For Those Of You That Believe Saddam Had Nothing To Do With Terrorism.....

[240 is Back]

  what happened to the vault idea? This is a good time for that. 240 vs Bruce

kinda hard when the dude won't even assert an initial position on the issue.

i don't even know what position I'd be arguing against lol...

[gtbro1]

kinda hard when the dude won't even assert an initial position on the issue.

i don't even know what position I'd be arguing against lol...

      good point

[240 is Back]

      good point

shit, me and him might be in agreement.  I dunno.  But he's claling me a liar and telling me to search thru hundreds of posts to find his position again... I don't want to spend 45 minutes doing that.  I'd rather he just spend one sentence posting it.

Wrong or right, I respect a man more when he's honest and direct.

When a guy hides from answering, refuses positions, or won't just give a clear response, I don't trust him.  That's what politicians do, to avoid criticism or offending.  We're just here on a political board to discuss positions and learn, right? 

[BRUCE]

ok  BRUCE,


all i know is, that you have no problem attacking someone's character direct or indierct, but when you get a taste of your own medicine you don't seem to handle it well.

Sorry, if i skipped the indirect way and went right to the direct method. 

Have good day over there  what is it Monday afternoon?

Sunday night 10pm for me and i have lots going on tomorrow. 

In the spirit of debate i can repost my response whit out the profanity if you'd like.  but I'll do it tomorrow.  i need to get to sleep.

Got lots of business propaganda/motivation to put out tomorrow via fax!

Thank you, Ozmo.  GT has PM'd regarding this matter and I've replied at length.  I thoroughly enjoy stating my positions, which I'm crystal clear on and very keen to share with you all.

If I've seemed evasive this evening, it's because 240 has deliberately falsified quotes and avoided my original questions.  I won't involve myself in debate with him if he cannot play by the rules and respect other's rights to not be misled.  He has tried to deceive you all as to my position, but has simply come out looking desperate.  I'll say it again; a legitimate argument needs no mistruths or exaggerations.

I have also clearly made my position to Rob, as we've been debating this topic for some time.  He is yet to admit he was wrong on his Anthrax and Mustard Gas claims, however.

GT, please feel free to post the PM I sent you as a response to anyone here.  Otherwise, anyone may PM me for more information.  240, I'll answer all of your questions once you admit you falsified quotes and once you answer my initial questions.

[240 is Back]

Thank you, Ozmo.  GT has PM'd regarding this matter and I've replied at length.  I thoroughly enjoy stating my positions, which I'm crystal clear on and very keen to share with you all.

If I've seemed evasive this evening, it's because 240 has deliberately falsified quotes and avoided my original questions.  I won't involve myself in debate with him if he cannot play by the rules and respect other's rights to not be misled.  He has tried to deceive you all as to my position, but has simply come out looking desperate.  I'll say it again; a legitimate argument needs no mistruths or exaggerations.

I have also clearly made my position to Rob, as we've been debating this topic for some time.  He is yet to admit he was wrong on his Anthrax and Mustard Gas claims, however.

GT, please feel free to post the PM I sent you as a response to anyone here.  Otherwise, anyone may PM me for more information.  240, I'll answer all of your questions once you admit you falsified quotes and once you answer my initial questions.

So why don't you publicly state your position once and for all, to clear the air?

You just wrote 4 paragraphs telling us why you can't write one sentence.

[gtbro1]

GT, please feel free to post the PM I sent you as a response to anyone here.  Otherwise, anyone may PM me for more information.  240, I'll answer all of your questions once you admit you falsified quotes and once you answer my initial questions.

   Here it is. 

 

I'm not sure yet what it is that 240 has asked me about Mustard Gas on the board yet, as I haven't looked, but he has accused The US of arming Saddam Hussein with this noxious chemical on more than one occasion.  He claims, inaccurately, that the US supported Hussein's war against Iran, and because of this provided Saddam with the weaponry to achieve this end.

Unfortunately for Rob, the UN, the US Senate and The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute all found that this was not the case.  Here's an article by Australian journalist Andrew Bolt on the matter:

As a US Senate inquiry found, America's Centers for Disease Control and the non-profit American Type Culture Collection did send Iraq biological materials in the 1980s, thinking they would be used there as they were in other countries - to develop treatments for animal and human diseases.

These were sent not to "military laboratories", but mostly to universities and health officials, who secretly passed on some to scientists working on Iraq's WMD. You know, on the weapons this same film also claims "never" existed.

United Nations weapons inspectors have said the US officials responsible were simply "naive", and no evidence suggests any worse.

As for Bechtel, it won a bid to build two legitimate petro-chemical plants in Iraq that could have made by-products used in mustard or nerve gas. But Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait cut short Bechtel's work.

Nor did the US "arm" Saddam. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found more than 80 per cent of the weapons Iraq imported from 1973 to 2002 came from the three nations which tried hardest to save Saddam -- Russia, France and China. Germany was also the biggest supplier to Iraq's chemical weapons program, say UN records.

US "arms sales" to Iraq amounted to just four helicopters two decades ago -- all sold to private buyers, but seized by Iraq's military

240 has basically now been argued down to this.  He hasn't admitted that he was wrong in the face of this evidence, but has avoided making claims along the lines of we gave Saddam Anthrax or Mustard Gas.

In fact, 240 until recently was of the belief Anthrax is a chemical weapon, which it is not.  As you are probably aware, it is a deadly bacterium.

GT, I have more resources for you to have a look at if you are interested in learning more on this topic.  As I spell out above, The US was guilty of nothing more than naivety in its attempts to save Iraqi lives from Saddam's tyrannical regime.  Thank you again for contacting me regarding this.
 

[OzmO]

Funny how threads mutate.

 

[Deedee]

Andrew Bolt... You know you're quoting a reliable source when Supreme Court Judges call his commentary "disingenuous" and "misleading."  Lol.

... I wonder if it's something in the water over there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

 

[OzmO]

Andrew Bolt... You know you're quoting a reliable source when Supreme Court Judges call his commentary "disingenuous" and "misleading."  Lol.

... I wonder if it's something in the water over there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

 

yikes  lol

that proves once again that you can find just about anything to support your views on the web.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I'd like to take a moment to point out another of our esteemed Getbig Political Board members' sources.

I give you "devil".

[BRUCE]

Andrew Bolt... You know you're quoting a reliable source when Supreme Court Judges call his commentary "disingenuous" and "misleading."  Lol.

... I wonder if it's something in the water over there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

 

I'm sorry, is there anything inaccurate about what Andrew's said, or are you on another typical Leftist smear campaign?

Let's just brush everything he's said aside because of Wikipedia's take on matters, okay?  That should help you sleep better at night.

[BRUCE]

Funny how threads mutate.

 

Indeed it is, Ozmo.  To get a little bit back on topic, is there anyone here that still disputes Saddam had involvement with terror attacks resulting in the death of American citizens?

[OzmO]

Indeed it is, Ozmo.  To get a little bit back on topic, is there anyone here that still disputes Saddam had involvement with terror attacks resulting in the death of American citizens?

I don't think that was ever an issue.  It's like asking if Mobsters ever killed Italian Americans.

The issue was whether his level of involvement was enough to warrant what it has cost us and was it worth the mess of increased terrorism we have created in Iraq as a result of our bumbling approach.

[BRUCE]

The issue was whether his level of involvement was enough to warrant what it has cost us and was it worth the mess of increased terrorism we have created in Iraq as a result of our bumbling approach.

But I still believe many people have noted that Saddam had no ties to 9/11 per se, however they also believe this means Saddam was not involved with killing Americans elsewhere.

I've had several people here tell me that Saddam was of no threat to American lives, including yourself.

The extent of Saddam's pro-terror dispostion was staggering both domestically and, as I've shown, abroad.  Given the opportunity, he would have done far worse.  We are far better off for his removal and execution.

[OzmO]

But I still believe many people have noted that Saddam had no ties to 9/11 per se, however they also believe this means Saddam was not involved with killing Americans elsewhere.

I've had several people here tell me that Saddam was of no threat to American lives, including yourself.

Did he have ties to what happen on 9/11?  I don't think so.  If he did, what was the level of his ties? were they based on family like the Saudis?  Or did he train and finance the hijackers like Al Queda?  See what i'm getting at here?

Next issue:  (Understanding first that i believe Saddam was a dangerous person and am not defending him in any way.)  We have to determine if how  much Saddam was a threat to American lives.  Simply saying he was threat is far too general.  For example:  My friend traveled what was bosnia in the late 1990's and early 2000's on business.  He wouldn't tell people he was American for fear of reprisals from the bombing by us there.  Now should we consider those people a threat to American lives?  Does that justify us invading them?  I don;t think so.  There are many leaders in the world you can consider dangerous.  Saddam was no different, but by that principle are we justified invading those countries with out serious provocation?  no.   If I had gone to Iraq and pissed on Saddam's statue then I would have been in danger.  otherwise Saddam wasn't going to do anything.  Too much to lose for him.

The extent of Saddam's pro-terror dispostion was staggering both domestically and, as I've shown, abroad.  Given the opportunity, he would have done far worse.  We are far better off for his removal and execution.

What you've outlined is not staggering at all really.  He harbored a terrorist and paid suicide bomber's families 25K.  What dirty water does Pakistan have their hands in?  How about Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran?  Those i'm sure are far more guilty of this sin. 

Now are we really far better off?  If we get control of Iraq, the terrorist presence is less than pre-war levels,  and democracy flourishes permanently then yes we are better off.  But after 4 years we haven't seen it. If fact the terrorist threat is far worse there now.  that's a fact and it's more dangerous to American lives there.  That's another fact.   And if Saddam was around he'd squash any threat like a civil war immediately and ruthlessly.  something we are not ready or able to do.   So in reality, we are worse off.

[BRUCE]

First off, I don't think from the evidence I've seen, that Saddam had involvement in the 9/11 events.  He did, however, play a major role in other terror attacks - as I've shown.

Again, you're trying to excuse Saddam from reprisal because others may be worse.  I believe in freeing Iraq and removing Saddam, America has set the catalyst for change in this region, and warned other terror-inclined nations and groups that the American military's metaphoric arm is far-reaching, powerful and swift.  Syria, for example, has taken note of America's involvement in Iraq and is now, not surprisingly, beginning to tow the line for fear of being next.

[240 is Back]

Bruce, you make a huge assumption.

We agree Saddam was a bad man.
We agree the world is better without him.
We agree to some degree, of course he was a threat to Americans.

But was removing him worth 400 billion and 3000 lives?  Depends who you ask.

Just because something is a threat, doesn't we go after it. 

Nkorea is a threat - they have fired missiles at hawaii and set off a nuke - but we didn't nuke them.  Because it wasn't cost/benefit feasible to do it. 

Falling pieces of skylab are a threat to americans.  We're not putting up a space net - because it wouldn't be cost feasible.

Palestinians kill americans - we are not invading them because it isn't cost-feasible.

Iraq was a threat - and thanks to their black gold - they WERE a cost-feasible target.  So we invaded them.

THis hypocritical bullshit makes you look like an idealistic middle schooler, or a man unable to face the fact that his pro-war stance is also pro-"imperialism for oil with high human casualties".  Just sack up.  You support the war in iraq, you're thirsty for war in Iran, and you consider these lives to be acceptable losses for our goals.  And our goals aren't WMD or we'd be in NKorea.  And our goals aren't human rights - or we'd be in Darfur.  The wars are for oil, and we're in 2 oil nations and entering a third now.  So just be a man and admit that to your conflicted self.

[BRUCE]

Bruce, you make a huge assumption.

We agree Saddam was a bad man.
We agree the world is better without him.
We agree to some degree, of course he was a threat to Americans.

But was removing him worth 400 billion and 3000 lives?  Depends who you ask.

Just because something is a threat, doesn't we go after it. 

Nkorea is a threat - they have fired missiles at hawaii and set off a nuke - but we didn't nuke them.  Because it wasn't cost/benefit feasible to do it. 

Falling pieces of skylab are a threat to americans.  We're not putting up a space net - because it wouldn't be cost feasible.

Palestinians kill americans - we are not invading them because it isn't cost-feasible.

Iraq was a threat - and thanks to their black gold - they WERE a cost-feasible target.  So we invaded them.

THis hypocritical bullshit makes you look like an idealistic middle schooler, or a man unable to face the fact that his pro-war stance is also pro-"imperialism for oil with high human casualties".  Just sack up.  You support the war in iraq, you're thirsty for war in Iran, and you consider these lives to be acceptable losses for our goals.  And our goals aren't WMD or we'd be in NKorea.  And our goals aren't human rights - or we'd be in Darfur.  The wars are for oil, and we're in 2 oil nations and entering a third now.  So just be a man and admit that to your conflicted self.

Despite what you may believe, genital size is not correlated to one's geopolitical stance.  Am I to take it your position here is that I won't agree with you on this issue because I refuse to 'be a man'?

Last time I checked, we were both sitting safely behind computer screens in democratic, war-free nations.  I’ve even seen women with views on this very conflict; shall I inspect their ovaries to make sure they are of sufficient plumpness for evaluation of their legitimacy in this debate?

Why don't you try and encourage reasonable, genital-free debate, rather than this silliness you've given me above?  Perhaps then you'll find me more accommodating of you.

[OzmO]

First off, I don't think from the evidence I've seen, that Saddam had involvement in the 9/11 events.  He did, however, play a major role in other terror attacks - as I've shown.

Again, you're trying to excuse Saddam from reprisal because others may be worse.  I believe in freeing Iraq and removing Saddam, America has set the catalyst for change in this region, and warned other terror-inclined nations and groups that the American military's metaphoric arm is far-reaching, powerful and swift.  Syria, for example, has taken note of America's involvement in Iraq and is now, not surprisingly, beginning to tow the line for fear of being next.

I'm not excusing Saddam at all.  I'm only saying it would have been better to be more prudent with our moves.  Attacking wasn't prudent unless you factor in the oil which would mean all the other justifications for attacking are bunk. 

As far setting the catalyst for change in the region?  if you count "more" hatred towards the USA as change then we have done just that. 

Those people down there are 3rd world barbaric infighting bastards and they will be that way with or with out us. 

And if you factor in lebanon and buy into the propaganda that Hez is a terrorist group, (which no doubt will start a poop storm here),  then we should have invaded lebanon first and foremost right?

but we didn't.

We didn't attack Iraq for the reasons stated by BUSH or anyone who thinks we did it "to get rid of a guy who supports terrorists"  It's an invalid argument at this point in time.

[BRUCE]

I'm not excusing Saddam at all.  I'm only saying it would have been better to be more prudent with our moves.  Attacking wasn't prudent unless you factor in the oil which would mean all the other justifications for attacking are bunk. 

As far setting the catalyst for change in the region?  if you count "more" hatred towards the USA as change then we have done just that. 

Those people down there are 3rd world barbaric infighting bastards and they will be that way with or with out us. 

And if you factor in lebanon and buy into the propaganda that Hez is a terrorist group, (which no doubt will start a poop storm here),  then we should have invaded lebanon first and foremost right?

but we didn't.

We didn't attack Iraq for the reasons stated by BUSH or anyone who thinks we did it "to get rid of a guy who supports terrorists"  It's an invalid argument at this point in time.

Actually, I don't see our Iraqi friends as being '3rd world barbaric infighting bastards' at all.  Undoubtedly, those that would seek to annihilate the lives of innocents' fit into this category more fittingly.  Your prejudices against freedom loving Iraqis, of which there are millions - as supported by their elections - is something I condemn.  I'm all for giving these Iraqis a go, whether you, I, your sister, my dad or anyone believes this isn't a legitimate reason to go to war.  Fact is, we're there, we're fighting.  Let's make the best of a situation we'd all rather not have to be involved with.

You also mention Lebanon and Hezbollah.  Saddam was giving rewards to terrorists in Lebanon as reward for killing innocent Westerners, including Americans:

Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people.   
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Where does the group now operate?
It is now thought to be based in Iraq, with cells in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. In 1999, Egypt and Libya closed down ANO offices in their countries.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/#6

So, Lebanon has also been put on notice by the Americans.  Despite not actually having militarily being involved there, the US has sent a warning that support for those that take American lives is akin to have pushed the 'detonate' button.

[OzmO]

Actually, I don't see our Iraqi friends as being '3rd world barbaric infighting bastards' at all.  Undoubtedly, those that would seek to annihilate the lives of innocents' fit into this category more fittingly.  Your prejudices against freedom loving Iraqis, of which there are millions - as supported by their elections - is something I condemn.  I'm all for giving these Iraqis a go, whether you, I, your sister, my dad or anyone believes this isn't a legitimate reason to go to war.  Fact is, we're there, we're fighting.  Let's make the best of a situation we'd all rather not have to be involved with.

Of course there are Iraiqs who want democracy.  dah.

I also believe we should now, that we have blundered our way into this mess do what's needed to make it better.  I 've maintained that for quite some time.

but this: 

Your prejudices against freedom loving Iraqis, of which there are millions - as supported by their elections - is something I condemn.

If there weren't a bunch of infighting 3rd world bastards down there,  we wouldn't be reading about bombs blowing up in markets would we?

Stop trying to words in my mouth by accusing me of being prejudice.  It's a typical thing you do that indirectly attacks someone's character that you're fond of doing and when you get called on it, you don't handle it well which we established last night.

If you can't debate with out indirectly attacking someone and can't deal with it if they give you the same treatment, then don't start with it in the first place.

If i said "all" Iraqis you might have something to go on.  but i didn't and you know what i meant. 

You also mention Lebanon and Hezbollah.  Saddam was giving rewards to terrorists in Lebanon as reward for killing innocent Westerners, including Americans:

So, Lebanon has also been put on notice by the Americans.  Despite not actually having militarily being involved there, the US has sent a warning that support for those that take American lives is akin to have pushed the 'detonate' button.

For the reasons you cite lebanon should have been the first to go.  They are housing an army of terrorist for goodness sakes!   but what do we do?  we go after some guy who is paying the families 25k for suicide bombers.   we don't go after the country who has an army of supposed terrorist,  That's why that argument doesn't hold.

We used WMD's ans the excuse with oil and a stronger military presence in the area as the real reason.

[BRUCE]

Of course there are Iraiqs who want democracy.  dah.

I also believe we should now, that we have blundered our way into this mess do what's needed to make it better.  I 've maintained that for quite some time.

but this: 
If there weren't a bunch of infighting 3rd world bastards down there,  we wouldn't be reading about bombs blowing up in markets would we?

Stop trying to words in my mouth by accusing me of being prejudice.  It's a typical thing that indirectly attacks someone's character that you're fond of doing and when you get called on it, you don't handle it well which we established last night.

If you can't debate with out indirectly attacking someone and can't deal with it if they give you the same treatment, then don't start with it in the first place.

If i said "all" Iraqis you might have something to go on.  but i didn't and you know what i meant. 

For the reasons you cite lebanon should have been the first to go.  They are housing an army of terrorist for goodness sakes!   but what do we do?  we go after some guy who is paying the families 25k for suicide bombers.   we don't go after the country who has an army of supposed terrorist,  That's that argument doesn't hold.

We used WMD's ans the excuse with oil and a stronger military presence in the area as the real reason.

Calm down, I quoted what you said word-perfect.  I didn't need to put words in your mouth because you were silly enough to say something so prejudiced all by yourself.  No amount of bold or underline is going to remove this fact.

My point on Lebanon is that you claim we should invade based on our actions in Iraq.  Well, the truth is we're not doing nothing about it.  By removing Saddam Hussein you remove funding for terrorists in Lebanon and thus stop Americans being killed in Israel.  You also sound the alarm for militant Islamists that America will stand up to terror, no matter the proximity.

[OzmO]

Calm down, I quoted what you said word-perfect.  I didn't need to put words in your mouth because you were silly enough to say something so prejudiced all by yourself.  No amount of bold or underline is going to remove this fact.

Well if that's case that's not what i meant.....but you already knew that.

The bold underline wasn't designed to remove that "mis-statement" 

I was just telling you about yourself.  something you don't like.

My point on Lebanon is that you claim we should invade based on our actions in Iraq.  Well, the truth is we're not doing nothing about it.  By removing Saddam Hussein you remove funding for terrorists in Lebanon and thus stop Americans being killed in Israel.  You also sound the alarm for militant Islamists that America will stand up to terror, no matter the proximity.

Are you saying all funding BRUCE? and therefore am i too assume that based on your word-perfect interpretation that you believe saddam fully funded hez?

Saddam was not the major source of funding by far.  I claim we should have invaded Lebanon for the reasons YOU gave me, those aren't my reasons.  Israel doing just find on their own repressing everything non-jew in the area.  But you say Saddam was supporting terror and we were right to invade, but yet there's a government who's supporting an entire army and we did nothing.

[BRUCE]

Well if that's case that's not what i meant.....but you already knew that.
The bold underline wasn't designed to remove that "mis-statement" 
I was just telling you about yourself.  something you don't like.

I love hearing about me, no matter how inaccurate your quips may be.  I'm sure I'll be able to set you right, anyway.

Are you saying all funding BRUCE? and therefore am i too assume that based on your word-perfect interpretation that you believe saddam fully funded hez?
Saddam was not the major source of funding by far.  I claim we should have invaded Lebanon for the reasons YOU gave me, those aren't my reasons.  Israel doing just find on their own repressing everything non-jew in the area.  But you say Saddam was supporting terror and we were right to invade, but yet there's a government who's supporting an entire army and we did nothing.

Don't be foolish.  I didn't even imply Saddam was the sole funding source for Hezbollah, let alone say something as plainly backwards as what you did.  When you make statements like this, you enter the arena of childishness, I'd advise you not to if you want to be taken seriously.

Just an observation, but i now agree with some of the people here that call you naive.  It's showing now.

Calling me 'naive' is being used as an easy out from logical, fact-based debate by some here.  Am I to take it this is what you're attempting now, or can you actually show me where I've erred?  If not, I'll continue to believe I'm not quite as 'naive' as some would have me think.

[ToxicAvenger]

Actually, I'm not quite finished embarrassing you.  Here's the 9/11 Commission's views on it:

Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….

hmmm..so ya consider the bin laden family "just another saudi" family..

i dunno about you but i would grounded the bin laden family and AT LEAST questioned em...

people have gone to huntanimo for less

they were allowed to leave NO QUESTIONS ASKED 

please tell me why?