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

philosophy -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 1:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 How many flaunt direct Security Council Resolutions? ....as this is the one that supposedly gives a legal twist to the invasion of Iraq.......just how many nations do flaunt direct security council resolutions? How many countries flaunt direct rulings of the International Court? How many countries don't live up to the things they have signed up to in international accords and treaties? ........and of that long list (which, btw, includes the USA) how many nations have been invaded by the USA? ...additionally the list i gave out is not a list compiled from your conditions....it was compiled from HFC's list of conditions. All of those countries support either openly or covertly terrorists..or freedom fighters.....all depends on your politics. They all constitute a potential risk via the doctrine of assymetrical warfare. According to HFC's argument they are as much a threat as Iraq was to the USA.

mnottertail -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 2:06:04 PM)
WE don't flaunt rulings by the world court, we stormed out of that motherfucker when a couple decisions didn't go our way!!!!!! This is from the actual 1441 resolution: 34.Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area... This of course is not our violating the will of the UN Security Council as Saddam did not as evidenced here: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml since as a permanant member of the council, if we veto a vote, regardless of who votes against us, including the other permanant members, there is no resolution. So what kind of lies are you spreading now? LOLOLOLOLOL, Ron Ron

thompsonx -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 4:34:02 PM)
FirmhandKY: I would like to break in here and respond to the OP itself. The OP's citation states that the journalist presented his credentials on the way into the green zone and was admitted. He went through the green zone and out the other side and did his business and then tried to return where he was refused admittance by the sentry. After a bit of discussion the sentry contacted his control,either the OD or the Sgt. of the guard. The OP's citation states that the sentries control told him to pass the journalist and his body guard through if his ID matched his person. This would indicate that the sentry was wrong and the journalist was right. My questions are 1. What is your point? 2. Why have you posted the hebetudinous thoughts of nearly 200 fools who obviously cannot read and keep supporting the sentry who was wrong and castigating the journalist who was right? thompson.

Sinergy -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 5:04:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Nixon finally turned around and applied the military solution. This forced the North Vietnamese to the peace table. Interesting point. So when Nixon forced the North Vietnamese to the peace table (feel free to refresh me when and where this peace table was set up and the negotiations took place) what terms did Nixon force the North Vietnamese to accept? Sinergy

TreasureKY -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 5:18:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx FirmhandKY: I would like to break in here and respond to the OP itself. The OP's citation states that the journalist presented his credentials on the way into the green zone and was admitted. He went through the green zone and out the other side and did his business and then tried to return where he was refused admittance by the sentry. After a bit of discussion the sentry contacted his control,either the OD or the Sgt. of the guard. The OP's citation states that the sentries control told him to pass the journalist and his body guard through if his ID matched his person. This would indicate that the sentry was wrong and the journalist was right. My questions are 1. What is your point? 2. Why have you posted the hebetudinous thoughts of nearly 200 fools who obviously cannot read and keep supporting the sentry who was wrong and castigating the journalist who was right? thompson. You've got to be kidding, right?

thompsonx -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 5:57:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx FirmhandKY: I would like to break in here and respond to the OP itself. The OP's citation states that the journalist presented his credentials on the way into the green zone and was admitted. He went through the green zone and out the other side and did his business and then tried to return where he was refused admittance by the sentry. After a bit of discussion the sentry contacted his control,either the OD or the Sgt. of the guard. The OP's citation states that the sentries control told him to pass the journalist and his body guard through if his ID matched his person. This would indicate that the sentry was wrong and the journalist was right. My questions are 1. What is your point? 2. Why have you posted the hebetudinous thoughts of nearly 200 fools who obviously cannot read and keep supporting the sentry who was wrong and castigating the journalist who was right? thompson. You've got to be kidding, right? TreasureKY: No. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 6:01:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Nixon finally turned around and applied the military solution. This forced the North Vietnamese to the peace table. Interesting point. So when Nixon forced the North Vietnamese to the peace table (feel free to refresh me when and where this peace table was set up and the negotiations took place) what terms did Nixon force the North Vietnamese to accept? Sinergy Sinergy: He got them to agree that if we left Viet Nam they would quit shooting at us. thompson

Sinergy -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 6:20:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Nixon finally turned around and applied the military solution. This forced the North Vietnamese to the peace table. Interesting point. So when Nixon forced the North Vietnamese to the peace table (feel free to refresh me when and where this peace table was set up and the negotiations took place) what terms did Nixon force the North Vietnamese to accept? Sinergy Sinergy: He got them to agree that if we left Viet Nam they would quit shooting at us. thompson So dropping more explosives on Vietnam than had ever been dropped in all wars to that point COMBINED was money well spent. Sweet! Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:01:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Nixon finally turned around and applied the military solution. This forced the North Vietnamese to the peace table. Interesting point. So when Nixon forced the North Vietnamese to the peace table (feel free to refresh me when and where this peace table was set up and the negotiations took place) what terms did Nixon force the North Vietnamese to accept? Sinergy Sinergy: He got them to agree that if we left Viet Nam they would quit shooting at us. thompson So dropping more explosives on Vietnam than had ever been dropped in all wars to that point COMBINED was money well spent. Sweet! Sinergy Sinergy: I do not know how you got there from what I said. I am pretty sure I am on record as to my opinion of the conflict in Viet Nam. thompson

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:18:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebrgle quote: Meaning, you don’t have a point to make in this discussion Military Force is not a solution to any problem. It can only buy time for a proper Political Solution. Same point I made the first time. In Iraq, like Vietnam, there IS NO STRONG NATIONALIST GOVERNMENT to negotiate a Political Solution with the Indigineous Hominids who are arranged in smaller, tribal groups and/or Religious Sects. I still stand my statement, you don’t have a point to make in this discussion, whether we’re talking about the Vietnam War or Iraq War. And your post is nothing but a red herring. I don’t count red herring statements as points to be made in a discussion, but distractors. Also, if I disagreed with it the last time, I’m going to disagree with it again. You’re WRONG about military force not being a solution to any problem. And I say this for both what happened in Vietnam, and what’s happening in Iraq. For your assertion that military force “is not” a solution to any problem, no nation would need a military. If you believe otherwise, then you’re forgetting examples in history where military force resolved things. War isn’t something that you use to buy time to find a political solution. With regards to Vietnam, again, we failed to provide the military teeth to back the agreement we had with the North Vietnamese. Remember, it was our effective use of military action that forced them to the peace table in the first place to work toward this agreement. Congress removed Nixon’s trump cards (resumed bombing campaign), and cut North Vietnam’s legs from underneath them with regards to funding. In both cases, the military option, as a backer to the agreement, wasn’t there. And the worst outcome occurred, with the agreement that we had with them not worth the paper it was printed on. With regards to Iraq, again, if those people saw that we were intent in carrying out our mission, that we wouldn’t cave in to the other side of the argument calling for us to end the war and come home, their national government wouldn’t have a hard time getting people to make settlements at the local level. In fact, it’s our steadfast success in the battle field that’s forcing allot of people to give up on the insurgency and getting involved in the political process instead. If they’re still holding out, and refusing to cooperate with their government, it’s because they’re hoping to hold out long enough to buy time for your side of the argument to gain enough momentum to get your way. So that they could use force to get their way. Whatever political solution that comes up, if it doesn’t have a military and police force that could enforce it, that solution isn’t worth the cost of the paper it’s printed on. That’s true whether that’s in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:22:51 PM)
I’ll vouch for what ferriemistie said. I’ve NEVER seen a 20 year enlistment contract. The initial enlistment is 8 years, which can be done on both on active duty and in the reserve. People can enlist for two years or up to 6 years active duty, then serve the remainder in the ready reserves. As far as finding someone that’s Missing in Action, MIA, Joanus’ story doesn’t check. The military tries to search for that person with their own resources in the theater. A recent example is the door to door search troops in Iraq conducted after a few troops were ambushed and kidnapped. Joanus’ story doesn’t add up. If a car bomb took that person’s life, then the military would know about it. No service member would be out there just dily dallying about. They’d be doing something related to the military. If someone ends up getting killed, they’re not to far from U.S. or Iraqi forces for recovery purposes. And if they’re at a check point, they’re in communication with everybody else. Joanus claim’s that he spent 3 months in Baghdad, a young 18 year old, barely out of high school, who found a victim of a car bombing months after the car bombing happened, doesn’t check. Especially considering that his claim has him doing something the military’s resources wasn’t able to do. SOMEONE, from the U.S. military, Iraqi military, or Iraqi authorities, would’ve recovered that person’s body if he died from a car bomb explosion. And if it’s a "GI," he/she will eventually wind up in the Iraqi or U.S. military’s hands. First responders would recover the bodies first. His comments about the military acting like hooligans or with a “stick” up their @$$? Another big red flag. Just the kind of perception one would get from watching 10 to 20 second news soundbites on cherry picked aspects on the military. Not the kind of perception one would get if they actually had the opportunity to be in their presence.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:27:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Urestricted Warfare, written by Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui, People’s Liberation Army. From page "ix": Unrestricted Warfare is well known to the Central Intelligence Agency as well as to America’s national security Establishment. The book was translated by the federal government for study, yet it has gotten little mention by Congress or the media. Now, let me get this straight. This seminal work by the two chinese colonels is based entirely on fact is that correct? This is right reason in this little novella right here? That's your position right? Ron First, read the entire book that the link leads you to. Read it more than once if you have to. Then, go back to my replies and read them in their entirety. Had you done that in the first place, you wouldn’t have come up with that conclusion. Your question, asking if it’s “entirely based,” is nothing but a red herring. You didn’t even come anywhere NEAR my position. Again, something that would’ve been alleviated had you read the book the link I gave you leads to, as well as my posts, with the intentions of understanding what was being said. The Federal Government translated it for study. That should speak volumes. If you go through and read what’s in that link, and read through my posts, listen to what people carrying out the fight against us, and their enablers, are saying, and so on, you’ll see that what those two colonels wrote is very applicable to what’s going on today. READ the book in that link before knocking it, “diminishing” it, or trying to cast doubts on it. Your attitude toward the book in that link isn’t intellectually healthy.

Sinergy -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Sinergy: I do not know how you got there from what I said. I am pretty sure I am on record as to my opinion of the conflict in Viet Nam. thompson I got that, thompsonx. I have always enjoyed reading your posts. I thought we were tag teaming on the person pontificating wet-dreamily about Nixon forcing those damn Viet Cong to the negotiating table. Sorry for the confusion. Sinergy

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:34:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Under asymmetrical warfare, allowing a dictator to play cat and mouse games with regards to his WMD programs, given his past history of supporting terrorists, given his hosting radical terrorist conventions, given his making death to America statements, and given Bin Laden’s search for WMD, and better ways to kill more Americans, not going into Iraq would’ve been equivalent to letting someone play with matches in a room you’re both in, when it’s flooded with gasoline. ......very few people agree with this analysis. It smacks of sophistry, the building of a merely superficially logical case to support an action you've already decided on. The logic you have used to support the invasion of Iraq is useable to support the invasion of many countries; Venezuala, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Ecuador, Libya, to name but a few....imagine if that logic is followed through on.....all those countries world wide being invaded by a first nation engaging in pre-emptive strikes. Not a happy world, i'd imagine. Giving the impracticality of your doctrine if it were applied to all the cases it applies to, perhaps there's an argument for rethinking the strategy. And which people did you talk to in order to get that assumption that “very few” people agree with my assessment? Whoever they are, I highly doubt that you talked to the majority of the people in the military, specifically those that have combat deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. What I’ve found is that the vast majority of the people that have first hand accounts, who have access to more information than the general public, who have experiences that the general public doesn’t have, hold the same assessments that I have. But enough information is out there that people who’re willing to get off their hind ends to research material, vice allowing biased news organizations to spoon feed them selected bits and pieces, can arm themselves with enough knowledge to know more than those that don’t do the same. What you quoted is reality. That represents the majority view in every place I’ve been in with regards to the military. And we each came up to that conclusion on our own. Also, this isn’t something that I cooked up just to defend something that’s already happened. Unrestricted Warfare wasn’t new when President Bush took office. Read the text of his speech post 9/11, and you’ll see asymmetrical warfare themes. Iraq as the next step after Afghanistan made perfect sense with regards to asymmetrical warfare. It was a no brainer. On your attempts to say that I could use this argument to invade a list of other countries. In order for your assumption to work, please answer this question. Which country, out of those that you listed, meets ALL of the following criteria: 1. Involved in a hot war with us within the past 18 years 2. Violated a cease fire agreement with us with regards to weapons terrorists could use to wreck massive damage on our soil . . . 3. Played cat and mouse games with the U.N. with the weapons mentioned in #2 . . . 4. Invaded two of it’s neighbors within a 12 year span in the past 20 years . . . 5. Gased its own people? Find me a nation, out of your list, that meets ALL of those five criteria, and you’ll have a point. You’d prove that you’ve understood what I was getting at. And the fact that you’d turn around and say that we could use my reasoning to invade those countries speaks volumes of your lack of understanding of asymmetrical warfare . . . and of what I said. Again, QUIT seeing asymmetrical warfare the same way as you’d see a symmetrical war. Asymmetrical warfare has multiple dimensions. The way you wage asymmetrical warfare against one nation won’t necessarily be the same asymmetrical warfare tactic on another nation. What we’re doing in Iraq is a part of asymmetrical warfare, but doesn’t define it. We’re applying asymmetrical warfare against some of the nations that you mentioned on you list. Read the link that I provide on this thread to get a better understanding of what asymmetrical warfare is. It scratches the surface of what asymmetrical warfare entails, isn’t all inclusive, and doesn’t confirm to your black and white version of what constitutes a threat and what doesn’t. Do THAT before you dismiss my “doctrine”, which is very applicable to what’s going on today, and which is being applied against our enemies in the war on terrorism. And definitely read that book before running off with your assumptions of what I meant.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:37:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You know, The Saudis are the only ones on that list which I would say should have been invaded post-9/11, due to their role in the planning and financing of Terrorists, specifically the 9/11 attacks. Same thing goes for you: Does Saudi Arabia meet ALL of the following? YES [ ] NO [ ] 1. Involved in a hot war with us within the past 18 years 2. Violated a cease fire agreement with us with regards to weapons terrorists could use to wreck massive damage on our soil . . . 3. Played cat and mouse games with the U.N. with the weapons mentioned in #2 . . . 4. Invaded two of it’s neighbors within a 12 year span in the past 20 years . . . 5. Gased its own people? And your assertion that Saudi Arabia planned and financed the terrorists that carried out the 9/11 attacks is wrong.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:39:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You know, The Saudis are the only ones on that list which I would say should have been invaded post-9/11, due to their role in the planning and financing of Terrorists, specifically the 9/11 attacks. .....however, on the basis of the justification offered by HFC all of those countries can be argued to be in the same boat. Now, i'd hope my point was obvious.......to attempt to militarily intervene in all those countries would be foolish. Therefore, a strategy that doesn't involve the military response would be preferable........i'd argue that diplomacy has a far greater role to play..... Read my posts with the intentions of understanding what I’m saying before you even TRY to tell people what I’m trying to “justify” or what I’m trying to argue. Until you do that, you’ve got no legs to stand on when talking about what does and what doesn’t meet a serious asymmetrical threat to us. You don’t come anywhere NEAR to understanding what I’m arguing. My argument, if you bothered seeing what I’m actually saying, doesn’t support your misconception that asymmetrical warfare “justifications”, ala Iraq, could be used on those countries. Again, go back and read my questions to you, and name the country’s on your list that meet ALL the criteria that I put up there. And the fact that you’d associate my reasoning with military intervention in every instance speaks volumes of your not understanding unrestricted warfare. Earlier in this thread, I talked about non traditional means. Non traditional means includes non military means of “fighting” a war. You talk about a strategy that doesn’t involve military response. Even diplomacy, used in combination with other asymmetrical warfare means, is used as part of asymmetrical warfare. Go to the link that I provided, and you’ll see large sections devoted to non military methods of carrying out a war. We call that “soft kill”. Asymmetrical warfare has many dimensions, and isn’t equally applicable in every instance. You have to read the book to get the basics, then apply that to the real world geostrategic and geopolitical situation to expand on that.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Actually Philosophy, I think you are misunderstanding how logic works. Take your list of nations. Libya accepted that they had to come clean (AFTER we invaded Iraq) opened thier nation to inspectors, and dropped the dime on the A Q Kahn Network, why would we need to bomb them? In fact Saddam could have taken that option, but didn't. Take the list of Iraq(under saddam),Venezuala, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Ecuador, Libya. How many have used Chemical weopons on it's own citizens? How many had attacked several of its neighbors, in the past 20 years? How many flaunt direct Security Council Resolutions? Shoot at planes enforcing UN Security OCuncil resolutions? Same Brutal Dictator since the 1970s? Directly funding terrorists that threaten to destabilise the entire region and kill Americans? THANK YOU! . . . EXACTLY! And the Elephant in the room thanks you for seeing him where others have constantly overlooked him. The poor thing was worried that he’d be nothing but bleached bones in the room. The point that Saddam could’ve done what Libya did, is missed by many people that argue against our invading Iraq. I think there’s another country that did the same thing with regards to its WMD programs. Lead the inspectors by the fingers to every knock and cranny, so to speak, of their WMD programs. And did what they could to get within compliance. They didn’t leave the inspectors in a guessing game, like the Iraqis did. Philosophy, look at the above quote. If you want to see someone that understood what I said, read that quote. Nothing like what you, or other people in the past who utilized the same argument, said. You didn’t even come close to understanding what I’m talking about.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:45:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Iraq does not qualify on the list you supplied. Not by any stretch of reality. Saudia Arabia and several other countries have had the same brutal dictators since the 70's right off hand Israel and Turkey and Morroco flaunt UN Security resolutions constantly, as do the US and Russia, China et al since they veto the ones that the world brings against them.... Again, until you read the link that I provided, you don’t have the legs to stand on when saying that Iraq “doesn’t” meet the criteria that he listed. Because it does. Here, incase the other people on your side of the argument avoid it: Which country, out of those that philosophy listed, meets ALL of the following criteria: 1. Involved in a hot war with us within the past 18 years 2. Violated a cease fire agreement with us with regards to weapons terrorists could use to wreck massive damage on our soil . . . 3. Played cat and mouse games with the U.N. with the weapons mentioned in #2 . . . 4. Invaded two of it’s neighbors within a 12 year span in the past 20 years . . . 5. Gased its own people . . . Find me a nation, out of philosophy’s list, that meets ALL of those five criteria, and you’ll have a point. This isn’t a case of not fitting Iraq in “by any stretch of the imagination.” This is a case of someone refusing to even acknowledge the asymmetrical reality we’re involved with. quote: No valid proof of directly funding terrorists that threaten to destabilise the entire region and kill Americans. That is just a start........ Ron ROTFLMFAO! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm Excerpts: 1. Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel 2. A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_273762.html Excerpt: 1. Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel, say congressional investigators who uncovered evidence of the money trail. Questions? Just talk to the guy that made the banner saying something about Iraq and Palestine in the same trenches, and that Saddam was a hero, from the first link. Providing aid to suicide bomber families in the form of a check? That’s encouraging other people to step forward to attack Israel. Any attempt to destabilize Israel is an attempt to destabilize the region. And that’s not the only financial award he offered. He also offered a financial award to those that succeeded in shooting down coalition aircraft. Saddam considered himself as being in a state of war in the U.S. Anybody that thinks that he wouldn’t align himself with a radical terror group capable of striking within the U.S. is missing the point behind the ARAB saying, “An enemy of my enemy is a friend.”

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:50:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair If we “sold” them something, it wasn’t WMD. But we did give them information on the Iranians based on satellite data. That’s a fact, research it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/506/27605 http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/america/George-Bush-Senior-Iraqi-Oil.html (This one is the most interesting as it is a Neo-con supporters website) http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/001259.php I can provide more to aid you in your research, herfacechair, in to where Saddam Hussein obtained his weapons of mass destruction. Happy researching! Sinergy Could you take a wild guess at what number that makes you of the people that tried pulling that stunt with me? I’m going to tell you essentially the same thing that I told them. Doing an internet search for something that supports your opinion, then running off with the results without putting them through a fact check doesn’t constitute research. You need to verify, hash out, analyze, and weed out the BS from the real deal. Then work on a trend from the remainder while continuing to analyze the data. You failed to do that. And keep in mind that I’ve seen links that made those same points and REJECTED those articles as questionable in validity. The Wikepedia article reads like a school report. You do realize that anybody could go in and adjust a wikepedia article, do you? A red flag when using that as a source unless you have other credible sources saying the same thing. They have edit functions there that work. What’s stopping you, or someone on your side of the argument, from adjusting data on there? The other sources you use don’t have any credibility to justify them being the “backing” evidence to guard against this being something that anybody could edit. And the sources this person uses could be equality questionable, this article should be taken as a grain of salt, not as gospel. Your Greenleaf article is an OPINION PIECE that reads more like an EDITORIAL than it does a news article. Your Lilith Ezine article also reads as an OPINION PIECE, and reads like an EDITORIAL fit for a FEMINIST Ezine. Not quite your bastion of conservative ideals. And you call your next piece of screed “neo con supporters”? You’ve GOT to be KIDDING! That reads like a dishonest tome that I’d read on a liberal blog. This last link also reads like an opinion piece. You DO know the difference between a news article and an editorial, do you? Looking at the quality of all the sources you presented, you would’ve had the same affect had you linked to other threads on this forum to support your argument. If these links meet your “standard” for what constitutes research, I DON’T want you to waste my time with your “help”. What I said still stands. We DIDN’T sell them WMD. The best that I’ve found is that we turned a blind eye when they used the WMD, but that’s not us selling them WMD. One of your links tries to make a “connection” by using inductive fallacy, but fails.

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/8/2007 7:52:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If the US doesn't obey the NPT, why should anyone else? That’s a red herring statement that tries to find equivalency between two unrelated things. How about answering my new questions, as well as questions I’ve asked you earlier in this thread? Still waiting for your answers, simply copy and paste the questions and select the option that represents your answers. As long as you’re going to participate on this thread, I’m going to be expecting answers to those questions.

Page: << < prev 27 28 [29] 30 31 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875