Home | Community | Message Board


Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: Toothpaste

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Invisiblemisterogerz


Registered: 06/07/02
Posts: 1,413
Loc: Gulf Coast
Re: Curveball admits Saddam's WMD were a hoax [Re: misterogerz]
    #13996380 - 02/20/11 04:03 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

no one even questioned how we went from afghan to iraq?


--------------------
:potleaf: :tendshroom: :potleaf:
:leaf::peyotespectrum::leaf:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Curveball admits Saddam's WMD were a hoax [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13999329 - 02/21/11 01:45 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:


Once again you continue to ignore the fact that neither you nor any other American civilian was asked what you thought.  Your opinion was utterly and completely irrelevant.  The relevant opinions belonged to members of Congress, especially those on the intelligence committees.  I believe the intelligence committee members voted 100% in favor.  That also included Senator Hillary Clinton, whose husband had been President himself and who might have known a thing or two about it.





I don't get your argument except as to the extent its simply an appeal to authority- particularly silly given the republican means the constitution gives the electorate to control the armed forces and the decleration of war. I've little doubt their positions were anything but political stances taken for convieniance, especially in light of the public sentiment and approval.  It may suck for the Bush administration that people left him out to dry when things got messy, but that really is neither hear nor there. 


Quote:



Do you not consider Saddam's attempt to assassinate an American President a threat? 




hmm, I hadn't considered that, actually.  That's a good point.  I don't know much about this issue though, so I can't really say much.  Do you think this justified him being a threat of such a magnitude that the decision to invade a second time was a defensive act?


Quote:

That is the threat that if we do not enforce our treaties and agreements, including cease fire, there is no law at all.  You also continue to have a severe memory lapse regarding just exactly what was going on in the UN regarding ending sanctions as a result of Saddam's bribery of 3/5ths of the UN security council, among other members.




I agree about the enforcement of treaties and so forth, but I don't see this as being relevant to the issue as I'm aware of any  concession from Iraq that would allow the invasion.  If their is such an agreement, I'd like to hear of it- the legal issue seems pretty poorl covered in the media


Quote:

Quote:

By the way, Zappa:  Do you know whether the surrender agreement gave the US the power to enforce it unilaterally?  I would imagine it would have, but then again, given how they always try to get a bunch of countries to participate, maybe not.  Do you know?  Were their any particular requirements of the US before any particular enforcement action could be taken unilaterally?  I forget if there was, or if the UN move was simply politically helpful and legally preferable.




I don't know.  Given that several dozen other nations were involved I would say that the question is moot.





Not really, one of them had to have justification for the war, or all collectively, or the thing was illegal.  I'm actually wondering whether their even was a surrender agreement.  If that's so, the resolutions granting the power to enforce via force the UN's orders would be the only persisting authority the coalition or US would seem able to rely upon to justify the second invasion as a continuation of the first.

I just can't find any good treatment of this highly interesting and relevant point.  Wikipedia touches on it a bit but I can't substantiate their statements, and they are conclusory anyways, without any explanation of the legalities.



Quote:

misterogerz said:


Osama bin Laden: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States"





Well, That settles that!  The guy said he didn't do it, I guess we can call off the hunt.

And given that you have thiese great refrences... (wait, what evidence did you have of this statement?)
Quote:



      In the years following the event, have you ever heard from the people who you were told committed these acts? Or, have you only been told why this happened by the people who want you to believe their story.





Hey, that is something!  I mean, after they bombed the USS Cole and the embassies, Osama and friends came over with a powerpoint presentation to make sure I understood what they did and why.  Hmmm.... after the towers fell, Osama didn't stop by any more... Smells Fishy!

OMG!  I just realized, Charlie manson never explained himself to me either! I only heard from those lawyers and cops who 'want me to believe" he and his buddies were meanies... Was that whole thing a hoax as well?

Quote:

Use your common sense. Do you think the global intelligence powers failed this badly?




Failed how, exactly?  What was so unconceivable?  People hijack plains all the time and fly them around.  Its not like getting a few guys onto a plane is such an overt act that the FBI would be tipped off necessarily (at least not then, now that they ban toothpaste its another matter altogether)


Quote:


Do you think men who could barely pilot a 2 seat plane can navigate across several states and find their target? Are you that gullible? Have some self respect, and think before you believe what you are told.





Why are you insulting your audience?  Why do you presume I don't think?  Actually, I figure its probably just because its easier to argue against your straw man "ignorant fool" than someone who demands more than menacing open-ended questions or youtube videos with spooky music to conclude whatever bizarre nonsense your pushing here.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Curveball admits Saddam's WMD were a hoax [Re: johnm214]
    #13999863 - 02/21/11 07:57 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:


Once again you continue to ignore the fact that neither you nor any other American civilian was asked what you thought.  Your opinion was utterly and completely irrelevant.  The relevant opinions belonged to members of Congress, especially those on the intelligence committees.  I believe the intelligence committee members voted 100% in favor.  That also included Senator Hillary Clinton, whose husband had been President himself and who might have known a thing or two about it.





I don't get your argument except as to the extent its simply an appeal to authority- particularly silly given the republican means the constitution gives the electorate to control the armed forces and the decleration of war. I've little doubt their positions were anything but political stances taken for convieniance, especially in light of the public sentiment and approval.  It may suck for the Bush administration that people left him out to dry when things got messy, but that really is neither hear nor there.




The point is that they had no reason to intentionally deceive you.  The public was not involved in the decision.  You were completely irrelevant.  The relevant people they had to convince were Congressmembers.  Not you or news media or anybody else.  Do you get it yet
Quote:



Quote:



Do you not consider Saddam's attempt to assassinate an American President a threat? 




hmm, I hadn't considered that, actually.  That's a good point.  I don't know much about this issue though, so I can't really say much.  Do you think this justified him being a threat of such a magnitude that the decision to invade a second time was a defensive act?




As I have stated many dozens of times it is not my opinion that this was a second invasion, just a continuation of the first which had been on hold pending Saddam's compliance with the terms of surrender.  Over the course of more than 10 years e did not comply.
Quote:




Quote:

That is the threat that if we do not enforce our treaties and agreements, including cease fire, there is no law at all.  You also continue to have a severe memory lapse regarding just exactly what was going on in the UN regarding ending sanctions as a result of Saddam's bribery of 3/5ths of the UN security council, among other members.




I agree about the enforcement of treaties and so forth, but I don't see this as being relevant to the issue as I'm aware of any  concession from Iraq that would allow the invasion.  If their is such an agreement, I'd like to hear of it- the legal issue seems pretty poorl covered in the media.




Whether adequately covered by the piece of shit media or not I have been saying it for years.  He had over 10 years to comply and wouldn't stop playing his stupid shell game with inspections.  Those weren't his only violations, either.  Even Clinton dropped some fresh bomb loads on him for violations.
Quote:




Quote:

Quote:

By the way, Zappa:  Do you know whether the surrender agreement gave the US the power to enforce it unilaterally?  I would imagine it would have, but then again, given how they always try to get a bunch of countries to participate, maybe not.  Do you know?  Were their any particular requirements of the US before any particular enforcement action could be taken unilaterally?  I forget if there was, or if the UN move was simply politically helpful and legally preferable.




I don't know.  Given that several dozen other nations were involved I would say that the question is moot.





Not really, one of them had to have justification for the war, or all collectively, or the thing was illegal.  I'm actually wondering whether their even was a surrender agreement.  If that's so, the resolutions granting the power to enforce via force the UN's orders would be the only persisting authority the coalition or US would seem able to rely upon to justify the second invasion as a continuation of the first.




The UN doesn't really have any authority over anybody.  And yes, there was a surrender agreement.  Or cessation of histilities agreement or whatever you want to call it.  Part of that agreement was unfettered free access of everything for inspections.  Also no-fly zones and other things.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop: Toothpaste

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Now that we have Saddam...
( 1 2 all )
enimatpyrt 1,772 38 12/16/03 06:39 PM
by enimatpyrt
* Saddam's parades of dead babies exposed as charade
( 1 2 all )
Great_Satan 3,183 23 11/15/04 02:49 AM
by Aldous
* Saddam's al Qaeda Connection (Salman Pak) lonestar2004 1,113 0 06/30/05 12:49 PM
by lonestar2004
* Blix: Iraq had no WMD since 1991
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Xlea321 4,882 106 09/23/03 03:43 PM
by infidelGOD
* Senate report: No Saddam, al-Qaida link RosettaStoned 962 8 09/11/06 12:08 AM
by RosettaStoned
* Our Friend Saddam
( 1 2 3 all )
exclusive58 4,324 40 12/31/06 09:17 AM
by Luddite
* U.S. study: 'Unlikely' Iraq shipped WMD to Syria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Vvellum 4,338 62 04/30/05 04:40 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* Dems speak on WMD's. luvdemshrooms 909 18 01/23/04 01:04 PM
by Azmodeus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,249 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Edabea
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.047 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.