying to make something of this. You are...
>
> >> my argument in the 1st paragraph was that about 100,000,000 muslims
> >> support bin laden. my argument above is that this hasnt changed due to
> >> iraq.
>
> >But in one case you say there are 100,000,000 Islamists, frothing at
> >the mouth to destroy the west. Then you say that support for the
> >Islamists is decreasing. Which is it?
>
> you cant read, can you? i said there are 100,000,000 fundamentalists
> who support bin laden. a few years ago that number, according to the
> pew poll, was higher.

Yet, when were Pipes numbers derived?
>
> >> the sudan couldnt stop him? really? got proof? because the govt of the
> >> sudan provided al qaida with passports, govt documents and let him
> >> invest in the al shifa VX production plant.
> >>
> >> and libya certainly COULD have stopped him.
> >
> >Did LIbya actually suppolrt al Qaeda? I really don't know.
>
> goalpost moving. libya certainly had terrorist training camps.

Boy, you are defensive, aren't you? I merely asked a question.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> except, of course, the islamists. again, to them afghanistan is the
> >> >> same as iraq.
> >> >
> >> >Evidence for this?
> >>
> >> sigh...do you EVER read anything they write? really?
> >
> >I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. I am talking about the
> >majority of Muslims,while you are talking about supporters of
> >terrorism.
>
> the majority are not terrorist supporters.

Precisely!
>
> >> >> s.
> >>
> >> there are 'warlords' but last year karzai took on the largest with the
> >> afghan army and forced him to concede the authority of the central
> >> govt.
> >
> >Still, Karzai barely controls much of the country. And, the Taliban
> >insurrection is increasing.
>
> no, the taliban insurrection is not increasing. they may be committing
> more acts of terror, but, as noted by a number of people, that's to be
> expected when democracy is headed their way.

Do you have a cite to support your assertion?
>
> and there's no proof that karzai 'barely' controls much of the
> country. it would be nice if his control was more solid, but it's only
> been a year since he was elected.

Everything I've read seems to say that his control over the countryside
is minimal, at best. After all, he hasn't been able to control the
opium poppy production, which the warlords want and he doesn't.
>
> >>
> >> 'other than that, mrs. lincoln, how did you like the play'?
> >>
> >> you're overlooking his historical record in developing WMD's.
> >
> >No I am not. You are overlooking SH's entire record. He did not deal
> >with the Muslim fundies.
>
> gee. that makes me feel ALOT better about his stability and, when he
> died, about that of his sons.
>
> yep. what the HECK was i worried about?
>
> we KNOW dictators are MODELS of stability..rational thought...

And again, your entire argument is a case of "what if". That is not a
good basis to attack other countries.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >They were saying it at the time.
> >>
> >> no, they weren't. they said they needed more time to complete their
> >> investigation.
> >
> >And, they had found no WMD at the time. You seem to forget that. And,
> >SH was cooperating, even destroying missiles that had a range slightly
> >over what was allowed. You seem to forget that as well. Your memory is
> >very convenient, it seems.
>
> and blix and chirac both admitted the only reason he complied was the
> presence of US troops on his border.

And it would have been far cheaper to keep those troops there than have
them invade.
>
>
> >> >
> >> >You trivialize that information only because it goes against your
> >> >argument.
> >>
> >> and you ignore history because it destroys yours.
> >
> >Actually, history supports my argument. You just ignore that part of
> >history.
>
> really? dictators are always rational? always stable?
>
> got any proof?

Again, the "what if" argument. It didn't work before, and it doesn't
work now.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >So do a bunch of other countries. Do you say we should invade them?
> >>
> >> SH was the only one besides korea and iran to actually develop them.
> >
> >And, he had none at the time of the invasion. You conveniently forget
> >that fact.
>
> sigh...and the french said what?

The UN inspectors were saying what?
>
> >> >
> >> >And yet another argument based on "what if...". Sorry, but those
> >> >arguments just don't hold water.
> >>
> >> yeah i know. you'd prefer to wait until a mushroom cloud envelops NYC.
> >> sorry. i'm not gonna feel warm and fuzzy 'cuz you trust hussein.
> >
> >And you lie about what I have said. Why?
>
> because you have faith and confidence that dictators are
> humanitarians.

Damnit, I am tired of you lying about my position. I have stated it
before, and you still lie about it.
>
> >> >And again you use the either attack or ignore choice. You ignore that
> >> >there are things that could be done between those two extremes.
> >>
> >> and those were done over the last 10 years w/o results.
> >
> >No results? Again you are misinformed (I am being kind). SH got rid of
> >his WMD, and hadn't attacked his neighbors. Aren't those the results we
> >wanted? Plus, his army was severely degreded. Aren't those the results
> >we wanted?
>
> and he was re-acquiring weapons, retained the intellectual capital to
> re-start his programs, and was pressing for the lifting of sanctions.

Yeah, he did such a good job acquiring weapons that his army was a
shell of its former self. Not a good argument.
>
> how long were they to go on? 10 years? and his army? the 5th most
> powerful in the world.

The way the invasion went says that it really wasn't.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said, SH's main goal was to stay in
> >> >> >power. He knew that if WMD could be traced back to him, he was a goner.
> >> >>
> >> >> what hussein KNEW and how he acted depended on the weather, the phases
> >> >> of the moon, and how early roosters crowed in baghdad.
> >> >
> >> >Evidence for this assertion?
> >>
> >> ok. tell us what articles he wrote for 'foreign affairs' that lead you
> >> to conclude he was a valuable member of the international community.
> >
> >Again, you misrepresent my position. I have never said anything good
> >about Hussein, and you should know it.
>
> EXCEPT that he was stable. that you can predict what he would do
> TOMORROW based on what he did YESTERDAY.

Where did I say he was stable? Point it out, if you can! And, someone's
history is usually a good indicator of what they will do in the future.

>
> >> >> how to verify? when both blix and chirac say ONLY the presence of US
> >> >> troops forced him to comply...
> >> >
> >> >Keep forces in the area? Hey, there's a novel thought.
> >>
> >> uh, where? and who's gonna pay? and what do we do 2 years hence??
> >>
> >> answer to those questions?
> >
> >Keeping forces in the area is much cheaper than the war we have gotten
> >into.
>
> and if he'd developed WMD's? how expensive would the war be then?

So you say. You have no reall evidence that he would.
>
> >>
> >> yep. that is my argument. your assertion that, since you dont believe
> >> it, it's not valid is not an argument. it's an emotional response.
> >
> >Yes, your argument is an emotional response. Because, by logic, it
> >breaks down, completely.
>
> ?? really? and if WMD's are used in NY your response would be?

Again, the "what if..." justification.
>
> and it seems your logic consists of telling me that you're logical

While, you do not appear to be on this subject.
>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >And again, the "what if" argument.
> >>
> >> yep.
> >
> >If that is all you have, perhaps you should plan a strategic retreat at
> >this point.
>
> fine. you go live in NY. when the next attack comes, tell me how
> emotional i am.
>
> >> >Yet, your assessment is a house of cards. All "if he does this, and if
> >> >he does that". if even one of those "what if"s doesn't occur, your house
> >> >of cards collapses.
> >>
> >> and if it DOESNT collapse, we have YOUR scenaria where NYC disappears
> >> along with 7,000,000 americans.
> >
> >Bullshit. If your complete argument is to misrepresent my position, you
> >better plan that strategic retreat now.
>
> your position is that hussein is stable.

No, it isn't.
>
> prove it.
>
> >>
> >> i can see why you'd want to wait.
> >>
> >> where do you live?
> >
> >I see reading and memory aren't your strongpoints. Look at my sig...
> >
> >However, most of my family is from the NYC area, in NJ. And, I shall be
> >going there in less than a week.
>
> gee. you're playing fast and loose with their lives, aren't you?

Not at all. You just appear to be rather paranoid on this issue. And I
deeply resent your implications.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> tomorrow is another day.
> >
> >Again, what if. It really is a poor argument. And, I feel you know it,
> >because you are reduced to misrepresenting what I have said.
>
> yep. what if hussein becomes unstable?

And, yet another "what if"
>
> your guarantee that he won't?
>
> handwaving. muttering. faith in unnamed commissions and hans blix.
>
> and on that you build a kingdom

Whereas, your entire argument is "what if"
>
> >>
> >>
> >> yep. he HAD a WMD program. we THOUGHT, along with the french, that he
> >> STILL had one.
> >
> >Yet, the evidence said he didn't. Why do you continue to ignore that
> >fact.
>
> hindsight is 20/20

The evidence was becoming clear in early 2003. Why do you ignore that
rather inconvenient fact.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >But you can't use the Iraqi constitution as support for your argument
> >> >and then say that they can ignore it. They could also ignore it by
> >> >installing Shi'ite radicals, who would align themselves with Iran, which
> >> >would be a much worse case than having a weak SH in Iraq.
> >>
> >> i have never made an argument for anything based on the iraqi
> >> constitution.
> >
> >True. Your argument was that they would ignore their constitution.
> >Somehow, that seems to be a worse argument.
> >Now, if you want to see where I live, look below:
> >
>
> gee. does the US ignore ITS constitution?
>
> yep.

Their constitution can be ignored in more ways than one. Or, is that
fact too inconvenient for your position?
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: It all comes full-circle ... WMDs found in Iraq
    ... Then you say that support for the ... i'm not gonna feel warm and fuzzy 'cuz you trust hussein. ... you're playing fast and loose with their lives, ... >>>But you can't use the Iraqi constitution as support for your argument ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT Why I support choice
    ... the "pro-choice" group always claims that should be a person's own ... How much choice do you really support? ... why do you think you should control every ... aspect of other people's lives? ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • LIVE SUPPORT
    ... lotus notes for mac live support ... free live chat technical support ... vaio live tech support ... fundraising support animals save lives ...
    (sci.geo.hydrology)
  • Re: OT: Repuglicans are disgusting, 11/10/05 edition
    ... Which is why I support a foregn policy that supports ... a government by force, but would usually be effectuated with encouragement ... > democracy while calling such questions anti-American ... > It's an "investment" for you and other people's lives. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Sicilian Peers, failed attempt to re-establish peerage in 1820
    ... Today, Europe is democratic, ... odd alliances with the worst regimes in Europe to repress any semblance ... Francis I went to the line to support. ... federalist within the EU and is trying to revive the defunct constitution. ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)