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

[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.

[OzmO]

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.

your words speak louder than your words 

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.

Sure you did.    you said "By removing Saddam Hussein you remove funding for terrorists"   Just like said "those people" which could have meant any group.

Another failed attempt of putting words in people's mouth.

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.

I've showed you were you've erred.   Unfortunately, you are so glazed over with your naivety that you can't see it.  the funny part is, you actually think you 're smart and well informed.    You put up links and attack people's character when they don't agree.  Very childish in my book.  Like how you start a thread by saying:  "you're a fool" 

You're a fool, of course, and you come across as a bigoted ignoramus in your post.  I certainly hope you're more agreeable in real life, otherwise I feel for those that have to put up with you.

That's the first sign of a weak argument and an even weaker debater.  Are you so weak at making a good argument you almost automatically have to attack a person's character right off the bat? 

How Pathetic.

BTW:  the key was the WMD's you should have went that route.  You would have been able to construct a better arguement.  Geez KH figured it out real fast.  why not you oh smart one?   

[BRUCE]

your words speak louder than your words 
Sure you did.    you said "By removing Saddam Hussein you remove funding for terrorists"   Just like said "those people" which could have meant any group.
Another failed attempt of putting words in people's mouth.
I've showed you were you've erred.   Unfortunately, you are so glazed over with your naivety that you can't see it.  the funny part is, you actually think you 're smart and well informed.    You put up links and attack people's character when they don't agree.  Very childish in my book.  Like how you start a thread by saying:  "you're a fool" 
That's the first sign of a weak argument and an even weaker debater.  Are you so weak at making a good argument you almost automatically have to attack a person's character right off the bat? 
How Pathetic.
BTW:  the key was the WMD's you should have went that route.  You would have been able to construct a better arguement.  Geez KH figured it out real fast.  why not you oh smart one?   

I take it you don't have any factual argument to present.  What sources have you used to discredit me?  On the contrary, you're doing an excellent job of discrediting yourself by throwing insults and inaccuracies, but I'm yet to see any research or usage of sources outside of your own grey-matter.  Give me something to debate with you on a pragmatic political basis or try to engage others in your childishness.

[OzmO]

I take it you don't have any factual argument to present.  What sources have you used to discredit me?  On the contrary, you're doing an excellent job of discrediting yourself by throwing insults and inaccuracies, but I'm yet to see any research or usage of sources outside of your own grey-matter.  Give me something to debate with you on a pragmatic political basis or try to engage others in your childishness.

blah blah blah,

toned it down this time huh?


BTW:  most if what i used was facts you provided.  It's just that those facts you provided don't mean much in relation to your argument. 


but keep telling yourself what you just wrote (another nice deflection) ,  you'll feel better when you sleep.

[BRUCE]

blah blah blah,
toned it down this time huh?
BTW:  most if what i used was facts you provided.  It's just that those facts you provided don't mean much in relation to your argument. 
but keep telling yourself what you just wrote (another nice deflection) ,  you'll feel better when you sleep.

Case in point.  I won't entertain your silliness anymore in this thread, okay?

[OzmO]

Case in point.  I won't entertain your silliness anymore in this thread, okay?

here we go again,  gets a taste of his own medicine and can't handle it.

[240 is Back]

here we go again,  gets a taste of his own medicine and can't handle it.

yep.

i'm seriously bored with him.  He'll write a thousand words and won't say a thing.  Most naive poster here.

[BRUCE]

yep.
i'm seriously bored with him.  He'll write a thousand words and won't say a thing.  Most naive poster here.

The 'naive' count rises, do we have a new 'understand' on our hands?  Poor 240, so misunderstood.

[Camel Jockey]

Guys, there's no point in arguing with Bruce.. The man just ignores whatever evidence you throw at him by nitpicking material and distorting it to his liking.

Bottom line is that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not enough of a threat to warrant a war.

[BRUCE]

Guys, there's no point in arguing with Bruce.. The man just ignores whatever evidence you throw at him by nitpicking material and distorting it to his liking.

Bottom line is that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not enough of a threat to warrant a war.

Really?  Has anyone given evidence of anything contrary to what I've said here?  Or is it all mere opinion, like your post?

I haven't been arguing that Saddam was involved in 9/11, I've said he has strong ties to terror, some of which responsible for the deaths of Americans.  Do you debate any of my facts, or would you rather attempt to smear?

[Camel Jockey]

Really?  Has anyone given evidence of anything contrary to what I've said here?  Or is it all mere opinion, like your post?

Bruce, there's no real point in presenting factual evidence if you just nitpick and ignore the facts. Maybe opinionated posts will make you see the light...

[BRUCE]

Bruce, there's no real point in presenting factual evidence if you just nitpick and ignore the facts. Maybe opinionated posts will make you see the light...

I'll take it you have none then (facts), and an abundance of ill-formed opinion is the replacement.

[tu_holmes]

Really?  Has anyone given evidence of anything contrary to what I've said here?  Or is it all mere opinion, like your post?

I haven't been arguing that Saddam was involved in 9/11, I've said he has strong ties to terror, some of which responsible for the deaths of Americans.  Do you debate any of my facts, or would you rather attempt to smear?

Bruce,

I think the point people are making, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, is that YES... Saddam had terror ties... Guess what? So does the US... We gave Iraq WMDs, we gave the Taliban weapons and training...

If you are going to say it's OK to oust Saddam because he had terror ties... We should be able to oust almost every single President since at least 1980, and probably back as far as the 1950s.

So while you may be correct, your reasoning behind his removal of power seems a bit erroneous.

[BRUCE]

Bruce,
I think the point people are making, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, is that YES... Saddam had terror ties... Guess what? So does the US... We gave Iraq WMDs, we gave the Taliban weapons and training...

Whoops, wrong.  The UN, US Senate and many others have proven this isn't the case.  Why use lies if you have a good argument to make?

[tu_holmes]

Whoops, wrong.  The UN, US Senate and many others have proven this isn't the case.  Why use lies if you have a good argument to make?

So we didn't arm the Taliban? That's a lie and you know it... also, that spin about giving the WMDs to their university doesn't fly either... You can buy that snake oil if you want to, but I think deep down, you know it's bunk.

[BRUCE]

So we didn't arm the Taliban? That's a lie and you know it... also, that spin about giving the WMDs to their university doesn't fly either... You can buy that snake oil if you want to, but I think deep down, you know it's bunk.

Would you like to see me in The Cage on either of these issues, or are you fine for me to embarrass you right here?

[tu_holmes]

Would you like to see me in The Cage on either of these issues, or are you fine for me to embarrass you right here?

I don't think you've embarrassed anyone but yourself Bruce... I don't care what any "Senate subcommittee" says about some shit that is pretty common knowledge around the world Bruce. I know that they are politicians and they lie... that's what they do.

You can hang on to that last nut hair of the "Great and Never Faltering" government stance if you want too, but then you probably think that Bush's wiretaps weren't illegal then.

[BRUCE]

I don't think you've embarrassed anyone but yourself Bruce... I don't care what any "Senate subcommittee" says about some shit that is pretty common knowledge around the world Bruce. I know that they are politicians and they lie... that's what they do.
You can hang on to that last nut hair of the "Great and Never Faltering" government stance if you want too, but then you probably think that Bush's wiretaps weren't illegal then.

Oh, okay - is that your response to The UN's findings as well?  That great US-loving bureaucracy that you see on TV?  Do you have any defence to the facts I provide or do you base your geopolitical opinions on 'pretty common knowledge' as you call it?

[tu_holmes]

Oh, okay - is that your response to The UN's findings as well?  That great US-loving bureaucracy that you see on TV?  Do you have any defence to the facts I provide or do you base your geopolitical opinions on 'pretty common knowledge' as you call it?

Well, since I've got 30 seconds to google because of server limits... let's see what I can find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

That's self explanatory


http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920810g.htm


Exhibit A is the BNL scandal. Poor bank supervision allowed BNL's small Atlanta branch to loan over $4 billion to Iraq between 1986 and 1990 without reporting the loans to bank regulators or the bank's headquarters in Rome. What is worse, over $2 billion of the BNL loans went to Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization otherwise known as MIMI. MIMI used this illicit supply of cash to fund its secret military technology procurement network and to purchase technology for Iraqi weapons projects including the Condor II ballistic missile, Gerald Bull's super gun and Iraq's clandestine nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.

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

Through the non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. government under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989.


That's like 5 minutes of work... Come on man.

[BRUCE]

Well, since I've got 30 seconds to google because of server limits... let's see what I can find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990
That's self explanatory
http:/www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920810g.htm
Exhibit A is the BNL scandal. Poor bank supervision allowed BNL's small Atlanta branch to loan over $4 billion to Iraq between 1986 and 1990 without reporting the loans to bank regulators or the bank's headquarters in Rome. What is worse, over $2 billion of the BNL loans went to Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization otherwise known as MIMI. MIMI used this illicit supply of cash to fund its secret military technology procurement network and to purchase technology for Iraqi weapons projects including the Condor II ballistic missile, Gerald Bull's super gun and Iraq's clandestine nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Through the non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. government under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989.
That's like 5 minutes of work... Come on man.

All of which was addressed by the UN and the US Senate in their enquiry into the affair, and the US was found to not have been guilty.  Again, would you like to take this to The Cage so that we may bring the facts into light, rather than using ahem, Wikipedia as your source for such a complex issue?

[Straw Man]

Whoops, wrong.  The UN, US Senate and many others have proven this isn't the case.  Why use lies if you have a good argument to make?

When you make a statement such as this it would really help your case to provide a source.
You've said the US Senate and others (who again?) have "proven" this isn't the case.  
Your statement is not an opinion but (assuming you're correct) a provable fact.  
You would only be helping yourself if you provide sources to back up statements which you present as facts

[tu_holmes]

All of which was addressed by the UN and the US Senate in their enquiry into the affair, and the US was found to not have been guilty.  Again, would you like to take this to The Cage so that we may bring the facts into light, rather than using ahem, Wikipedia as your source for such a complex issue?

Wikipedia is an EXCELLENT source... It is updated by EVERYONE and therefore is much more accurate than something like... Oh, your blog, which even if found to be incorrect, no one will correct it, because it's only you.

Obviously, you don't understand the open source movement, nor how much more powerful it really is... Wikipedia has been shown to be more correct than Encyclopedia Britannica because it's always up to date.

As I said, feel free to post your source for your information right here... You started this thread, why not do it right here? Why the cage? Who cares about a cage anyway?

Just post your source... I have posted mine, and while you may not like it... That's more than you have done currently.

[BRUCE]

To both of you, I've provided the US Senate Inquiry in a new thread I started for the benefit of a stalker here.  Search for the thread if you want it, I've posted everything else more than once here for your perusal.

[Straw Man]

To both of you, I've provided the US Senate Inquiry in a new thread I started for the benefit of a stalker here.  Search for the thread if you want it, I've posted everything else more than once here for your perusal.

again, just trying to help. 

For continuity, it would benefit you to include the source WHEN you make the statement

[BRUCE]

again, just trying to help. 
For continuity, it would benefit you to include the source WHEN you make the statement

Keep track of what I post on this board and you'd have no such issue.  I'll more than happily respond in due course to any PM that requests sources of information, so that everyone is aware.