Iraq Going Well (Bush Right Again!!!)

“and I'm bolding the part I was arguing with you about.

Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Did you want to take that back? Let me know. thanks.”

“Heh, Are you on ignore, mjw?

i think so.

which is hilarious.

i guess i brought up too many good questions in too short a period of time.

they had to ignore me lest they realize the immense amount of logical impossibility involved in their views of the world.

i mention bona fide fallacies in pretty much everything they say, and then they call me a coward.

its really funny.

then theres the one guy who responds to anything i say with, literally, something about bill clinton's sexual proclivities and how therefore everything i claim must be false.

not sure exactly how that works, lol.”

“MarkO - Um, he's the one saying that it happened because of the AOE speech, not me. I'm just saying that's absurd, which it is.”
moonglo
1:40:36 PM
10/10/06

No, he didn't say that.
He said......"Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation:"

The Axis Of Evil speech was merely Butch shaking his crank at those countries and nothing of substance.
The speech did nothing(typical of Bush) to prevent the present crises.
They were certainly not cowed into submission.
Quite the contrary, those countries and the rest of the world are laughing at the Dubya Administration.......mission accomplished!!”

“Phaedrus - If you want to say that washingtonpost was wrong about that and you didn't mean to paste it here, let me know and I'll drop it. Thanks a lot.”

“Where in that paragraph does it say anything about the speech causing the problem?

What part of "read the whole post" don't you get?

What part of straw man do you enjoy most?”

“I need to bookmark this thread for posterity. In case anyone ever has a question as to moonglo's credibility...”

“Phaedrus - Why did they mention the axis of evil speech? Why didn't they mention France halting nuclear testing in 1996? What was the point of mentioning it? They were trying to establish a connection.

Also, if you're going to blame Bush for misappopriating the troops, you have to blame the Dems too. They voted for it, and they refuse to vote for a pullout.

So, what exactly is your point?”

“You're basically saying things are screwed up because of Bush, - but you haven't printed anything supporting that. It's as if nothing happened before Bush was in office that started all this to you. It's pretty funny really. Are you serious?”

“Why did they mention the axis of evil speech? Why didn't they mention France halting nuclear testing in 1996? What was the point of mentioning it? They were trying to establish a connection.

Also, if you're going to blame Bush for misappopriating the troops, you have to blame the Dems too. They voted for it, and they refuse to vote for a pullout.

So, what exactly is your point?


lol

hey look youre trying to change the argument just like you falsely criticized someone else for doing just a few minutes ago.

thats awesome!

good luck, hope it works :D”

“Your article says it's falling apart in Iraq - but is Saddam in power? No? Then what benefit would another regime have to going up against us. They know what would happen. They'd die. What good does a lot of terrorists running loose in their own country do for them? Do you honestly think a dictator (such as those mentioned) would desire that in "their" own country? That makes no sense? What is their incentive?”

“Dear lord.

Soundbite logic at its finest.

The point of mentioning the speech is that we supposedly saw three great threats: Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - the axis of evil. Of the three, the one we decided to invade turns out to be the least threatening of the three, and that we have invaded puts us in a less favorable position to deal appropriately with any of the three.

Duh.”

“lol

moonglo tactic number one:

when you dont feel like thinking into what point your opponent is making, make up an obviously retarded one for them and argue against that.”

“Phaedrus - Tell you what. You tell me which part of your article you believe and we'll ONLY talk about that. Is that fair.

So which is it?

The part that what happens in Iraq is an incentive for others to not worry about us?

The (implied) part that this started because of Bush's attitude toward them (AOE).

The part that our military is too widespread that we can't take on our enemies?

Which part do you believe?”

“Of the three, the one we decided to invade turns out to be the least threatening of the three

So Saddam invading Kuwait and killing his own people and firing at our military wasn't a threat? Are you sticking with that?”

“Iraq, Iran and North Korea certainly are a lot farther away than the US southern border, dippies.”

“Your article says it's falling apart in Iraq - but is Saddam in power? No? Then what benefit would another regime have to going up against us. They know what would happen. They'd die.

lol and all we would need to do that is another whole army and a few hundred billion dollars more. :D



What good does a lot of terrorists running loose in their own country do for them? Do you honestly think a dictator (such as those mentioned) would desire that in "their" own country? That makes no sense? What is their incentive?

lol

its almost as though the previous Iraqi dictator felt the same exact way.

imagine that. :D”

“o Saddam invading Kuwait and killing his own people and firing at our military wasn't a threat? Are you sticking with that?”
moonglo
11:13:06 AM
10/10/06

Iraq, in its depleted, debilitated state before the invasion was NO threat to the US.”

“LGGKD - I agree. Bush is screwing up with the border. It makes me sick. But, we can do both simultaneously - if we had somebody in charge willing to do it, which obviously we do not.”

“So Saddam invading Kuwait and killing his own people and firing at our military wasn't a threat? Are you sticking with that?

in approximately three minutes, moonglo will make a claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction even though not one group of people has found one weapon there in the past four years.

logical fallacy number 2: moonglo is citing the reasons for the first gulf war as reasons for the current iraqi war.”

“Iraq, in its depleted, debilitated state before the invasion was NO threat to the US.

What about 20 [edit] 19 men. Were they?
last edited: 10/10/06 1:16:43 PM”

““Iraq, in its depleted, debilitated state before the invasion was NO threat to the US.

What about 20 [edit] 19 men. Were they?
last edited: 10/10/06 11:16:43 AM”
moonglo
11:16:20 AM

Okay, moonglo, that's a stretched bit of retardation that has been so thoroughly refuted in these debates over the years, that it
s not worth replying to. Take that as a victory, if you're pathetic enough.”

“i liked the part where we all travelled back in time to 1991 relived the invasion of Kuwait”

“that's a stretched bit of retardation that has been so thoroughly refuted in these debates over the years, that it
s not worth replying to

Oh, so the photograph I have in my cube of the faces of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans is not the work of 19 men who did not come from a highly equipped military? Or, they prove that a rag-tag military, not nearly the size of what Saddam had, is capable of such an evil thing. I believe the later.

Are you saying they were not a threat? Are you saying that it takes a military BIGGER than what they came from to be a threat?

Oh boy. Watch your words carefully here ...
last edited: 10/10/06 1:24:24 PM”

“I wonder how they could not have been a threat, but at the same time, Bush did not heed the warning of their threat.

We have a logical dillema here folks.

good luck with the tapdance Phaedrus. seriously.
last edited: 10/10/06 1:27:26 PM”

“{crickets}


”

“Oh, so the photograph I have in my cube of the faces of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans is not the work of 19 men who did not come from a highly equipped military? Or, they prove that a rag-tag military, not nearly the size of what Saddam had, is capable of such an evil thing. I believe the later.

Are you saying they were not a threat? Are you saying that it takes a military BIGGER than what they came from to be a threat?

Oh boy. Watch your words carefully here ...

lol

well at least he's not angry for the sake of being angry. :D”

“Just hoping you're ok Phaedrus.

Let us know if you need us to call 911.”

“lol "mission accomplished" lolollololol”

““So Saddam invading Kuwait and killing his own people and firing at our military wasn't a threat? Are you sticking with that?

in approximately three minutes, moonglo will make a claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction even though not one group of people has found one weapon there in the past four years.

logical fallacy number 2: moonglo is citing the reasons for the first gulf war as reasons for the current iraqi war.”
mjw666

There you go again....LOL...okay skidmark

HERE I have printed the article for you..

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Thursday , June 22, 2006







WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

• Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.

The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.

At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.

Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.

"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.

FOX News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui Liss contributed to this report.


There have been pictures of SARIN Gas ampules out there....Sorry mjw, but your desire to see us back out (and much like the VIOLIN) of the mideast so the Isrealis could be finally eliminated WILL NOT HAPPEN.

LOL...Screwy Troll Reality is for Adults.”

“There have been pictures of SARIN Gas ampules out there....Sorry mjw, but your desire to see us back out (and much like the VIOLIN) of the mideast so the Isrealis could be finally eliminated WILL NOT HAPPEN.

LOL...Screwy Troll Reality is for Adults.

link to story please? not because i doubt it, its so i can read it and click on all the reports they reference.

thanks!”

“XL - When you reply to mjw, PLEASE don't copy his post. Thanks! Many of us have him on ignore for a reason. ;-)”

“Oh, so the photograph I have in my cube of the faces of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans is not the work of 19 men who did not come from a highly equipped military? Or, they prove that a rag-tag military, not nearly the size of what Saddam had, is capable of such an evil thing. I believe the later.

Are you saying they were not a threat? Are you saying that it takes a military BIGGER than what they came from to be a threat?

Oh boy. Watch your words carefully here ...
last edited: 10/10/06 11:24:24 AM”
moonglo
11:22:56 AM

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

Why did we choose Iraq over Iran or North Korea to invade?

Why did we feel that invading Iraq was the best course of action to alleviate any threat they may have caused (which, again, was almost zero threat, especially given the debilitating system of inspections and embargo).

Perhaps, if you're going to argue that everything is a threat, you'll also argue that we should have invaded Poland, Germany, North Prussia, and Wales while we were at it.”

“"Many of us have him on ignore for a reason. ;-)"

Yes, its like shouting "la-la-la, I can't hear you".”

“XL - When you reply to mjw, PLEASE don't copy his post. Thanks! Many of us have him on ignore for a reason. ;-)

lol

"if i close my eyes, you cant see me!"

seriously xl400, you need to leave all of my insights completely out of moonglo's mind so he can live in a world of purposeful ignorance. its what he wants :D”

“Yo, Phaedrus!!

La-la-la..............”

“Marko, What's up?”

“What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

Wait! You said that Iraq was in a, and I quote, "depleted, debilitated state before the invasion was NO threat to the US."

So are you saying that Iraq had less of an ability to be effective than 19 hijackers on 9/11?

Are you saying that Iraq was less of a threat than 19 men?”

“Are you serious?”

“Marko, What's up?

Translation: "Marko, HELP!"”

“Yes, I am serious.

Are you saying that Iraq was less of a threat than 19 men? You did say, and I quote, that Iraq was in a " "depleted, debilitated state before the invasion was NO threat to the US."”

“You're either saying they were less of a threat, or that 19 hijackers were NO threat.

In which case, that means Bush did NOT ignore any warnings of a possible terrorist threat before 9/11, because there never was a threat.

Which is it?”

“lol you suck at deconstructing arguments”

“Wow. I've never tried to debate someone who so blatantly misses the point. It seems like you do it on purpose.

Unless the terrorists that committed the 9/11 acts can be tied to Iraq or unless you are going to argue that we have eliminated the terrorist threat by invading Iraq, your statement is a huge red herring.”

“I really hope your response is more than "are you serious?"

It's a simple question. I used copy/paste of your argument, so don't say I'm misquoting you.

What position are you taking?

That 19 hijackers never were an actual threat to America, ... or ... that the Iraqi army was less powerful than 19 hijackers.

Which is it?”

“You're either saying they were less of a threat, or that 19 hijackers were NO threat.

In which case, that means Bush did NOT ignore any warnings of a possible terrorist threat before 9/11, because there never was a threat.

Which is it


argumentum ad baculum

lol

not that any of logical consistency matters to moonglo, or course.

:D
last edited: 10/10/06 2:34:41 PM”

“Unless the terrorists that committed the 9/11 acts can be tied to Iraq or unless you are going to argue that we have eliminated the terrorist threat by invading Iraq, your statement is a huge red herring.

Simply not true. The terrorists don't need to have ANY connection to Iraq to have either (a) been a threat, or (b) never been a threat.”

“Were they a threat or were they not?

If you think they were, I'd like you to tell us that Iraq's military was less of a potential threat than those 19 men because they were, and I quote, in a "depleted, debilitated state".
last edited: 10/10/06 2:36:56 PM”