Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BRUCE on February 04, 2007, 08:40:29 PM
-
After he gladly abused me in the other thread for pointing this out, I thought I may as well start a thread to warn the rest of you:
I'm Australian, have you not noticed their involvement in Iraq (and other locations)? Are you planning on taking on any of my facts in the 'US/Iraq Arms' thread yet?
Actually, no. I'll admit that I'm not well-versed in that area.
I know that we provided military support for Hussein when we considered him useful as a drain on the Iranians - knowing full well what a monster he was. Accordingly, I consider America to have moral culpability in his subjection of the Iraqis - whether or not he bought the specific mustard gas he used on the Kurds from somewhere else.
In American law, it's a concept called "criminal facilitation".
His claims above are again false, and he has refused to apologise to the board for deliberately trying to mislead us. Take everything he says here with caution from now on.
The question is, why would he comment on something he admits he is 'not well-versed' in? Or does he accept everything bad said about the US as fact?
-
Now you're feuding with Ribonucleic?
Are you here in the US or have you ever lived and voted here in the US?
-
Now you're feuding with Ribonucleic?
Are you here in the US or have you ever lived and voted here in the US?
It's a 'feud' to point out someone is lying to you? Read some of my posts for your answer to the second part, however irrelevant it may be.
-
It's a 'feud' to point out someone is lying to you? Read some of my posts for your answer to the second part, however irrelevant it may be.
You started a thread about him, it's a feud. That doesn't mean you want him or his family dead it just means you and he vehemently argue.
Are you really going to make me search your posts? Why wouldn't you just tell me? In fact I just read in another thread that you asked someone else nearly the exact question that you aren't answering here. I don't remember you mentioning that it was irrelevant when you asked that person.
-
BRUCE, this is the second time this week you've started a thread to 'call someone out'.
The politics board is designed to share ideas and learn from each other.
Not for talking shit. Go somewhere else for that. Talk about issues and events here.
-
You started a thread about him, it's a feud. That doesn't mean you want him or his family dead it just means you and he vehemently argue.
Are you really going to make me search your posts? Why wouldn't you just tell me. In fact I just read in another thread that you asked someone else nearly the exact question that you aren't answering here. I don't remember you mentioning that it was irrelevant when you asked that person.
You're right to point that out, and to clarify, I asked because he was damning the United States and lives there. I don't and won't.
And I will tell you, since I probably acted too harshly on you. I'm a naturalised Australian born in England. I live in Melbourne.
-
BRUCE, this is the second time this week you've started a thread to 'call someone out'.
The politics board is designed to share ideas and learn from each other.
Not for talking shit. Go somewhere else for that. Talk about issues and events here.
Isn't it hilarious that you get more riled about someone posting fact than fallacy?
It says a lot about you, and your friends.
-
After he gladly abused me...
No need to be coy, BRUCE. We're all Getbiggers here...
You issued a demand for an apology like some tinpot tyrant [you really do admire George Bush, don't you] and I encouraged you to eat a dick.
Give the people all the facts! ;D
-
I'm curious why you're so interested in our politics? The War in Iraq doesn't even really effect you.
-
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]
July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]
August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
References:
1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5. ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
20. Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
Hope this helps. :)
-
I see ribonucleic admitting not being well-articulated.
But where does he admit to deliberately put out inaccuracies?
-Hedge
-
where does he admit to deliberately put out inaccuracies?
You mean BRUCE's imagination doesn't count? :)
-
I'm curious why you're so interested in our politics? The War in Iraq doesn't even really effect you.
You're obviously ignorant on Australia's involvement in Iraq.
-
You're obviously ignorant on Australia's involvement in Iraq.
True, but I can't imagine Australia's involvement is in any way shape or form equal to the USA's involvement.
I'm still curious as to why you're so interested in our politics.
There are British posters on this board that don't have nearly your interest and we all know Blair's large involvement with Iraq. If I remember correctly his approval ratings are in the cellar as well because of it.
-
True, but I can't imagine Australia's involvement is in any way shape or form equal to the USA's involvement.
I'm still curious as to why you're so interested in our politics.
There are British posters on this board that don't have nearly your interest and we all know Blair's large involvement with Iraq. If I remember correctly his approval ratings are in the cellar as well because of it.
Perhaps you should just admit that you were wrong to suggest I shouldn't have an interest, and accept my views as valid. By all means, if you would like to talk Australian politics, I would love to hear from you.
Your 'involvement' line is, quite frankly, odd. No, Australia does not have proportionately as many lives as the US in Iraq, but we are staunch allies, and we too have given lives for this cause. We put our brave young men and women where our loyalties lie.
-
Perhaps you should just admit that you were wrong to suggest I shouldn't have an interest, and accept my views as valid. By all means, if you would like to talk Australian politics, I would love to hear from you.
Your 'involvement' line is, quite frankly, odd. No, Australia does not have proportionately as many lives as the US in Iraq, but we are staunch allies, and we too have given lives for this cause. We put our brave young men and women where our loyalties lie.
Perhaps you should read my post when I said "True" and was agreeing with your statement regarding my ignorance with Australia's involvement in the war in Iraq. You see, I admitted being ignorant to it.
My involvement line is not odd at all, if anything is odd it's your continued involvement in political discussions involving the US when you aren't a citizen and never have been a citizen. In fact you preach as if you were a citizen with a long and storied voting history. I find that odd.
My point is, even 240 with his wild conspiracy theories has more credibility regarding US politics than you do. You seem like a wannabe to me.
If ever there is a discussion on this board regarding politics in Australia then you can show us all your brilliance, until then you're an outsider looking in and spouting off your opinions when in all honesty they don't really matter.
I enjoy reading everyones opinion regarding our political system of course but you're just a little to into it for someone that lives thousands and thousands and thousands of miles away and is under the rule of a different government.
-
Perhaps you should read my post when I said "True" and was agreeing with your statement regarding my ignorance with Australia's involvement in the war in Iraq. You see, I admitted being ignorant to it.
My involvement line is not odd at all, if anything is odd it's your continued involvement in political discussions involving the US when you aren't a citizen and never have been a citizen. In fact you preach as if you were a citizen with a long and storied voting history. I find that odd.
My point is, even 240 with his wild conspiracy theories has more credibility regarding US politics than you do. You seem like a wannabe to me.
If ever there is a discussion on this board regarding politics in Australia then you can show us all your brilliance, until then you're an outsider looking in and spouting off your opinions when in all honesty they don't really matter.
I enjoy reading everyones opinion regarding our political system of course but you're just a little to into it for someone that lives thousands and thousands and thousands of miles away and is under the rule of a different government.
What gibberish. Do you actually have any evidence showing anything I've said regarding US politics to be incorrect? Do you have a problem with any other overseas visitors to this site commenting in a negative fashion regarding the US?
As I've shown you, I am an Australian citizen. As you have just discovered (comically) Australia is currently involved in the war in Iraq, and is one of America's closest allies. Therefore, as part of this coalition, anything false said regarding the US (including the Iraq arms lie that I have exposed here) are damaging to the coalition and in turn Australia.
I suspect, however, your problem is not with me or my nationality - rather it is with my defence of the United States, which embeds itself deeply under your skin. I presume you will be harassing Hedgehog next about his contributions here, no?
-
What gibberish. Do you actually have any evidence showing anything I've said regarding US politics to be incorrect? Do you have a problem with any other overseas visitors to this site commenting in a negative fashion regarding the US?
As I've shown you, I am an Australian citizen. As you have just discovered (comically) Australia is currently involved in the war in Iraq, and is one of America's closest allies. Therefore, as part of this coalition, anything false said regarding the US (including the Iraq arms lie that I have exposed here) are damaging to the coalition and in turn Australia.
I suspect, however, your problem is not with me or my nationality - rather it is with my defence of the United States, which embeds itself deeply under your skin. I presume you will be harassing Hedgehog next about his contributions here, no?
Its an Ad hominem attack.
The favorite of all that are losing arguments and is perhaps the most annoying.
Many examples of this attack are used on this board and in the end it will turn into name calling because arguing against facts is impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
-
There is a lot in your post for me to reply to, let me just say quickly that Hedge does not have your poor attitude. Also, he doesn't throw himself into each and every debate regarding US politics the way you do. If someone were just to randomly find this board and they started reading your posts they would think you were a US citizen, yet you aren't.
By the way, calling Australia one of our closest Allies is a bit of a stretch considering Mr. Blair is about 3,500 miles due east. As of January of 2007 there were 1,300 Australian troops in Iraq with zero casualties compared to 132,000 US troops with 3100 dead. Would you care to do the math on that or should I?
Also, I'd prefer you use US sources when debating our politics, quoting Australian newspapers isn't going to win you any awards. I know you're going to disagree with that but it's my opinion and I can guarantee it's every other US citizen's opinion as well. Of course there might be a few conservatives on the board that don't mind but that's only because you're backing their argument.
By the way, you're not a US citizen. And I never said anything you said was incorrect, I asked for your source materials which you said you would get and haven't yet. Can you quote me saying you were incorrect? No, I didn't think so. What I did say was that you're a wannabe and I believe that wholeheartedly. You involve yourself way too deeply in our politics.
One more thing, I don't care what nationality you are if you aren't American but you can't honestly expect us to give you more credence than someone that is actually a US citizen can you? Be realistic. You stick your nose in each and every thread regarding a country that has nothing to do with you, that's a bit odd.
Its an Ad hominem attack.
The favorite of all that are losing arguments and is perhaps the most annoying.
Many examples of this attack are used on this board and in the end it will turn into name calling because arguing against facts is impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Another genius level post.
The problem with your argument is that I didn't disagree with his post. That must have slipped your eyes when you were reading this thread.
All I did was ask for a link to the US Senate report. Not once did I disagree with his argument.
Nice job though Einstein. What were you saving that little ditty up and figured this was your first chance to use it? ::)
-
Wow, I didn’t think anyone would be able to cram so much inaccuracy into just one post, and yet, here we are. And so:
Hedge does not have your poor attitude.
So now it’s my ‘attitude’ you attack? And what exactly is your qualm with it, that it’s not entirely aligned with your own? Let’s evict everyone from this website that you claim to have a poor attitude.
If someone were just to randomly find this board and they started reading your posts they would think you were a US citizen
Actually, so far, only you have had this problem.
By the way, calling Australia one of our closest Allies is a bit of a stretch considering Mr. Blair is about 3,500 miles due east.
Sigh. I find it amusing you took this as a geographical reference.
As of January of 2007 there were 1,300 Australian troops in Iraq with zero casualties compared to 132,000 US troops with 3100 dead. Would you care to do the math on that or should I?
No casualties? False, Google Private Jake Kovco. Dozens of other Aussies have been injured or harmed in Iraq, do you know what ‘casualty’ means?
Also, I'd prefer you use US sources when debating our politics, quoting Australian newspapers isn't going to win you any awards.
With this logic, we should no longer allow the UN to pry into America’s affairs, or that of any other nation, for that matter. You’ll note I used an Australian journalist for one of my sources; however I used international agencies such as The US Senate (that’s in America, isn’t it?) and The UN. Try and read passed the first few lines next time. I couldn’t care less what you prefer.
I know you're going to disagree with that but it's my opinion and I can guarantee it's every other US citizen's opinion as well.
You presume to know this, do you?
I asked for your source materials which you said you would get and haven't yet.
I gave you my sources, you asked for a document. Perhaps you should stop being lazy and Google it yourself. As I’m at work I refuse to right this moment, I’ll be happy to address you on the weekend.
you can't honestly expect us to give you more credence than someone that is actually a US citizen can you? Be realistic.
No, and you can’t honestly expect me to have less as I’m not - stop being hypocritical.
Consider yourself dissected.
-
quoting Australian newspapers isn't going to win you any awards
Quoting newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch - to be precise. ::)
-
Brucey, you've started at least two threads specifically calling individuals out, perhaps down there in the Outback that's not considered having a poor attitude but on this board it is. Sorry to burst your bubble. I can just see your rebuttal now, it will probably be something along the lines of "those weren't call outs those were Birthday wishes". ::)
I'm the only one that's mentioned the fact that your Australian, that doesn't mean others haven't thought it. Fact is you give no indication of being anything other than a US citizen in your posts, again sorry to burst your bubble. Your retort should be equally witty for this one as well, see paragraph above for example.
I see my mention of Tony Blair went right over your head, it had nothing to do with his proximity to the US. I was actually trying to point out that Mr. Blair would be considered a far closer Allie than would Mr. Howard. Again your reply should be a beauty.
Yes, you used the US Senate but you didn't provide a link to the source material. And I told you my stance on the UN previously so at least to me your point regarding them is moot.
Yes, I know that nearly all US citizens would prefer you us US sources over Australian sources when debating our politics because I am one. You know, the politics that have nothing to do with you? Remember those? By the way how are things going in Australia? (rhetorical question)
And please excuse my misuse of the word casualty, I meant fatality and the statistics I quoted were from January of 2007. If there has been a death of an Australian soldier since then, I apologize. It still doesn't even remotely compare with the number of US soldiers killed.
You started a thread and you used the US Senate Inquiry as a basis for your argument, you should have posted a link to let everyone see the inquiry. I asked for it, you agreed to post it and now you're calling me lazy. ::)
By the way Joey, source materials are documents proving your point. I didn't ask for your sources I asked for you source materials. Beautiful deflection but patently dishonest.
And I love the dissected quip. LOL
Sorry, but you're still not a US citizen. Maybe Santa will be good to you next year though.
-
Quoting newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch - to be precise. ::)
Is The UN owned by Murdoch?
The US Senate?
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute?
Do you challenge any of the facts presented within the publications from these sources?
No, you continue to abuse and note irrelevant facts.
-
Brucey, you've started at least two threads specifically calling individuals out, perhaps down there in the Outback that's not considered having a poor attitude but on this board it is. Sorry to burst your bubble. I can just see your rebuttal now, it will probably be something along the lines of "those weren't call outs those were Birthday wishes". ::)
I'm the only one that's mentioned the fact that your Australian, that doesn't mean others haven't thought it. Fact is you give no indication of being anything other than a US citizen in your posts, again sorry to burst your bubble. Your retort should be equally witty for this one as well, see paragraph above for example.
I see my mention of Tony Blair went right over your head, it had nothing to do with his proximity to the US. I was actually trying to point out that Mr. Blair would be considered a far closer Allie than would Mr. Howard. Again your reply should be a beauty.
Yes, you used the US Senate but you didn't provide a link to the source material. And I told you my stance on the UN previously so at least to me your point regarding them is moot.
Yes, I know that nearly all US citizens would prefer you us US sources over Australian sources when debating our politics because I am one. You know, the politics that have nothing to do with you? Remember those? By the way how are things going in Australia? (rhetorical question)
And please excuse my misuse of the word casualty, I meant fatality and the statistics I quoted were from January of 2007. If there has been a death of an Australian soldier since then, I apologize. It still doesn't even remotely compare with the number of US soldiers killed.
You started a thread and you used the US Senate Inquiry as a basis for your argument, you should have posted a link to let everyone see the inquiry. I asked for it, you agreed to post it and now you're calling me lazy. ::)
By the way Joey, source materials are documents proving your point. I didn't ask for your sources I asked for you source materials. Beautiful deflection but patently dishonest.
And I love the dissected quip. LOL
Sorry, but you're still not a US citizen. Maybe Santa will be good to you next year though.
I'm sure I'm not the only one laughing at your latest illogical post, you keep telling me my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not an American, and I'll keep bringing the facts. I'll leave you to it from here, okay?
-
Is The UN owned by Murdoch?
Not yet. :)
If you have a working link to any of these sources that supports your claim that the US did not sell chemical weapons to the Hussein regime, I will be interested to look at them.
-
I'm sure I'm not the only one laughing at your latest illogical post, you keep telling me my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not an American, and I'll keep bringing the facts. I'll leave you to it from here, okay?
The problem is you haven't brought any facts. I'm waiting for the US Senate Inquiry that you said you would post. That will be something concrete I can read and either agree or disagree with.
By the way, I'm sure I'm not the only one that wonders why and Australian cares so much about US Politics. You even tried to deflect attention away from me asking if you were a US citizen by telling me to search for that information myself, even though you asked another poster what his nationality was. ::)
Notice how you didn't refute any of my points? Two of which you could have easily answered, specifically my comments regarding you starting threads calling people out and the fact that you didn't post the US Senate Inquiry in your original post and you haven't since you agreed to post it.
Nice job otherwise though. ::)
By the way who are you voting for in our next Presidential election? Oh, that's right you can't. Sorry.
If you have a working link to any of these sources that supports your claim that the US did not sell chemical weapons to the Hussein regime, I will be interested to look at them.
I'm waiting on the US Senate Inquiry but apparently I'm lazy for wanting him to post it.
-
The problem is you haven't brought any facts.
Actually, you haven't. You haven't given me one single post, with one single fact arguing either for - or against - the political cases I make.
Am I to take it you have no opinion other than you don't think mine counts?
Do you even know what you're arguing?
Have you Googled Jake Kovco yet? Why did you falsify that no Australians have died in Iraq yet?
-
I see ribonucleic admitting not being well-articulated.
But where does he admit to deliberately put out inaccuracies?
-Hedge
Here you go, Hedge:
You seem to have conveniently forgot (or perhaps are too ignorant to have learned in the first place) that the Kurds were gassed with chemical weapons we sold Saddam Hussein back when he was our pal. See Rumsfeld shaking hands with him?
(http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/images/rumsfeld_hussein.jpg)
Seems to me a simpler way of defending the Kurds would have been not to sell Saddam Hussein the chemical weapons he used to kill them. Hmm?
As I have proven, using facts from three different renowned organisations, this is not the case.
-
As I have proven, using facts from three different renowned organisations, this is not the case.
Undocumented attributions of opinion to outside sources = Proven
Hope this helps.
-
Actually, you haven't. You haven't given me one single post, with one single fact arguing either for - or against - the political cases I make.
Am I to take it you have no opinion other than you don't think mine counts?
Do you even know what you're arguing?
Have you Googled Jake Kovco yet? Why did you falsify that no Australians have died in Iraq yet?
The website I used for statistics reported there were no fatalities for Australian Soldiers, I was wrong for not researching further. There are two dead Australian soldiers, both killed in "non-hostile" accidents, meaning they weren't killed while fighting or by the enemy. That doesn't make it any less tragic but it's still two soldiers compared to 3,100. Not even remotely the same.
If you read my post you would know I'm saving my opinion for after I read the US Senate Inquiry, did you just skip over that part? How can I comment on what you've asserted if I don't read the source material?
You still haven't commented on any of my points.
-
Have you Googled Jake Kovco yet?
First Australian soldier killed in Iraq, eh?
Is his family upset that the Australian government sent him to his death in order to secure American access to Iraqi oil reserves?
-
First Australian soldier killed in Iraq, eh?
Is his family upset that the Australian government sent him to his death in order to secure American access to Iraqi oil reserves?
Your sneering over a dead man's family confirms you as heartless and less than pathetic. Regardless of what you think of this war, it is entirely inapprpriate to comment on a dead soldier's family. You are scum.
-
The website I used for statistics reported there were no fatalities for Australian Soldiers, I was wrong for not researching further.
Do you research anything, or just ask me to do so on your behalf?
-
Do you research anything, or just ask me to do so on your behalf?
This is the single most dishonest post I've seen today. Congratulations. WOW.
Is it really too much to expect you to post links to the materials you say you have read to form your opinion? How is it you form your opinion on something you've read yet won't post a link so anyone else can read it?
You've illustrated perfectly my point about dishonest posts. At least I can admit when I made a mistake even though two soldiers killed in accidents and not in fighting isn't really a mistake, I still should have mentioned them.
-
Is it really too much to expect you to post links to the materials you say you have read to form your opinion?
Apparently. ::)
Wasn't his excuse yesterday that he needed to finish work and go home? :)
-
Apparently. ::)
Wasn't his excuse yesterday that he needed to finish work and go home? :)
Yes, but he's changed his position. Apparently now anyone that hasn't found the information themselves is lazy. ::)
Going on the offensive is an excellent strategy the problem is sometimes it doesn't work.
-
Its an Ad hominem attack.
The favorite of all that are losing arguments and is perhaps the most annoying.
Many examples of this attack are used on this board and in the end it will turn into name calling because arguing against facts is impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Absolutely true. Happens all the time. You summed it up pretty nicely.
-
This is the single most dishonest post I've seen today. Congratulations. WOW.
Is it really too much to expect you to post links to the materials you say you have read to form your opinion? How is it you form your opinion on something you've read yet won't post a link so anyone else can read it?
You've illustrated perfectly my point about dishonest posts. At least I can admit when I made a mistake even though two soldiers killed in accidents and not in fighting isn't really a mistake, I still should have mentioned them.
Seriously, I do appreciate you admitting when you have made an error - it puts you above many of the people here who won't, regardless of the information presented to them.
I don't see where I've made one, however. I told you I'd help you out with that US Senate Inquiry and I will, I didn't say I would do it overnight though. Please be patient with me, it's hard enough responding to everything presented to me here.
In the mean time:
http://www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
See if you can beat me to it.
-
Apparently now anyone that hasn't found the information themselves is lazy. ::)
BRUCE's next thread: "ieffinhatecardio Admits Deliberate Laziness" :)
-
BRUCE's next thread: "ieffinhatecardio Admits Deliberate Laziness" :)
First Australian soldier killed in Iraq, eh?
Is his family upset that the Australian government sent him to his death in order to secure American access to Iraqi oil reserves?
This is all we need to know about you.
-
BRUCE's next thread: "ieffinhatecardio Admits Deliberate Laziness" :)
LOL
Hey BRUCE, you have to admit that's pretty funny.
-
LOL
Hey BRUCE, you have to admit that's pretty funny.
Humour is about all that he remains to have any credibility in. Carry on.
-
Absolutely true. Happens all the time. You summed it up pretty nicely.
::)
Apparently reading and comprehension is a lost art. I hate to break up the party but I'd actually have to disagree with BRUCE in order for that to be true, tragically I didn't.
-
::)
Apparently reading and comprehension is a lost art. I hate to break up the party but I'd actually have to disagree with BRUCE in order for that to be true, tragically I didn't.
Yes, that's right, you don't actually have an opinion do you?
Well, other than attacking me for not being a US Citizen.
-
bruce, we need more people in america who like you. We have enough people who are blind to everything but our faults, and our supposed fault.
-
bruce, we need more people in america who like you. We have enough people who are blind to everything but our faults, and our supposed fault.
Thanks, Cav - I really appreciate it. You'll notice I upset a lot of people here with my defence of the US, using the facts, of course.
-
Yes, that's right, you don't actually have an opinion do you?
Well, other than attacking me for not being a US Citizen.
As soon as I read your link I'll have an opinion on your original point and then we can debate. I might even agree with your point, but I won't know until you provide us with the information you used to form your opinion.
-
As soon as I read your link I'll have an opinion on your original point and then we can debate. I might even agree with your point, but I won't know until you provide us with the information you used to form your opinion.
Okay, but I think you can try and at least do a little of your own research. Even if I do agree I promised to source this document for you and present it.
-
::)
Apparently reading and comprehension is a lost art. I hate to break up the party but I'd actually have to disagree with BRUCE in order for that to be true, tragically I didn't.
You're right. Your reading and comprehension sucks. I agreed with joker's statement that people on this board who cannot debate the facts resort to ad hominem. You're a prime example. And yes this post is ad hominem.
-
You're right. Your reading and comprehension sucks. I agreed with joker's statement that people on this board who cannot debate the facts resort to ad hominem. You're a prime example. And yes this post is ad hominem.
I think using one's citizenship as reason for exclusion from a debate is ridiculous. I'm sure you agree with me, BB, as it seems to be our side of the debate that resorts to facts, rather than distractions.
-
I think using one's citizenship as reason for exclusion from a debate is ridiculous.
What do you think about people who falsify their positions and education on message boards to try to gain credibility?
Beach Bum used to be a guy who dropped out of school at 17 to raise a family. I had to explain to him what an MBA was, as he thought it was a mail order degree.
He was confronted with the accusation he didn't understand the history of self-attacks or the statistics behind the anomalies of the 2004 Ohio and Florida election fiascos.
So, one day he starts posting that he's a college professor who teaches history. his class is full of MBA students and none of them believe in the 911 story.
-
What do you think about people who falsify their positions and education on message boards to try to gain credibility?
Beach Bum used to be a guy who dropped out of school at 17 to raise a family. I had to explain to him what an MBA was, as he thought it was a mail order degree.
He was confronted with the accusation he didn't understand the history of self-attacks or the statistics behind the anomalies of the 2004 Ohio and Florida election fiascos.
So, one day he starts posting that he's a college professor who teaches history. his class is full of MBA students and none of them believe in the 911 story.
I don't know how true that is, Rob, or the circumstances around it.
-
I think using one's citizenship as reason for exclusion from a debate is ridiculous. I'm sure you agree with me, BB, as it seems to be our side of the debate that resorts to facts, rather than distractions.
Absolutely. 240 is another example. He routinely resorts to calling people names when they challenge his ideas. It is truly an enigma: likes to disagree, but cannot handle disagreement. He also, with multiple members of this board, invents facts and repeats his inventions as fact. What you'll notice is he doesn't quote members when he does this. Unlike the following, where he compared himself to a convicted wife/baby killer who is currently on death row:
240: on January 14, 2007, 08:52:49 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"my woman already knows. if i ever make a fortune, i'll always make sure she and the babies are covered if we split.
but if we ever split and she tries to screw me in court, well, hello scott peterson. "
Scott Lee Peterson (born 24 October 1972 in San Diego, California) is a former agriculture chemical salesman convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson. His case dominated the American media for many weeks. On March 16, 2005, Peterson was sentenced to death and currently resides on death row in San Quentin State Prison.
On April 14, the body of a male fetus, with umbilical cord still attached, washed ashore at the San Francisco Bay. The next day, a partial female torso missing its hands, feet, and head washed ashore in the same area. The bodies were later identified as Laci and Conner Peterson. Autopsies were performed, but due to decomposition the specific cause of death was never determined. Prosecutors theorized that Laci may have been suffocated or strangled in the couple's home. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and Modesto Police Department performed forensic searches of the couple's home, Scott's truck, the tool box in the back of his truck, his warehouse and his boat. They found only one piece of forensic evidence, a single hair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
-
I don't know how true that is, Rob, or the circumstances around it.
Smart man. :)
-
Absolutely. 240 is another example. He routinely resorts to calling people names when they challenge his ideas. It is truly an enigma: likes to disagree, but cannot handle disagreement. He also, with multiple members of this board, invents facts and repeats his inventions as fact. What you'll notice is he doesn't quote members when he does this. Unlike the following, where he compared himself to a convicted wife/baby killer who is currently on death row:
240: on January 14, 2007, 08:52:49 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"my woman already knows. if i ever make a fortune, i'll always make sure she and the babies are covered if we split.
but if we ever split and she tries to screw me in court, well, hello scott peterson. "
Scott Lee Peterson (born 24 October 1972 in San Diego, California) is a former agriculture chemical salesman convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson. His case dominated the American media for many weeks. On March 16, 2005, Peterson was sentenced to death and currently resides on death row in San Quentin State Prison.
On April 14, the body of a male fetus, with umbilical cord still attached, washed ashore at the San Francisco Bay. The next day, a partial female torso missing its hands, feet, and head washed ashore in the same area. The bodies were later identified as Laci and Conner Peterson. Autopsies were performed, but due to decomposition the specific cause of death was never determined. Prosecutors theorized that Laci may have been suffocated or strangled in the couple's home. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and Modesto Police Department performed forensic searches of the couple's home, Scott's truck, the tool box in the back of his truck, his warehouse and his boat. They found only one piece of forensic evidence, a single hair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
That doesn't look good for Rob, if accurate - and I certainly think any decent person should not be associating themselves with Scott Peterson.
What worries me just as much about 240 is his newfound friendship with Ribonucleic, the same chap that has remarked about dead Australian soldier Jake Kovco:
First Australian soldier killed in Iraq, eh?
Is his family upset that the Australian government sent him to his death in order to secure American access to Iraqi oil reserves?
240 would do himself a big favour by distancing himself from this tyrant loving hate monger.
-
You're right. Your reading and comprehension sucks. I agreed with joker's statement that people on this board who cannot debate the facts resort to ad hominem. You're a prime example. And yes this post is ad hominem.
Joker was referring to me when he posted that, perhaps that little fact slipped your mind. The fact that I would have to disagree with BRUCE in order for Joker's theory to be correct must have also slipped your mind. Nice try though. ::)
I'd prefer not to be lumped in with you by the way, you made an ad hominem attack and since you're way of thinking repulses me you can bet I'll never specifically use an ad hominem attack again.
Yikes, being lumped in with you and your insane "people under the age of 30 that aren't married shouldn't be having sex" line of reasoning would be a nearly unbearable torture.
Good bye ad hominem, it was nice knowing you.
I think using one's citizenship as reason for exclusion from a debate is ridiculous. I'm sure you agree with me, BB, as it seems to be our side of the debate that resorts to facts, rather than distractions.
The problem with this post is that YOU HAVEN'T POSTED ANY FACTS YET and I never excluded you from any debate, I said your opinion isn't given as much credence as a US citizen.
How can you make a post talking about how you debate with facts yet you didn't use facts in the post?
-
Didn't joker post that little ditty in response to my argument with BRUCE? If so then you're wrong, if not then I was wrong.
I'd prefer not to be lumped in with you by the way, you made an ad hominem attack and since you're way of thinking repulses me you can bet I'll never specifically use an ad hominem attack again.
Yikes, being lumped in with you and your insane "people under the age of 30 that aren't married shouldn't be having sex" line of reasoning would be a nearly unbearable torture.
Good bye ad hominem, it was nice knowing you.
The problem with this post is that YOU HAVEN'T POSTED ANY FACTS YET and I never excluded you from any debate, I said your opinion isn't given as much credence as a US citizen.
How can you make a post talking about how you debate with facts yet you didn't use facts in the post?
You can, I assume, read? Have you seen my Congressional report thread yet? My Iraq/US Arms thread? Anything I've written? Hello? You moaned about getting some evidence, and then failed to respond to it at all, I guess you just can't please some people.
-
You can, I assume, read? Have you seen my Congressional report thread yet? My Iraq/US Arms thread? Anything I've written? Hello? You moaned about getting some evidence, and then failed to respond to it at all, I guess you just can't please some people.
I just saw your Congressional thread, I'm starting to read it now. Try not to get so uppity, asking you to prove your point by showing us what you're claiming to have read in your post isn't asking too much no matter how bad you want it to be.
-
I just saw your Congressional thread, I'm starting to read it now. Try not to get so uppity, asking you to prove your point by showing us what you're claiming to have read in your post isn't asking too much no matter how bad you want it to be.
This from the guy that hounded my every post today in order to get me to google his request.
-
This from the guy that hounded my every post today in order to get me to google his request.
Again with the dishonesty.
I was asking you to show me the source materials you said you read. How does that translate to "google his request"?
You tell me you have proof and that you've read it then it's your responsibility to show that proof. It's not my responsibility to search for it. ::)
With this kind of dancing around it's no wonder the conservatives are getting a bad name.
I've found proof that Mars is made of cheese, I've read a special NASA report documenting the core of Mars is a beautiful aged cheddar. No, I'm not posting the link to the article, don't be so lazy, you look for it. ::)
-
Again with the dishonesty.
I was asking you to show me the source materials you said you read. How does that translate to "google his request"?
You tell me you have proof and that you've read it then it's your responsibility to show that proof. It's not my responsibility to search for it. ::)
With this kind of dancing around it's no wonder the conservatives are getting a bad name.
I've found proof that Mars is made of cheese, I've read a special NASA report documenting the core of Mars is a beautiful aged cheddar. No, I'm not posting the link to the article, don't be so lazy, you look for it. ::)
And you continue to hound me, even after I've given it to you. I admit I agreed to find it for you, I did, take a deep breath and relax.
-
And you continue to hound me, even after I've given it to you. I admit I agreed to find it for you, I did, take a deep breath and relax.
::)
This from the guy that dodged and ducked and deflected until he couldn't do it anymore. The funniest part is that the whole time you were claiming that everyone else is dishonest except for you and your fellow conservatives. LOL
-
::)
This from the guy that dodged and ducked and deflected until he couldn't do it anymore. The funniest part is that the whole time you were claiming that everyone else is dishonest except for you and your fellow conservatives. LOL
I think what you meant to say was: 'until he provided me with the evidence I requested, which I then concluded was indeed the document containing the facts I required'.
Hope this helps.
-
I think what you meant to say was: 'until he provided me with the evidence I requested, which I then concluded was indeed the document containing the facts I required'.
Hope this helps.
Nope, that's not what I meant. You even called me lazy for not searching for the document you said you would provide. You know, the document that was meant to prove YOUR point? ::)
Which hasn't proven your assertion yet by the way. I'm not saying it won't but I'm finding a TON of information that the US, England and Italy knowingly helped build Iraq's power and in some cases their chemical weapons.
I'm still reading so don't jump to any conclusions just yet.
-
Nope, that's not what I meant. You even called me lazy for not searching for the document you said you would provide. You know, the document that was meant to prove YOUR point? ::)
Actually, I said you were lazy for demanding it right then and there. I told you I am at work, and I told you I would get your document, even if not right this minute - you sound like a spoiled child.
-
Actually, I said you were lazy for demanding it right then and there. I told you I am at work, and I told you I would get your document, even if not right this minute - you sound like a spoiled child.
Another fantastic deflection. Why you can't admit you're wrong is beyond my ability to reason.
It's your responsibility to post the information you used to form your opinion in your thread. It's not our responsibility to find it for you. ::)
-
Joker was referring to me when he posted that, perhaps that little fact slipped your mind. The fact that I would have to disagree with BRUCE in order for Joker's theory to be correct must have also slipped your mind. Nice try though. ::)
I'd prefer not to be lumped in with you by the way, you made an ad hominem attack and since you're way of thinking repulses me you can bet I'll never specifically use an ad hominem attack again.
Yikes, being lumped in with you and your insane "people under the age of 30 that aren't married shouldn't be having sex" line of reasoning would be a nearly unbearable torture.
Good bye ad hominem, it was nice knowing you.
::) Further proof that you are an idiot. I wasn't directing my comments to you. If I want to insult you, I will do it directly, like now. You are nothing but a clown and a punk. I bet you got beat up for your lunch money in school. And stop trying to be funny. You are as humorous and intelligent as a rock.
But I'm glad to see you hanging around here now. We need to maintain the board bell curve.
-
::) Further proof that you are an idiot. I wasn't directing my comments to you. If I want to insult you, I will do it directly, like now. You are nothing but a clown and a punk. I bet you got beat up for your lunch money in school. And stop trying to be funny. You are as humorous and intelligent as a rock.
But I'm glad to see you hanging around here now. We need to maintain the board bell curve.
Ouch, more biting commentary. Of course you're wrong and or lying on two counts. I wasn't trying to be funny. Your way of thinking truly does repulse me. The fact that I get under your skin enough to cause you to meltdown and spit at your monitor only makes me smile.
Joker posted that my debate with BRUCE was an ad hominem attack and you agreed with him that it was. At least be honest. ::)
"Beat up for your lunch money in school" "intelligent as a rock" and "maintain the board bell curve" LOL
Oh, how's that whole "anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't be having sex" thing working out for you? I bet your seeing a lot of resistance.
Just think of all the people under 30 that aren't married that will be having sex tonight, does that just drive you crazy? ;D
-
Ouch, more biting commentary. Of course you're wrong and or lying on two counts. I wasn't trying to be funny. Your way of thinking truly does repulse me. The fact that I get under your skin enough to cause you to meltdown and spit at your monitor only makes me smile.
Joker posted that my debate with BRUCE was an ad hominem attack and you agreed with him that it was. At least be honest. ::)
"Beat up for your lunch money in school" "intelligent as a rock" and "maintain the board bell curve" LOL
Oh, how's that whole "anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't be having sex" thing working out for you? I bet your seeing a lot of resistance.
Just think of all the people under 30 that aren't married that will be having sex tonight, does that just drive you crazy? ;D
[sigh] He doesn't even realize how dumb he is. :-\
You know, all of the regulars on this board are smart, from the youngest (Camel) to the oldest (Jag). [JUST KIDDING JAG! ;D]. Even 240 with all his crazy conspiracies is a smart guy. You? You're just a plain old idiot. Congrats on that distinction.
And listen punk, you are just an uneducated, minimum wage-earning, pseudo-intellectual. Quit trying to act like some impartial voice of reason. Ya ain't smart enough. But keep hanging around here and you might learn something. We need idiots like you. I'm a big believer in diversity.
-
[sigh] He doesn't even realize how dumb he is. :-\
You know, all of the regulars on this board are smart, from the youngest (Camel) to the oldest (Jag). [JUST KIDDING JAG! ;D]. Even 240 with all his crazy conspiracies is a smart guy. You? You're just a plain old idiot. Congrats on that distinction.
And listen punk, you are just an uneducated, minimum wage-earning, pseudo-intellectual. Quit trying to act like some impartial voice of reason. Ya ain't smart enough. But keep hanging around here and you might learn something. We need idiots like you. I'm a big believer in diversity.
Ouch, another meltdown worthy post. ;D
I bet you'd love to throw a punch at me. It's so evident in your posts that you're seething with anger. LOL
So far I'm a "punk", "pseudo-intellectual", "minimum wage earner", "uneducated", "beat up in school", "intelligent as a rock" and I "maintain the board bell curve". ::)
By the way, how's that whole "no one under 30 that isn't married should be having sex" thing working out for you?
Please, keep them coming, I'm enjoying this.