[sheepofblue]

Or did he.

[LUCIDDREAM57]

Everyone gets lucky once in a while. All the luck in the world isn't going to change is I.Q..

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Or did he.

I think it's old news man.

The people that don't want to hear it will never believe it...

[CBRVFR]

Drinking the Fox News Koolaid again, are we Sheep? I had to talk my sister off the roof with this earlier today.

500 chemical-capable artillery shells, "some" with with degraded mustard gas or sarin hardly constitute a WMD threat to the citizens of the US or our allies, which was the administration's original stated rationale. Nor would they be terribly useful "on the black market", since presumably you'd also need a howitzer. It's bullshit designed for people who won't read the declassified report.

Whether or not the administration actually thought there were WMDs there is unknown. Whether they will ever find actual WMDs that may be hidden there is unknown. But these don't qualify. Tell O'Reilly to try again.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by CBRVFR

Drinking the Fox News Koolaid again, are we Sheep? I had to talk my sister off the roof with this earlier today.

500 chemical-capable artillery shells, "some" with with degraded mustard gas or sarin hardly constitute a WMD threat to the citizens of the US or our allies, which was the administration's original stated rationale. Nor would they be terribly useful "on the black market", since presumably you'd also need a howitzer. It's bullshit designed for people who won't read the declassified report.

Whether or not the administration actually thought there were WMDs there is unknown. Whether they will ever find actual WMDs that may be hidden there is unknown. But these don't qualify. Tell O'Reilly to try again.

4 of these shells killed thousands of Kurds. Also the Sarin could be removed and distibuted by terrorists in other ways. Also it was PART of the rational not the rational. I just pointed it out as yet another example that things are improving over there and the Bush scenario while not 100% accurate was closer to reality than the CBS s.

Also the UN (remember them the orginization that some want to rule us) had disposal of ALL chemical weapons as part of the ceasefire agreement. 500 is not an oversight of disposal.

Sorry to hear about sis though. She could hang with my kin for a few hours and get cured of that liberal attitude

[CBRVFR]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Sorry to hear about sis though. She could hang with my kin for a few hours and get cured of that liberal attitude

Any tactical military weapon turned against civilians would have a similar effect, including HE.
What's the shelf life of sarin? WHo wants the job of extracting it and weaponizing it in another method? It would be much harder than just making it.. more BS, I'm afraid.

WMDs are different. Iran and N Korea could do a hell of a lot more damage than Iraq ever could.

My sister's way to the right of Atilla the Hun, by the way..makes you sound like a Kennedy.

[ND4SPD]

Hey, watch the Hungarian jokes, short stuff

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by CBRVFR

Any tactical military weapon turned against civilians would have a similar effect, including HE.
What's the shelf life of sarin? WHo wants the job of extracting it and weaponizing it in another method? It would be much harder than just making it.. more BS, I'm afraid.

WMDs are different. Iran and N Korea could do a hell of a lot more damage than Iraq ever could.

My sister's way to the right of Atilla the Hun, by the way..makes you sound like a Kennedy.

Anniston AL


Hmm conservative but she does have an A2 resident for a brother ..... Despite that I think I could like this lady Oh and I am far more conservative than you think but on military matters I must bite my tongue quite often.

[Duster929]

Ah, as in most issues in American politics today, people decide which side of the debate they're on FIRST, and then accept or reject facts and news items as convenient to their position, instead of the other way around.

When it agrees with your position, it's "evidence". When it's contradictory, it's "propaganda".

When people identify themselves as "conservatives" or "liberals", as if those are real identities or personality traits, you know there's no point in arguing. They've already decided which side of the fence they are on before you've even named the issue you'll be discussing.

If you find WMD, some will say "those aren't WMD", or "those aren't enough WMD", and if you don't find WMD, the other side will say "that's not evidence that they don't exist".

Why bother, when there's no rational discourse and no unbiased, reliable source of information on which to base the discourse?

--- D

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by Duster929

Ah, as in most issues in American politics today, people decide which side of the debate they're on FIRST, and then accept or reject facts and news items as convenient to their position, instead of the other way around.

When it agrees with your position, it's "evidence". When it's contradictory, it's "propaganda".

When people identify themselves as "conservatives" or "liberals", as if those are real identities or personality traits, you know there's no point in arguing. They've already decided which side of the fence they are on before you've even named the issue you'll be discussing.

If you find WMD, some will say "those aren't WMD", or "those aren't enough WMD", and if you don't find WMD, the other side will say "that's not evidence that they don't exist".

Why bother, when there's no rational discourse and no unbiased, reliable source of information on which to base the discourse?

--- D

Agreed. Now answer a question for me:

If Harper fulfills his election promises and has a successful term, will he still be evil?

[Duster929]

This is Canada, we don't do evil. Just different shades of "not-so-nice".

I think Harper hurt someone's feelings once by not recognizing the value of their diversity in the multicultural mosaic of love and happiness that is our social system.

--- D

[phobiaphobe]

They really do brainwash us right from kindergarten, eh?

[CBR929RE]

so wait he lied about them having them, now it turns out he lied about telling us they didn't have them. damn republicans flip flop as mucha s they talk about how much democrats flip flop.

its politics, have the stuff any politician says is a lie.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Duster929

Ah, as in most issues in American politics today, people decide which side of the debate they're on FIRST, and then accept or reject facts and news items as convenient to their position, instead of the other way around.

American politics?

Uh, I think you can take that qualifier out.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

American politics?

Uh, I think you can take that qualifier out.

Absolutely true.
Putting that qualifier in shows that one's side of the debate is already decided FIRST, and one can now accept or reject facts and news items as convenient to one's position, instead of the other way around.

[tuffy6969]

Originally Posted by LUCIDDREAM57

Everyone gets lucky once in a while. All the luck in the world isn't going to change is I.Q..

Obviously....your I.Q. needs to be examined as well. "....isn't going to change IS I.Q."....

Let the one without spelling errors cast the first stone.

[nhfirefighter13]

Originally Posted by CBRVFR

Any tactical military weapon turned against civilians would have a similar effect, including HE.

A Jewish hippie?

[Duster929]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Absolutely true.
Putting that qualifier in shows that one's side of the debate is already decided FIRST, and one can now accept or reject facts and news items as convenient to one's position, instead of the other way around.

Don't get all sensitive and defensive. I put in the qualifier because I think this phenomenon is most pronounced in America, since it is essentially a 2-party system. Maybe my perspective is skewed because I live in a mult-party system, but it seems in most political debates there are several parties who share at least some components of their outlook or platform. America is unique in that most debates are much more polarized between Republicans and Democrats, or conservatives and liberals. There are literally 2 sides of the fence. In Canada our fences often have 3 sides. Sometimes 4.

In America it seems that people identify themselves more with their ideology, i.e. "You're a Republican?" Whereas in Canada, we tend to say things like "In the last election I voted for the Liberals", as opposed to "I ama a Liberal".

Hence the qualifier. Maybe I'm wrong. Present me with the evidence that the political debate is as polarized in most other western nations as it is in the United States, and I will gladly change my opinion. I'm not wedded to an anti-American position in the least!

--- D

[Mojave954]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I think it's old news man.

The people that don't want to hear it will never believe it...

Damn near the words I told my boss this afternoon. Funny thing to me is they never named the source of the chemicals or the date of the chemicals so they can be traced to the country that busted the sanctions.

[CBRVFR]

Originally Posted by Mojave954

Damn near the words I told my boss this afternoon. Funny thing to me is they never named the source of the chemicals or the date of the chemicals so they can be traced to the country that busted the sanctions.

Excellent point.