Author Topic: I guess the evidence is in.  (Read 39828 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #135 on: November 08, 2006, 02:47:24 AM »
"By what magical cloak of invulnerability would Saddam survive if the US came to the conclusion that the nuke exploded on its soil came from Iraq?"



I agree but I am surprised that you have changed your mind.


Didn't you tell me that if an Atomic explosion were to occur on American territory or on an ally we should not take action against North Korea without certainty that North Korea was the sorce?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #136 on: November 08, 2006, 02:57:58 AM »
No, he can connect the dots.  To someone who's incapable of connecting the dots, it just looks like reading minds.

Especially when the dots are non-existant

That's speculation but the idea that Saddam would give away his nukes to terrorists is inescapable logical deduction.

Nice twist.  I've been consistently talking about WMD, not nuk specific, nor that Saddam would "give" anything away.  The idea that Saddam would SELL some of his WMD, such as cases of sarin or containers of mustard gas, to terrroists he did have connections with, to be used on an enemy that they jointly despised, is acutely logical

By what magical cloak of invulnerability would Saddam survive if the US came to the conclusion that the nuke exploded on its soil came from Iraq?

You keep jumping to the conclusion that it would be a forgone conclusion that America would make that connection.  Not even close.  I bet he'd even expect certain members of the UN to come to his rescue, and decry how such connections were obviously flawed, perhaps even planted to make it look like Iraq.  Reasonable doubt, and the Global community would make it clear that the U.S not make any attempt at retaliation.  And that'd be the gamble

Right, so the guy's sitting on the second biggest proven oil reserves on the planet but he's so hard up for cash that he'll sell nukes to some crazy bunch of terrorists and hope desperately that word doesn't get out - - but (and here's where sirs displays his hard-won knowledge of the world) - - only "if the price were right."

You're kidding right?  Someone with lots of money is content not to want any more.  Yea, Gates doesn't want any more.  I hear he's trying to sell everything, join a commune.   Of all people Tee, you condemn "rich Republicans" every frellin day, the evils of capitalism, how dare rich people want to get richer.  But Saddam is content with what he has.??...especially the amounts he'd request for something like WMD.  You're bent, Tee.  But, at least you stopped digging the Bush lied wbout WMD hole any deeper. 

Uhh, that would be you, sirs.   Letting us in on Saddam's gambling habits, and what they'll drive him to.  Letting us in on Saddam's insatiable thirst for cash, and what he'll do for it.

Lemme see, how does that phrase go?...oh yea, I can connect the dots.  And more so, observation of people's actions, especially from a military standpoint.  Saddam was not simply the President of Iraq, he was their military leader, complete with uniform & sidearm.  His military actions indeed included gambling.  To someone who's incapable of connecting the dots, it just looks like reading minds

Right, sirs.  Of course.  Forgive me.  I had forgotten what impressive qualifications you possess in the means and techniques of investigating nuclear explosions and their residues, of intelligence gathering and criminal investigation.  And - - remind me again sirs - - those qualifications are . . . ?

The same ones you're using that make it a forgone conclusion that the U.S. would know it was Saddam's WMD, thus he wouldn't dare let one loose

Uhh, and in terms of Saddam's trying to decide whether or not to give a few nukes to those pesky terrorists, this would enter into his decision-making process how? 

It doesn't.  As I said, he'd probably be looking at the dollar signs, which he could then use to help rebuild his own military complex.  Especially when he could combine it with the corrupted oil for food program, from the UN.  gotta rebuild all those palaces some way



"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #137 on: November 08, 2006, 03:21:54 AM »
<<You're kidding right?  Someone with lots of money is content not to want any more.  Yea, Gates doesn't want any more.  I hear he's trying to sell everything, join a commune. >>

No, he's taking suicidal risks.  Playing Russian Roulette for half a billion a shot.  I didn't say rich people don't want more money, I said they don't have to risk anihilation for it.

<<  Of all people Tee, you condemn "rich Republicans" every frellin day, the evils of capitalism, how dare rich people want to get richer.  >>

Did I say they want to risk their lives and their wives' and children's lives to get even richer?  It's pointless to argue with you, your theories are so fucking stupid and out to lunch that it's just a complete waste of my time.

<<But Saddam is content with what he has.??...especially the amounts he'd request for something like WMD. >>

Fucking PAKISTAN has nukes for christ sake.  More than Iraq does.  How much fucking money do you think it takes to get nukes anyway?  And if Saddam with all his oil can't afford to buy nukes, where do you think the fucking terrorists are going to come up with the money that he needs?

 <<You're bent, Tee.  >>  Oh shut the fuck up already.  You're getting boring.

<<But, at least you stopped digging the Bush lied wbout WMD hole any deeper.  >>

Well, someone's sure digging himself into a hole on that one.  You'll be the last man in America to still believe the little prick WASN'T lying.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #138 on: November 08, 2006, 03:32:26 AM »
"You'll be the last man in America to still believe the little prick WASN'T lying."



He is sure to outlive me?


Lots of people do not beleive he was lieng, Note that the races for Congress are very close Democrats are comeing out ahead tonight mostly by haveing small percentage gains in a lot of places.

We are still divided very nearly evenly, all that shouting about Lies with no proof offered ...


Yes no proof really

... have had a very small effect.


Most of us are either in the Party already or are rational enough to be persuaded .

You and I are partizans , the swing is the people who watch the partizens and swap when persueded.


Doesn't need to be many altogether , if they are in the right places.


So all this change , can be reversed in two years , unless the persuedeable remain faithfull and this is not their nature.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #139 on: November 08, 2006, 09:07:16 AM »
No, he can connect the dots.  To someone who's incapable of connecting the dots, it just looks like reading minds.

Especially when the dots are non-existant

Why, Sirs, dots like Ford's War Budget. He connects 'em, dontcha know.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #140 on: November 08, 2006, 09:46:03 AM »
<<Didn't you tell me that if an Atomic explosion were to occur on American territory or on an ally we should not take action against North Korea without certainty that North Korea was the sorce?>>

Absolutely not.  You are really confused.  Or maybe you just don't recall the details.

We were talking specifically about Krauthammer's moronic proposal that the U.S. should intimidate North Korea by letting them know that they would be nuked in response to ANY nuclear attack on the U.S. whether or not the U.S. could prove they were behind it.

I said that such a policy would guarantee a second nuclear strike on the U.S. by North Korea even if they had nothing to do with the first, since they would know they were gonna get nuked anyway.

What I told you was a specific critique of the moron Krauthammer and his idiotic idea.  Had nothing to do with whether the U.S. should or shouldn't nuke anybody.  That wasn't even on the table for discussion. 

The proposed policy was to scare NK with a threat.  The effect would have been a guaranteed second strike if anyone else on the planet made a first strike.  You probably misrecalled the thread by leaving out Krauthammer's proposal, which was the topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #141 on: November 09, 2006, 11:43:11 AM »
No, he's taking suicidal risks.  Playing Russian Roulette for half a billion a shot.  I didn't say rich people don't want more money, I said they don't have to risk anihilation for it.

Crazy military dictators are not immune from such, especially since it's neither he, nor anyone directly connected to him doing the attack

<<  Of all people Tee, you condemn "rich Republicans" every frellin day, the evils of capitalism, how dare rich people want to get richer.  >>

Did I say they want to risk their lives and their wives' and children's lives to get even richer?  It's pointless to argue with you, your theories are so fucking stupid and out to lunch that it's just a complete waste of my time.

Saddam has not only consistently risked the lives of his own people, but has taken on killing them in mass from time to time, all by himself.  I'd suggest medication for that overt fear of current reality

Fucking PAKISTAN has nukes for christ sake.  More than Iraq does.  How much fucking money do you think it takes to get nukes anyway?  And if Saddam with all his oil can't afford to buy nukes, where do you think the fucking terrorists are going to come up with the money that he needs?

Why you insist on making this soley about nukes is beyond me.  More of that hole you keep digging.  A) He didn't even have one yet (though as Ami pointed out, there was always the possibility he purchased 1 or more of Russia's missing suitcase nukes), and B) the Chemical & Biologicial WMD Saddam had possessed, and much more the target of terrorists in trying to purchase.  So, do the class a favor, and stop making yourself out to look so desperate in cheery picking only nukes, that even the Intel said Saddam didn't have yet

Well, someone's sure digging himself into a hole on that one.  You'll be the last man in America to still believe the little prick WASN'T lying.

Actually those millions of us with a grasp of the facts will continue to believe Bush didn't lie us into war.  But don't let the facts stop you.  By all means, keep digging
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #142 on: November 09, 2006, 12:10:25 PM »
<<  I'd suggest medication for that overt fear of current reality>>

In that case, you'd be drowning in Prozac.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #143 on: November 09, 2006, 12:46:10 PM »
In that case, you'd be drowning in Prozac.

 :D  Keep digging.  You'll be able to start trade negotiations with China any time now
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #144 on: November 09, 2006, 01:27:11 PM »
<<Actually those millions of us with a grasp of the facts will continue to believe Bush didn't lie us into war. >>

"those millions," eh?  By this time, that should probably be "those hundreds of thousands of us."   When you finally get into the five digits, you'll be eligible for some kind of Republican medal for extreme stupidity above and beyond the call of duty.  BTW, "digging" is for people who are working in earth - - in your case, what I'm trying to clear up is your pure bullshit, and the proper term would be "shovelling."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #145 on: November 09, 2006, 02:05:38 PM »
<<Actually those millions of us with a grasp of the facts will continue to believe Bush didn't lie us into war. >>

"those millions," eh?  By this time, that should probably be "those hundreds of thousands of us."   

Last time I looked, the Republicans across the country were getting votes in the millions, despite losing most of those races.  Want to try again, or just keep digging?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« Reply #146 on: November 10, 2006, 02:22:44 AM »
<<Didn't you tell me that if an Atomic explosion were to occur on American territory or on an ally we should not take action against North Korea without certainty that North Korea was the sorce?>>

Absolutely not.  You are really confused.  Or maybe you just don't recall the details.

We were talking specifically about Krauthammer's moronic proposal that the U.S. should intimidate North Korea by letting them know that they would be nuked in response to ANY nuclear attack on the U.S. whether or not the U.S. could prove they were behind it.

I said that such a policy would guarantee a second nuclear strike on the U.S. by North Korea even if they had nothing to do with the first, since they would know they were gonna get nuked anyway.




What I told you was a specific critique of the moron Krauthammer and his idiotic idea.  Had nothing to do with whether the U.S. should or shouldn't nuke anybody.  That wasn't even on the table for discussion. 

The proposed policy was to scare NK with a threat.  The effect would have been a guaranteed second strike if anyone else on the planet made a first strike.  You probably misrecalled the thread by leaving out Krauthammer's proposal, which was the topic.




There would be no second strike from North Korea if we struck them with enough to make it impossible .


Why should we do any less ?
If we had absolute proof that the bomb was from a particular place , that palce would not admit it and lay their wepons down .

If we get an attack of that nature the retaliation will not be done with revenge in mind , but safety .


Safety is served by reduceing our enemys by one , even if it is the "wrong " one .