RE: An example of why our military loves the press ....

RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/4/2007 6:16:21 PM)
This is fun! [:D]

luckydog1 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/4/2007 6:17:40 PM)
I selected the quote that was relevant to our disscussion. Saddam was not in compliance. Ritter was hired to determine if Saddam was in Complaince or not. He answered...."There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution." Ritter was not hired nor elected to make any sort of decision as to what to do about Saddams non compliance. Which was the issue in the resolution passed by Congress. What does zooming mean in this context? Your claiming Ritter says the 100% opposite of what He actually said?

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/4/2007 6:29:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I selected the quote that was relevant to our disscussion. Saddam was not in compliance. Ritter was hired to determine if Saddam was in Complaince or not. He answered...."There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution." Ritter was not hired nor elected to make any sort of decision as to what to do about Saddams non compliance. Which was the issue in the resolution passed by Congress. What does zooming mean in this context? Your claiming Ritter says the 100% opposite of what He actually said? Reconstructing the transaction . . . “They were complying and we had the run of the joint.” -Owner59 “No, Iraq wasn’t complying with the inspections.” -herfacechair “Oh ,is that right? Can you then quote Scott Ritter,saying what you claim? I don`t remember him saying anything of a sort.” -Owner59 “He also said in 2002, ’There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution.’ Which is of course what I am saying, and you are disagreeing with. Funny, Ritter agrees with me not you. -luckydog1

Owner59 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/4/2007 8:25:37 PM)
Ritter never supported an invasion,ever. http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=515&IssueNum=29 Scott Ritter: I think it’s wonderful that Saddam Hussein was captured. This is a brutal dictator who terrorized his people for 30 years. He committed crimes against humanity and I think it’s a great thing he’s been apprehended and hopefully will be brought to justice. But I think we have to have a sobering note of reality here: We didn’t go to war in Iraq to arrest Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice. Saddam Hussein never constituted a threat to the U.S. worthy of the expenditure of a single American life. Let alone justifying the American taking of Iraqi lives. http://www.casi.org.uk/info/ritter000427.html and http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/SRitter_SHersh.html MR. RITTER: Well, the fact of the matter is the United States was never interested in disarming Iraq. The whole Security Council resolution that created the UN weapons inspections and called upon Iraq to disarm was focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is a vehicle for the maintenance of economic sanctions that were imposed in August 1990 linked to the liberation of Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait, I participated in that conflict. And one would think, therefore, the sanctions should be lifted. The United States needed to find a vehicle to continue to contain Saddam because the CIA said all we have to do is wait six months and Saddam is going to collapse on his own volition. That vehicle is sanctions. They needed a justification; the justification was disarmament. They drafted a Chapter 7 resolution of the United Nations Security Council calling for the disarmament of Iraq and saying in Paragraph 14 that if Iraq complies, sanctions will be lifted. Within months of this resolution being passed--and the United States drafted and voted in favor of this resolution--within months, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his Secretary of State, James Baker, are saying publicly, not privately, publicly that even if Iraq complies with its obligation to disarm, economic sanctions will be maintained until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

luckydog1 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/4/2007 10:08:39 PM)
Who gives a rats ass what some pedophiles personal opinion on Geo politics is. He had the expertise and was hired to determine whether or not Saddam was complying with the Sanctions. He gave the answer ""There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution." He was not elected to decide what to do about it. Co-incidentally after he was paid 400,000 dollars skimmed from the Oil for Food program, he became a supporter of Saddam. And wanted him to stay in power. Purley co-incidental I am sure.

farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 2:29:31 AM)
quote: Who gives a rats ass what some pedophiles personal opinion on Geo politics is. Regarding your baseless Ad Hominum attack. Got a copy of the Jury Verdict, or Plea Deal? It's nice that you fell for the slander that Ritter is guilty of some crime, but last time I checked, you needed to have a trial before you called someone a criminal. In, fact, even "Alleged Pedophile" is incorrect, given the disposition, isn't it? http://nysacdl.org/aa/DOCUMENT2004-7-JUDGELIPPMANNMEMOOFSEALINGOFANDSAMPLEORDER.html quote: * Under the Criminal Procedure Law, whcn a criminal case is disposed of"in favor of the accused," all records relating to the case, including law enforcement and fingerprint records as well as court records, are sealed. See CPL. § 160,50. Accordingly, when a criminal case is dismissed in its entirety or when a defendant is acquitted of all charges, all court records are sealed and no access to those records is permitted except within the very limited exceptions set forth in the statute. See CPL §- 160.50(l)(d). A different provision applies when a defendant is charged with a "crime" -- that is, a fingerprintable offense generally defined in the Penal Law as a felony or misdemeanor, PL § 10.00(6) but is ultimately convicted of only a "petty" offense. In that situation, CPL § 160.55 requires that law enforcement records and fingerprint records relating to the case be sealed; but unlike eases that are dismissed or that result in acquittal, the court records are not sealed. Cf CPL §§ 160.50(l)(c) with CPL § 1 60.55(l)(c). The Legislature presumably made this distinction because it concluded that sealing of court records is warranted only when defendants are exonerated of the charges, not when they are convicted of an offense, albeit a less serious offense than the one originally charged. Finally aside from the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, judges have inherent authority to seal court records, including court records in criminal cases, when they find appropriate grounds for doing so. When judges exercise this authority, clerks' offices take steps to ensure that the court file is sealed In sum, in the absence of a judge's order expressly sealing a criminal case file, the courts will seal such a file only in cases that are disposed of favorably to the accused, within the meaning of CPL § 160.50. REPEATING: quote: The Legislature presumably made this distinction because it concluded that sealing of court records is warranted only when defendants are exonerated of the charges So, dismissing your Ad Hominium attack, what's your problem?

farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 2:31:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hey, y'all wouldn't happen to have the GC/MS results for that? The Pentagon reported that tests confirmed that it was Sarin. You believe EVERYTHING you're told by your Government WITHOUT EVIDENCE? That's why I asked for copies of the Lab Results PROVING that Sarin was, in fact found. So, rather than just Press Releases, you got any EVIDENCE?

camille65 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 2:54:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair I generate my replies on MS Word, Stop doing that. It is getting in the way of your ability to effectively communicate. Just hit the "quote" button, and take it from there. Honestly I have to agree. I find your posts interesting but very difficult to wade through. I have to pause too often to try and discern if it is your pov in red text, or someone elses. The flucuating font colors are quite confusing and not just to me. Please try and snip the quotes from others, most of the time it isn't necessary to include their entire post. Just keep the relevant parts and notate that you've snipped the quote.

luckydog1 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 9:48:08 AM)
"It's nice that you fell for the slander that Ritter is guilty of some crime, but last time I checked, you needed to have a trial before you called someone a criminal." Are you serious Farg? You have never refered to some one as a criminal before they had a trial? I am laughing so hard, I can hardly type. This is your new standard? Thank you for the vivid example of your double standards. I am going to put that on as my new quote. Do you mind?

Sanity -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 9:58:37 AM)
Pffffffftttttttttttttttt You owe me a cup of coffee over that one!!! [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]

farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 11:38:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 "It's nice that you fell for the slander that Ritter is guilty of some crime, but last time I checked, you needed to have a trial before you called someone a criminal." Are you serious Farg? You have never refered to some one as a criminal before they had a trial? The phrase is ALLEGED CRIMINAL. And Scott Ritter IS NOT AN ALLEGED CRIMINAL. There are no charges, there is no prosecution, there is no alleged crime. Or didn't you understand that post about SEALED COURT RECORDS? *EVERYTHING* was decided in Ritter's favor. Simply more "Dirty Tricks" of the Bush Administration, to attempt to diminish the credibility of their critics. I'm surprised you fell for such an obvious ploy.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 12:47:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Who gives a rats ass what some pedophiles personal opinion on Geo politics is. He had the expertise and was hired to determine whether or not Saddam was complying with the Sanctions. He gave the answer ""There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution." He was not elected to decide what to do about it. Co-incidentally after he was paid 400,000 dollars skimmed from the Oil for Food program, he became a supporter of Saddam. And wanted him to stay in power. Purley co-incidental I am sure. What’s so hard to understand about that concept Owner59? Again, when it comes to issues dealing with the inspections HE was involved in, at the time he was involved, he’s got subject matter expertise. Ritter’s comments that Saddam wasn’t in compliance is covered by his subject matter expertise. However, when it comes to geostrategic, and geopolitical issues surrounding that region effective 2002 and on, his opinions are no better than that of anybody that’s posted here. He’s not a veteran of the current war on terrorism. The original plan to topple Saddam with sanctions didn’t work. Six months passed, and he was still in power. He was still in power for years. And the comment about lifting sanctions pending the liberation of Kuwait? Not a complete story. He was to be under UN sanction pending his complete destruction of his WMDs and WMD programs. He had to have a clean bill of health with the UN inspectors before these sanctions were lifted. In fact, the Russians and Chinese tried to argue that the sanctions be lifted, that Saddam “didn’t” have WMD and WMD programs, and that they were “all destroyed”. The US and UK opposed that. His claims that Saddam “never constituted a threat” doesn’t reflect asymmetrical reality. I guess it never mattered to him that Saddam made death to America speeches, and hosted radical terrorist conventions. More proof that money does talk. Under asymmetrical warfare, a dictator with WMD, aligned with terrorists with international reach, is a deadly combination. That combination is a threat to the U.S. Especially when the two groups have an extreme animosity against the U.S. and both have violent histories against U.S. and western interests. WMD would just make it easier for the terrorists to bring us closer to the day we’re ruled by Islamic Holy Law. Under that law, our current way of life CAN’T exist. Luckydog1 is right on the money when shows that this guy got paid from money skimmed from the oil for food program. Can’t bite the hand that feeds you. He may be a veteran, but he doesn’t speak for the thousands of military that are serving in Iraq. The majority of whom disagree with what he says with regards to the Iraq War.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 12:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hey, y'all wouldn't happen to have the GC/MS results for that? The Pentagon reported that tests confirmed that it was Sarin. You believe EVERYTHING you're told by your Government WITHOUT EVIDENCE? That's why I asked for copies of the Lab Results PROVING that Sarin was, in fact found. So, rather than just Press Releases, you got any EVIDENCE? Shaking my head at farglebargle’s double standards when it comes to backing one’s argument. You’ve yet to provide me with hard core evidence to support anything you’ve said to me. And you continue to refuse to answer simple, straightforward questions that I’ve asked you. Yet, you’re accusing ME of accepting things “without evidence?” You’ve got no legs to stand on when demanding that I provide you with the lab results proving that sarin was found, when you can’t provide hard core evidence to support your argument against me. It’s a fact. One or more of our combat troops were treated for Sarin related injuries. I told you that the Pentagon confirmed it. It’s been reported in the news, and the Military stands by those findings. Instead of simply accepting that as fact, as you would similar reports, of similar caliber, reporting things that you argue for, you insist on increasing the bar and ask for more and more evidence. And these reports have more credibility than the Elizabeth De La Vega (sp) piece you referenced in this thread. Your “that’s why I asked you for copies” explanation is lame, and amounts to your arrogance refusing to admit that your side of the argument is wrong. I’ve provided you with sufficient evidence to support my argument. Contrary to you, who argued positions reported in the news, that don’t meet your “need lab results” standard of proof. Your demanding that I show you lab results to back my argument, when sufficient reports are available to prove my point, amounts to you continuously raising the bar, or continually stepping back and drawing a new line. While accepting lesser standards for things that you agree with. It’s not enough that your side of the argument doesn’t have the news report covering the fact that the test results confirmed that it was sarin. I provide that, and you jump in and demand the lab reports. Negative. Your not giving my side of the argument the same courtesy that you would your side of the argument when it comes to proof amounts to you refusing to accept that you’re wrong. In addition to the questions I’ve asked you earlier, answer these questions. Was at least one person treated for sarin related injuries? YES [ ] NO [ ] Did the Pentagon confirm that Sarin was involved in the explosion? YES [ ] NO [ ] Gather more proof beyond what your press releases say before you demand that others do the same. If a news organization that checks its facts, troops in the field, and inspection team report that this was indeed sarin, that’s more than enough to prove that Sarin was used. Having said that . . . Are you willing to tell the soldier, affected by this sarin, that he wasn’t affected by sarin? YES [ ] NO [ ] Are you willing to tell the people that treated him that this soldier didn’t suffer Sarin related injuries? YES [ ] NO [ ]

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 1:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair I generate my replies on MS Word, Stop doing that. It is getting in the way of your ability to effectively communicate. Just hit the "quote" button, and take it from there. Honestly I have to agree. I find your posts interesting but very difficult to wade through. I have to pause too often to try and discern if it is your pov in red text, or someone elses. The flucuating font colors are quite confusing and not just to me. Please try and snip the quotes from others, most of the time it isn't necessary to include their entire post. Just keep the relevant parts and notate that you've snipped the quote. When people as young as High School students understand what I say, using the same formats, then the problem isn’t on my end. I’ve generated posts like that in a message board that high school students, college students, and military frequented. (Old Protest Warrior forums). None of the high school students had problems understanding what I said. NONE. And what I use here is shorter than what I’ve said there. Meaning, the difficulty you have in wading through is more “operator error” on the reader’s part than it is on my part. Again, I read over my replies before I send them, so that I could smooth them out as much as I can . . . without losing the emphasis that I want to make. I credit others for quotes and statements that don’t belong to me. That’s VERY obvious, in case you’re having problems figuring out if my bold red statements are mine or someone else’s. Go back to the post where I reconstructed the conversation where Owner59 made a wrong statement, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. If you don’t see that, you’re not paying attention to what you’re reading. My use of different colors isn't rocket science. That’s just me emphasizing one thing over the other. I’ve done this throughout four years of debating online on different message boards, and I’ve found that the vast majority of the people that’s seen my posts don’t get confused by my different text coloring. However, I’ve had numerous situations where people on the other side of the argument display severe reading comprehension issues. This happens even when I post like everybody else. And no, I’m NOT going to leave quotes from others out. I’m going to continue doing what I’ve done over these years. Here’s a hint on my quoting other people’s conversations, the conversation trends downward when all of the conversations are included. If that’s to complex to understand, just scroll to the bottom of the post. Or the part of the post NOT enclosed in a box. Those patterns are simple and easy to find. If you have issues with that, nobody is forcing you to read my posts.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 1:08:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 "It's nice that you fell for the slander that Ritter is guilty of some crime, but last time I checked, you needed to have a trial before you called someone a criminal." Are you serious Farg? You have never refered to some one as a criminal before they had a trial? I am laughing so hard, I can hardly type. This is your new standard? Thank you for the vivid example of your double standards. I am going to put that on as my new quote. Do you mind? This is the same guy that’ll take Elizabeth De La Vega’s -- anti bush, lawyer type -- words about Bush’s “guilt” of committing fraud, hook, line, and sinker, yet turn around and demand lab results that the sarin used against our troops was indeed sarin. If you say things that farglebargle agrees with, you could pull things out of your hind end, that’s OK. But if you say things that farglebargle disagrees with, you had better get lab results, or pages and pages of empirical evidence. I’ve debated with allot of these kinds of people over the years, it’s just another example of people setting stress shields up to defend their ego’s when their side of the argument is getting pulverized. It gives them a false sense of “winning” the fight, but they don’t realize that everybody else sees their double standards. However, now that farglebargle is a “believer” in court documentations to support statements against certain people, I have another question for him. Farglebargle, do you have the official federal court ruling, conviction, jury verdict, or plea deal indicating that George Bush committed what you claimed he committed? YES [ ] NO [ ] Copy and paste that question to your response, and put an “X” in the option that represents your response. If you need a reminder of what I’m talking about, go back and read your charges in this thread. If you do have that official federal court ruling, conviction, jury verdict, or plea deal, please provide us with a copy.

farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 1:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hey, y'all wouldn't happen to have the GC/MS results for that? The Pentagon reported that tests confirmed that it was Sarin. You believe EVERYTHING you're told by your Government WITHOUT EVIDENCE? That's why I asked for copies of the Lab Results PROVING that Sarin was, in fact found. So, rather than just Press Releases, you got any EVIDENCE? You COULD HAVE just answered the question, "NO, I don't have any evidence.".

farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 1:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 "It's nice that you fell for the slander that Ritter is guilty of some crime, but last time I checked, you needed to have a trial before you called someone a criminal." Are you serious Farg? You have never refered to some one as a criminal before they had a trial? I am laughing so hard, I can hardly type. This is your new standard? Thank you for the vivid example of your double standards. I am going to put that on as my new quote. Do you mind? This is the same guy that’ll take Elizabeth De La Vega’s -- anti bush, lawyer type -- words about Bush’s “guilt” of committing fraud, hook, line, and sinker, yet turn around and demand lab results that the sarin used against our troops was indeed sarin. By "Lawyer type" you mean Former UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, don't you? And no, I don't take her words about Bush's potential guilt. I have studied her legal argument and concluded that there exists Probable Cause to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al. committed violations against, specifically, 18 USC 371. And I observe that YOU did not provide any positive defenses to the alleged overt acts. Well, there may have been a reply, but it was obvious that the reasoning was flawed, and the understanding of applicable law was imperfect, but I pointed that out at the time, IIRC. quote: If you say things that farglebargle agrees with, you could pull things out of your hind end, that’s OK. But if you say things that farglebargle disagrees with, you had better get lab results, or pages and pages of empirical evidence. No EVIDENCE == No Sarin. Of course, the clinically paranoid will disagree. quote: Farglebargle, do you have the official federal court ruling, conviction, jury verdict, or plea deal indicating that George Bush committed what you claimed he committed? YES [ ] NO [ ] Um, let's see. Since de la Vega's point is that there should be a Grand Jury convened, and her presentments are a simulation of that Grand Jury presentation, then of course there is no ruling, conviction, verdict or plea that the alleged criminals committed the enumerated offenses. I would suggest, however, that since the Grand Jury voted to indict the Enron Gang, and the offense is pretty similar, that given the simulated Grand Jury presentation de la Vega created, that the Bush Grand Jury would vote to indict. Of course, that's hypothetical, since Monica Goodling made sure there are ONLY Fundamentalist Religious Extremists subscribing to HER religious and political litmus tests working at the DOJ, you won't find anyone to actually bring the case before a Grand Jury. Now, are you ignorant of the Grand Jury process, or do you have some sort of point to make?

Alumbrado -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 1:26:49 PM)
Is that anything like a simulated ham sandwich?[sm=biggrin.gif]

farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 1:29:04 PM)
I never really subscribed to that "You can manipulate a Grand Jury to indict anyone/anything" meme, myself. And what is simulated ham? Bologna?

Alumbrado -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 1:36:40 PM)
The notion that simulated grand jury outcomes are proof of guilt would certainly qualify as bologna. And you will have to take the ham sandwich assertion up with the person who said it, and tell them it is a just meme, instead of their personal observation over decades in the courts.

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625