Utopia Talk / Politics / Kargen Lol

charper Member	Sat Mar 06 17:23:07 Kargen - The USA had enough to go to war without WMD claims Karl Rove - "Would the Iraq War have occurred without WMD? I doubt it," he wrote. "Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the threat of WMD"
garyd Member	Sat Mar 06 21:41:19 Source? And by the way as usual the onlyed one owned is you since the two statements aren't mutually exclusive in any case.
KreeL Member	Sat Mar 06 22:06:19 The Big Lie{tm} went hand in hand with all the Little Lies{tm}. Iraq was a threat with their WMD. The Taliban was a threat because they wouldn't turn over Bin Laden. Afghanistan is still a threat. They don't know why. Iran is a threat because they are just there and they are. Grow brains, numnutzes.
garyd Member	Sat Mar 06 22:10:36 I have a perfectly good brain sir as can be told by the fact that I can seperate fact from fantasy. It is a shame that you can't because your irrationality on this subject precludes people from paying any attention to decent points you make on other subjects on which you are more rational.
KreeL Member	Sat Mar 06 22:24:31 So where's your absent evidence, numnutz. You claim to have a brain, yet you show know preponderance to using it.
garyd Member	Sat Mar 06 22:29:51 Get back to me when you present some evidence that can't be easily refuted by a fifth grader of average intelligence and a little knowledge.
KreeL Member	Sat Mar 06 22:40:34 You have failed to refute any evidence so far. A research laboratory with some of the highest grade equipment available finds indisputable thermitic material in the WTC debris, and you just thrust your chubby fists into your eyes and scream "Did NOT!" "Did Naaaaaaaaaawwwwwwt!!"
KreeL Member	Sat Mar 06 22:41:57 Perhaps just wishful thinking on your part. The problem is, they found it. It's there. Get your own scientists to look at it. It's there. Where's NIST now? Nobody's got your back anymore because smart people are bailing on the official fairytale at an alarming rate.
Cloud Strife Member	Sun Mar 07 01:03:16 `Where's NIST now?' Down the road a ways. Walking distance if you need it.
charper Member	Sun Mar 07 03:09:36 "Source? And by the way as usual the onlyed one owned is you since the two statements aren't mutually exclusive in any case" dumbfuck rofl
charper Member	Sun Mar 07 03:10:09 "I have a perfectly good brain sir as can be told by the fact that I can seperate fact from fantasy." dumbfuck santa clausian doublerofl
KreeL Member	Sun Mar 07 03:51:43 I've got evidence that you sorely lack in explaining your fantasy gov't fairytale. It's not even a contest anymore. Until you can show some evidence - ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, that Bin Laden perped 9/11 using cameljockey pilots with boxcutters, you're pwnt like the day you were born.
garyd Member	Sun Mar 07 09:53:04 You have no evidence Kreel that they didn't none that even young children would believe. Charper you idiot, the statement that we had enough evidence to go to war against Sadam w/o WMD and the Statement that congress wouldn't have gone to war without the WMD arguemnt don't even address precisely the same topic. Both statements in fact can be true. Granted that eight grade education of yours probably can't figure that out so before you make yourself look any more rediculous you should just quit while you are only down 50 to zip instead of trying for the century behind mark...
charper Member	Sun Mar 07 10:15:14 Kill yourself you lunatic lol
garyd Member	Sun Mar 07 10:19:56 Learn logic moron. The possible fact that the congress might not have voted for war without wmd evidence, a war which for all practical purposes had been going on since Saddams invasion of Kuwait and had been renewed in 1998 under Bill Clinton, does not in any way imply that there wasn't sufficient evidence for such a war without WMD.
charper Member	Sun Mar 07 10:20:57 Sun Mar 07 10:15:14
charper Member	Sun Mar 07 10:21:58 How fucking DARE you demand logic...incredible rofl
garyd Member	Sun Mar 07 10:25:01 You're right asking logic of you is like asking a two year old to count to a million by tens...
charper Member	Sun Mar 07 10:29:45 The begger of the great santa claus in the sky who refused to debate at UP according to formal rules that are constructed to disallow logical fallacies, whining about logic...aahahahaa
garyd Member	Sun Mar 07 10:31:37 You wouldn't know a logical fantasy if it walked up and intoduced itself to you as this thread clearly demonstrates for all to see.
charper Member	Sun Mar 07 10:42:50 "a logical fantasy" Huh? rofl...these stupid lunatics...lol
garyd Member	Sun Mar 07 10:48:10 Sorry fantasy should have been fallacy. And your first post in this thread was a logical fallacy. based uon the notion that your response in and of itslef disproved kargens statement when in fact it does no such thing. Since then you have done little more than cackle like some insane chicken while making no attempt what ever to demostrate how both statements cannot simultaneously be true.
charper Member	Sun Mar 07 10:57:30 Sun Mar 07 10:15:14
kargen Member	Mon Mar 08 00:29:19 charper you gotta remember I was calling for President Clinton to do something about Iraq when he was in office. You see Iraq started a war by invading Kuwait. They then agreed to a cease fire. They then began ignoring the terms of that cease fire and should have been lit up at that point. Whether or not congress had the balls to do it didn't matter concerning my statement. The reason and justification was there all along.
NeverWoods Member	Mon Mar 08 12:11:52 "You see Iraq started a war by invading Kuwait" Which you guys told them it was green. "They then began ignoring the terms of that cease fire and should have been lit up at that point" Have seen this BS from you before. It was BS back then and it's BS now too, so stop repeating the same lines and hope for no one notices it again.
kargen Member	Mon Mar 08 12:29:00 "Which you guys told them it was green." Nah, they just thought we wouldn't give a shit. and you are not really trying to claim Iraq complied with all the terms of the cease fire are you? That is what all those damn UN resolutions were about. everything from letting medical supplies rot on the docks to not allowing proper inspections. Just breaking one was reason enough to remove Saddam, the UN was just to chickenshit to do it.
Neverwoods Member	Mon Mar 08 14:43:52 "Nah, they just thought we wouldn't give a shit." Yes the green light as far as Saddam was concerned. "and you are not really trying to claim Iraq complied with all the terms of the cease fire are you? " Let me save my self time by pointing out where this is going to go just because this has been done to death. I make my comment, you add the no fly zones i disagree some more you then go to a UN resolution that states the contrary to what you are saying while keeping a straight face and going for the same line, "read it it's there" while it's still to the contrary to your own words. We have all been there kargen and you have embarrassed your self enough.
KreeL Member	Mon Mar 08 14:46:13 Does anyone need to remind you that the US was caught lying to the UN about Iraqi WMD several years after the fact? What's the resolution for that?
kargen Member	Mon Mar 08 15:55:22 "I make my comment, you add the no fly zones" No fly zones were not a part of the cease fire agreement dumbass. Do you have just the slightest clue what the terms for a cease fire were?
NeverWoods Member	Mon Mar 08 16:00:37 Say what you want but we are going to get there and that was my point if i kept arguing without the old tired arguments would just show up again. No one here is dumb enough to get sucked into arguing with you over this for the 100 time, the last time was evident enough that you are not sane at all. You see what you see no matter what the oppositions shows you.
NeverWoods Member	Mon Mar 08 16:01:29 *-without
kargen Member	Mon Mar 08 16:57:11 You wouldn't have gotten to no fly zones with me. I know what the terms of cease fire were and I know Saddam did not adhere to them. That is reason enough to have him removed, it just took over a decade for somebody to finally have the balls to do it.
garyd Member	Tue Mar 09 00:20:07 Kreel damn near everyone believed he had some sort of WMD. INcluding John Kerry and Bill Clinton and they said as much before Bush even had the nomination let alone the presidency. To be Wrong is not necessarily to lie.
KreeL Member	Tue Mar 09 00:48:10 The lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said there were no WMD in Iraq. Iraq took a mountain of evidence to the UN with all the destruction dates/amounts/times when asked. Looks like they were right? How could that be? The lead inspector, the Iraq records....you know what? The US LIED, and as you know, if you catch a liar once, chances are everything you think you know as fact was a lie as well. How much dupage can you withstand, numnutz? Garyd and kargen can jump right on the incubator babies bandwagon at the drop of a hat. Oh, guess what...that was a LIE also, numnutzes. Go figure.
garyd Member	Tue Mar 09 00:51:45 he siad it 8 years later after 6 yeears of saying exactly the opposite. So when was it he started lying? And Ritter wasn't as far as I know the lead inspector accept perhaps in his own mind. El Baradei Himself said the 12,000 pages were nothing new.and broke no ne ground.
KreeL Member	Tue Mar 09 00:54:00 So an administration that is so good at lying to the world and duping people, suddenly tells the truth about 9/11? roflmao...yellow cake, inc babies, wmds, progressive global collapses at near freefall speed, ALL LIES. Gzus, finally garyd and kargen are waking up and smelling the coffee -- even if by forced cognitive dissonance.
KreeL Member	Tue Mar 09 00:55:07 If I were you, garyd, I'd quit defending the liars. It just makes you look dumber than you are.
kargen Member	Tue Mar 09 04:35:53 "The US LIED," Quote the lie. People keep saying the US lied but to date not one person had produced said lie. You also have to remember just prior to the renewed military actions Saddam presented a list of weapons he was not suppose to have to the UN then failed to allow them to be destroyed. I doubt the weapons ever existed. Saddam and the rest of the world thought he had them though. His scientists probably lied about their success so as to keep on breathing. That doesn't matter though when it comes to reasons to remove Saddam. When he refused to allow medical supplies to be distributed he should have been thumped. You are correct that the incubator baby story was a lie, but you are just as fucked as could be when it comes to who told that lie you goofy bastard. Yellow cake was in a report given to the US by Grat Britian and at the time was considered to be the most up to date report and free fall is just something you should experience for four or five seconds before a sudden stop on the pavement. and coffee smells like shit.
charper Member	Tue Mar 09 04:38:04 Yellowcake claim was widely shot down before the invasion. Wait, Im not even going to go near the lunacy of kargen and the Iraq war lol
charper Member	Tue Mar 09 04:43:22 "The classified documents detailing an Iraqi approach to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger were considered dubious by some analysts in U.S. intelligence, according to news accounts. By early 2002, investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council, judging them counterfeit." I wonder why they ignored all that...dumdeedumdeedum...
charper Member	Tue Mar 09 04:55:26 "In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice" Oh dear me, naughty UK for being wrong "it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Nigerien officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic". Whoopsydaisy! "Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine General Carlton W. Fulford, Jr., went to Niger and met with the country's president, Tandja Mamadou. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department.[12] CNN reported on 14 March 2003 (before invasion) that the International Atomic Energy Agency found the documents to be forged." Well, willya just look at that! "French intelligence informed the United States a year before President Bush's State of the Union address that the allegation could not be supported with hard evidence.[9]" Whoops again! "The Washington Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable."" Oh dear again! Lol And so it continues...
KreeL Member	Tue Mar 09 05:01:20 Get off your high rocking horse, kargen. You and I and everyone in this forum, the UN, and the rest of the world were all LIED to. Not just about a few tiny details, but major DeLuxe Whoppers{tm}. LIES. Over and over and over. Still you believe the 9/11 Whopper{tm}, when science, reason, and logic shout otherwise. RIP numnutz.
charper Member	Tue Mar 09 05:18:39 "The New York Times revealed the existence of a memo which stated that the suggestion of uranium being sold was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles. The memo, dated March 4, 2002, was distributed at senior levels by the office of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and by the Defense Intelligence Agency.[30]" I wonder what the weather will be like tomorrow? tumtiddleytumtum
KreeL Member	Tue Mar 09 06:22:44 kargen's grim hope is that the LIES to him stemmed from ignorance, sorta like garyd. Evidence, as displayed by charper, proves otherwise.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Mar 09 12:45:55 Quote the lie. People keep saying the US lied but to date not one person had produced said lie. -At a September 7, 2002, joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush said that a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report had found that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." But there was no such IAEA report.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Mar 09 13:07:02 I mean, the idea that Bush and Co were above lying is laughable. The fact that Bush and Blair discussed the idea of provoking Saddam to fire on US planes, painted in UN colors, is well documented. http://www...serland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
kargen Member	Tue Mar 09 15:20:24 Charper you blew it. You see the CIA had a report that the president was going to use. They said it might be faulty and asked him not to cite their report. That part you got right. What you got wrong is the CIA then suggested he instead use the British report which was much more recent and considered to be more accurate. You are talking about the wrong report when you say the CIA wanted it left out. the report they wanted out was out. and again whether the weapons were there or not, ever existed or not doesn't matter. The UN should have had the balls to enforce the other terms of that cease fire agreement at least a decade before it was finally done. It is to bad that the military actions were renewed based on faulty intel, but the final decision was the correct one. Wrong how they got there but correct in what was done. Crownroyal wasn't it decided that President Bush was not commenting on the 1998 report but an earlier one. I know that is what the Whitehouse claimed afterwards and even provided the report they say he was refferring to.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Mar 09 15:25:48 "Crownroyal wasn't it decided that President Bush was not commenting on the 1998 report but an earlier one. I know that is what the Whitehouse claimed afterwards and even provided the report they say he was refferring to." later, they WH spokesperson tried to say it was 1999 report, however it was also non-existent, according to IAEA.
charper Member	Tue Mar 09 15:26:34 "Charper you blew it" rofl
charper Member	Tue Mar 09 15:27:06 Tell us again about how the UN supported the invasion and condoned torture? rofl
kargen Member	Tue Mar 09 17:06:33 I never said they supported the invasion I said they authorized it. I also never said they condoned torture, but under their definition of torture waterboarding did not apply. " however it was also non-existent, according to IAEA." Funny how the one the spokesperson claimed was the one being referenced to did exist and you could find it on the IAEA site at the time. I even posted it in these forums once.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Mar 10 00:05:04 "Funny how the one the spokesperson claimed was the one being referenced to did exist and you could find it on the IAEA site at the time. I even posted it in these forums once. " well, you know the routine. You can post it again. Then we can move on to other lies.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Mar 10 00:12:55 I'll post the next one now, I gotta go to work soon. On January 7, 2003, Rumsfeld, - "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons...We all know that. A trained ape knows that." "They currently have chemical and biological weapons." September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency said, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq hasâ??or willâ??establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." The debate existed, Rumsfeld claiming there is no debate = lie.
kargen Member	Wed Mar 10 00:17:49 I'm tired of the routine. I let this get far enough off subject. The original post in this thread correctly stated I believe the military actions should have been renewed even without the weapons issue. I believed that then and still do. But we have degraded right back into the weapons arguement, and as far as I am concerned it didn't matter. So lets get back on track and we can argue whether or not the violations unrelated to the weapons issues were valid enough reasons for military action.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Mar 10 00:21:14 Why tired? No reason for that, you are bringing it upon yourself, nobody is forcing you. Just stop claiming something you can't prove.
charper Member	Wed Mar 10 00:22:34 lol...
charper Member	Wed Mar 10 00:26:10 The OP was about how laughably wrong you were when you said Bush didnt need to fake WMD claims to get the USA to go to war. lol
charper Member	Wed Mar 10 00:28:02 And stfu garydu, as usual your head is completely lost in the blue. Kargen was never talking about overriding the senate you redneck moron, he was claiming that the US public and congress were ready to go to war without WMD claims. Dumb hick.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Mar 10 00:32:59 "I also never said they condoned torture," You can say it. They did and still do, enthusiastically. February 2010. ABC interview. CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. " http://abc...cheney/story?id=9818034&page=3
charper Member	Wed Mar 10 00:38:56 "You see the CIA had a report that the president was going to use. They said it might be faulty and asked him not to cite their report. That part you got right. What you got wrong is the CIA then suggested he instead use the British report which was much more recent and considered to be more accurate. " Oh so noone warned the Bush admin that the claims about Iraq buying yellowcake from Nigeria were garbage? Lol, you freak
NeverWoods Member	Wed Mar 10 09:40:35 TT.
kargen Member	Wed Mar 10 16:45:41 "Kargen was never talking about overriding the senate you redneck moron, he was claiming that the US public and congress were ready to go to war without WMD claims." No that is not what I claimed. I claimed the justification for renewing military actions was there from the very first day that Saddam failed to meet cease fire requirements. I also said since that time congress, the UN and others lacked the balls to do anything about it. Much of the public thought President Clinton should have removed Saddam on more than once occassion while he was in office. We will never know if congress would have finally agreed to remove Saddam or not without the weapons issue coming up. My point has always been we didn't need the weapons issue that we could have done it anyway but congress was full of pussies. ". Just stop claiming something you can't prove." It is stuff I have proved time and again, but because it doesn't fit your idealology or you just like to waste my time you always pretend as if the facts were never presented. and that is what I am tired of. ""I also never said they condoned torture," You can say it. They did and still do, enthusiastically. February 2010. ABC interview. CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. " " You might want to go back and read that again. Why quote Cheney when I was commenting on the UN position of torture. The idiot charper made the following statement about me: "Tell us again about how the UN supported the invasion and condoned torture? rofl" I never once said the UN condoned torture. I said under UN regulations waterboarding was not classified as a torture. Cheney saying he supported waterboarding has nothing to do with the UN stance. I argued that waterboarding was not illegal, but that it should be. Until the definition is revised by the UN though waterboarding does not fall within their scope of what torture is. "Oh so noone warned the Bush admin that the claims about Iraq buying yellowcake from Nigeria were garbage?" I know the CIA made it clear after the speech that they recommended the President use the British report in his speech instead of their report. I also know at that time and well beyond the British insisted the report was accurate. Again none of it matters though, becase saddam should have been removed the first time he blocked medical aid from getting into Iraq. There are many other reasons he should have been removed, it just happens the UN was to chickenshit to enforce their own rules and decisions.
charper Member	Wed Mar 10 16:48:59 You also know everything else in the list I posted, which was but a sample of a couple of minutes research. You also are brimming full o' shit, from your heels to the tip of your ears.
charper Member	Wed Mar 10 16:49:44 You're so naive boy lol...
charper Member	Wed Mar 10 17:07:32 t
NeverWoods Member	Wed Mar 10 17:07:55 This guy lives in his own universe.
saiko Member	Wed Mar 10 17:08:28 No need to save threads. They're there. Wonder if TC's server is going to hold up though.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Mar 11 00:10:50 "It is stuff I have proved time and again, but because it doesn't fit your idealology or you just like to waste my time you always pretend as if the facts were never presented. " I actually never discussed this particular Bush statement with you, or anybody else here. Or the second, Rumsfeld quote. Do you claim that you have answered that one too, btw?
kargen Member	Thu Mar 11 13:16:22 What president Bush statement? I know we argued the IAEA reports on more than one occassion in these forums. Rumsfeld said lots of stupid things. I've always admitted that. Bringing up statements by Rumsfeld as proof the President Bush lied doesn't cut it. Once again though you are dragging this thread off topic. Do you think the UN and or US had legal reason enough to go back into Iraq even without the weapons or not? That is the issue. I say they did have cause to remove Saddam without proof of weapons and that is what was being questioned when this thread started. Did we have the balls to do it is a whole seperate issue and obvioulsy no neither the UN nor congress had the balls to act when they should have.
charper Member	Thu Mar 11 13:23:50 "No need to save threads. They're there. Wonder if TC's server is going to hold up though. " I wasnt saving it, I was waiting until he nearly had his clean slate of spam threads before fucking it up.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Mar 11 13:26:28 "What president Bush statement? I know we argued the IAEA reports on more than one occassion in these forums. " The one about IEAE report that never existed. The one that I posted on Tue Mar 09 12:45:55. I certainly never argued about that one with you or anybody. "Rumsfeld said lots of stupid things. I've always admitted that. Bringing up statements by Rumsfeld as proof the President Bush lied doesn't cut it. " Yes, I am aware that Bush quotes cannot, must not be confused with his administration's quotes. Thats COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, as late Rod used to say. But this time you got a little careless and said, "Quote the lie. People keep saying the US lied but to date not one person had produced said lie. Not "Bush Lied". " Hence, Rummy's quote does cut it, and I have some more, Cheney, Powell, etc. So, do you still claim that Rumsfeld did not lie? Before we move on to other quotes by other US officials. The quote is posted on Wed Mar 10 00:12:55.
kargen Member	Thu Mar 11 14:48:01 I don't put Rumsfeld at the same level as the president or Vice President. He was the Secretary of Defense and personally I don't think his opinions or statements should be takes as statements from the United States. Powell is a little different as he was appointed to a position that includes presenting and representing the views of the United States. Rumsfelds comments should have been given no more importance than those of you or I. We can't discount his obvious influence, but anything he said was hardly official.
Nekran Member	Thu Mar 11 15:01:32 What the Secretary of Defense says is as relevant and official as what we post on these here forums? O...K...
charper Member	Thu Mar 11 15:39:29 lol...
charper Member	Thu Mar 11 15:40:05 "Rumsfelds comments should have been given no more importance than those of you or I. We can't discount his obvious influence, but anything he said was hardly official. " roflmfao
kargen Member	Thu Mar 11 22:44:27 What about the truth amuses you so Charper? Or are you of the impression that what rumsfeld said somehow became law? As Secretary of Defense he is an advisor to the president. Anything he says publically is just his opinion and should be no more official than anything any other citizen would say. That doesn't mean that his words are not more influencial. He is afterall an advisor with direct access to the president.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Mar 12 00:35:38 This is a new one, kargen, I must admit. "I don't put Rumsfeld at the same level as the president or Vice President. He was the Secretary of Defense and personally I don't think his opinions or statements should be takes as statements from the United States. " I seem to remember all the press conferences, with Rumsfeld giving his opinion, shoulder to shoulder with Afghan or Iraqi leaders, getting asked questions by US and foreign press. He wasn't talking on behalf of the United States government back then? LOL, why is VP any better, btw? You have to explain this world of yours to me, vice president after has much less duties than SecDef? "Powell is a little different as he was appointed to a position that includes presenting and representing the views of the United States." So, you reckon that a grand total of two people speak for US, president and SecState, is this correct? And if they lie, that means US lie. Oh and VP, am I correct? Would ambassadors count? Give me a list, please. "We can't discount his obvious influence, but anything he said was hardly official. " This is one of the better quotes ever. First of all, why woudn't you discount his influence? Who the hell was he, just some advisor with opinion? He was just saying things, unofficially? Second, what do you mean, "hardly official"? Semi-official? Not always official? lol, the phrase was so sage, that it became stupid. But really, what should people think when they read an article like this, for example. ------------- HANOI, June 5 â?? The United States and Vietnam agreed today to increase their military contacts and to discuss additional ways to broaden their defense cooperation, American officials said. The understanding was sealed in talks between senior Vietnamese officials and Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was making his first official visit to Vietnam as defense secretary. The two nations, Mr. Rumsfeld declared with evident satisfaction early this evening, had decided to step up "exchanges at all levels of the military." --- The US Secretary of Defence, on OFFICIAL visit. What does it mean? And talking about "two nations"? LOL, was this guy insane? Why would anyone listen to him and why would the taxpayers send him anywhere to speak? Why should US Senate approve this guy? BUt, I digress. Allright, another pearl is uncovered but I think I laughed enough. I can't help but notice that you did not answer the question. I know that in your world, US SecDef is just another citizen, but do you not believe that Rumsfeld lied in that quote? And what about the Bush quote?
Seb Member	Fri Mar 12 01:03:54 kargen: " Saddam presented a list of weapons he was not suppose to have to the UN then failed to allow them to be destroyed." No he didn't. Provide proof. " I said they authorized it. " No, they didn't, as was made abundantly clear. " I claimed the justification for renewing military actions was there from the very first day that Saddam failed to meet cease fire requirements." What part of "resolves to remain siezed on the issue" do you not understand? Only the SC, not individual members, has the right to authorise use of force. No resolution to renew hostilities was ever agreed by the SC. "I say they did have cause to remove Saddam" Show me where in the UN charter states derrogate the power to remove leaders and change regimes? It simply doesn't exist, though action that may or may not result in a regime change as a corollary that has become a quasi-international norm under certain situations, none of which applied to Iraq at any time. "Until the definition is revised by the UN though waterboarding does not fall within their scope of what torture is." Yes, it does. From UN convention against Torture: Part I Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. I.e. the first para is the minimum definition of torture. Does waterboarding involve intentionaly inflicting physical and mental suffering on an individual in order to obtain information? Yes. It is under the UN convention against torture, defined as torture.
garyd Member	Fri Mar 12 01:08:31 Did the US sign it? Does it apply to spies and saboteurs?
charper Member	Fri Mar 12 04:38:49 garyduh and kardigan rofl...
KreeL Member	Fri Mar 12 05:09:33 The sweet smell of pwnage. I digress. First came the Yellow Tale Merlot....THEN the sweeeeet pwnage.
KreeL Member	Fri Mar 12 05:11:14 *hic* yellow tale = yellow tail Yay Australia!
kargen Member	Fri Mar 12 18:01:07 "No, they didn't, as was made abundantly clear." They were presented with two resolutions. One authorizing military force and one calling for another resolution before force could be used. They dismissed the latter and passed the resolution authorizing force. "No resolution to renew hostilities was ever agreed by the SC." Eventually there was, but that aside you are missing my point. I am saying the UN was to much a bunch of pussies to enforce their own laws/agreements. I am saying the reasons to remove Saddam was there and nobody acted on them. The first time Saddam refuse to allow aid into the country the UN should have been calling for troops. That is what I am saying. We didn't need weapons to go back into Iraq, other reasons were there.
charper Member	Fri Mar 12 18:06:44 rofl
NeverWoods Member	Fri Mar 12 18:54:19 If you did not need the weapons why lie about them then? It's like lying for the hell of it.
garyd Member	Fri Mar 12 22:28:51 They didn;t lie they along with most of the rest of the world believed he had them. The were wrong. It happens.
charper Member	Sat Mar 13 03:16:20 ^ Rofl...so lost, so wrong about everything...poor santa clausian
charper Member	Sat Mar 13 03:18:05 most of the rest of the world was yelling that the US government was lying to the americans, with the largest protests in history all around the world, you braindead living in a pretend make believe world dumdumdum
charper Member	Sat Mar 13 03:19:18 Then again, theres a reason why there are threads dedicated to calling you out on being a liar.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: