PDA

View Full Version : INCONVENIENT TRUTH OF THE DAY 02/16/12



LWW
02-16-2012, 07:34 AM
The day is likely coming when the moonbat crazy left will, in collectivist unison, bleat ... <span style='font-size: 11pt'>WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING?</span>

LEAPING LIZARDS! (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/what-is-assad-hiding-in-his-backyard-1.292935)

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/)

HOLY SPUMONI! (http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=68)

SAY IT AIN'T SO BARRY, SAY IT AIN'T SO! (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2005/isg-addendums_mar2005.pdf)

Soflasnapper
02-16-2012, 04:48 PM
Yeah, right! I mean, uh, no.

It's quite wrong to call chemical weapons WMD, and the bio weapons are self-disarming in only a short period of time.

So even if that did happen (Duelfer says he is quite convinced now that it did not, per your links), it isn't really WMD to be concerned about. Chemical weapons might still be usable, but they do not create mass destruction, only having limited battlefield effects considerably lower than conventional bombs.

LWW
02-17-2012, 04:27 AM
Not according to the UN it isn't ... but, I understand. The moonbat crazy left can seldom make a point without word parsing and the redefinition of words.

Qtec
02-17-2012, 07:00 AM
Like I said, no amount of facts or lack of them can ever convince the GW BUSH 'go get em guys' that they got conned.
This is too hard for them to accept. This is why we get the denials and the crap about WMDs that LWW and his ilk spout.

The simple fact is that Saddam was did not have a nuke program. He was not producing chemical weapons.

Bush, Cheney, Rove etc etc lied. I disagree that the Dems owe them an apology.

Q

Soflasnapper
02-17-2012, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not according to the UN it isn't ... but, I understand. The moonbat crazy left can seldom make a point without word parsing and the redefinition of words. </div></div>

It's the UN that is parsing definitions in this case, although you fail again to see it.

They conflate biological and chemical weapons with nukes so as to make a better sounding, but false, case against hated regimes.

LWW
02-17-2012, 05:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not according to the UN it isn't ... but, I understand. The moonbat crazy left can seldom make a point without word parsing and the redefinition of words. </div></div>

It's the UN that is parsing definitions in this case, although you fail again to see it.

They conflate biological and chemical weapons with nukes so as to make a better sounding, but false, case against hated regimes.

</div></div>

How did they parse definitions?

The UN cease fire clearly defined what a WMD was ... chemical, nuclear, biological and missiles with a range beyond a certain distance.

The original definition of WMB was much broader than that in that in included air dropped bombs of any explosive type.

Next false story you would like to pass off?

Soflasnapper
02-17-2012, 05:57 PM
How did they parse definitions?

The UN cease fire clearly defined what a WMD was ... chemical, nuclear, biological and missiles with a range beyond a certain distance.

Right there we see how they are lawyering up nonsensical distinctions.

A missile that can reach x miles out is fine. If it can reach x+1 miles, it is a WMD? Really? Isn't it just a conventional armament, regardless? (Assuming it has a conventional explosive payload, not a bio/chem or nuke payload?)

And to make it worse, the UN actually considered the missile's range without its payload (although it could do NO DAMAGE really without the payload).

They make this sh!t up as they go along, just as at Nuremburg, where they tried Nazis retroactively for 'international crimes' that didn't exist when they did them (ex post facto). Leading the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to refer to those proceedings as a kangaroo court..

cushioncrawler
02-17-2012, 08:11 PM
The chemical weapons stuff iz bullshit.
Iraq had none -- they were all destroyed. Except one little cache that woznt destroyed koz it woz near one of Saddam's palaces -- the UN people knew about this cache anyhow, and turned a blind eye to it koz they knew that their scientist mates on the Iraqi side would get the krapp beaten out of them if Saddam found out about the poorly planned cache location.
mac.

LWW
02-18-2012, 05:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did they parse definitions?

The UN cease fire clearly defined what a WMD was ... chemical, nuclear, biological and missiles with a range beyond a certain distance.

Right there we see how they are lawyering up nonsensical distinctions.

A missile that can reach x miles out is fine. If it can reach x+1 miles, it is a WMD? Really? Isn't it just a conventional armament, regardless? (Assuming it has a conventional explosive payload, not a bio/chem or nuke payload?)</div></div>

So now you are dow to claiming that I'm obviously wrong because I was obviously right.

Soflasnapper
02-18-2012, 11:20 AM
You are right that the UN characterized missiles as WMD based on how far down range they could fly.

Which proves my point that any actual nature of being a WMD was not the point of the UN definitions, because flying one extra mile or kilometer doesn't turn a non-WMD into a real WMD.

That they are dealing in legalistic parsing is also clear when we find they made the range determination without the extra weight of the explosive warhead.

LWW
02-18-2012, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are right that the UN characterized missiles as WMD based on how far down range they could fly.

Which proves my point that any actual nature of being a WMD was not the point of the UN definitions, because flying one extra mile or kilometer doesn't turn a non-WMD into a real WMD.

That they are dealing in legalistic parsing is also clear when we find they made the range determination without the extra weight of the explosive warhead. </div></div>

So are you making that up, clueless, or being spoon fed propaganda and the regurgitating it without question?

Sadly for you, UN RESOLUTION 687 ... AKA THE GULF WAR CEASE FIRE (http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/687.pdf) does not contain the things you say that it does.

However it does say what I claimed.

But, I do have an unfair advantage in that I had the intellectual integrity to actually read it.

Next spoon fed lie you would like to have shot down?

Soflasnapper
02-18-2012, 08:40 PM
But, I do have an unfair advantage in that I had the intellectual integrity to actually read it.

Careful! What little you may have had would likely be entirely used up if you ever employed it!

No, the UN Resolution didn't specify what I said. That was in the implementation, by Hans Blix.

Iraq had a missile type that had been shown in tests to fly 180 km, or 30 km beyond the artificial prescribed limit. Iraq made the case that the tests didn't use the payload, and if it had been loaded onto the missiles when tested, that range would have been within the 150 km. Blix made the call that he'd call refusal to destroy these weapons a breach of the UN resolution.

A little background from Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,426244,00.html)

I don't really mind how wrong you are. It's your insufferable arrogance when you're wrong that most grates.

Stretch
02-18-2012, 10:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But, I do have an unfair advantage in that I had the intellectual integrity to actually read it.

Careful! What little you may have had would likely be entirely used up if you ever employed it!

No, the UN Resolution didn't specify what I said. That was in the implementation, by Hans Blix.

Iraq had a missile type that had been shown in tests to fly 180 km, or 30 km beyond the artificial prescribed limit. Iraq made the case that the tests didn't use the payload, and if it had been loaded onto the missiles when tested, that range would have been within the 150 km. Blix made the call that he'd call refusal to destroy these weapons a breach of the UN resolution.

A little background from Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,426244,00.html)

I don't really mind how wrong you are. It's your insufferable arrogance when you're wrong that most grates. </div></div>

That only happens whenever he opens his pie hole. The rest of the time he's just laughingly ignorant. Serious discusion is not in his vocabulary. St.

JohnnyD
02-19-2012, 03:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The day is likely coming when the moonbat crazy left will, in collectivist unison, bleat ... <span style='font-size: 11pt'>WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING?</span>

LEAPING LIZARDS! (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/what-is-assad-hiding-in-his-backyard-1.292935)

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/)

HOLY SPUMONI! (http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=68)

SAY IT AIN'T SO BARRY, SAY IT AIN'T SO! (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2005/isg-addendums_mar2005.pdf)
</div></div> A wonderful and precise writing for all to understand.Thank you once again LWW for laying it out so easy.

LWW
02-19-2012, 04:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But, I do have an unfair advantage in that I had the intellectual integrity to actually read it.

Careful! What little you may have had would likely be entirely used up if you ever employed it!

No, the UN Resolution didn't specify what I said. That was in the implementation, by Hans Blix.

Iraq had a missile type that had been shown in tests to fly 180 km, or 30 km beyond the artificial prescribed limit. Iraq made the case that the tests didn't use the payload, and if it had been loaded onto the missiles when tested, that range would have been within the 150 km. Blix made the call that he'd call refusal to destroy these weapons a breach of the UN resolution.

A little background from Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,426244,00.html)

I don't really mind how wrong you are. It's your insufferable arrogance when you're wrong that most grates. </div></div>

Thanks for confirming that you prefer TIME explaining to you what your "OPINION" is ... as opposed to going off the reservation and actually reading the resolution.

Here's a challenge ... show me in UN Resolution 687 where it says what you claim?

LWW
02-19-2012, 04:26 AM
OK ... after reading the TIME article, it doesn't support your claim either.

In fact, as of now, the only source that you have presented that supports your claim is the word of Saddam Hussein.

As another thing for you to ponder ... how do explain Iraq hitting Kuwait City with a Chinese made cruise missile that they supposedly didn't have?

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 12:17 PM
Here's a challenge ... show me in UN Resolution 687 where it says what you claim?

Asked, and answered already. You quoted my answer in this repeated question.

Tell me that Blix didn't take this position, regardless of what the actual language of the resolution said (which could have been interpreted either way, but he chose to interpret it the way he did).

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 12:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK ... after reading the TIME article, it doesn't support your claim either.

In fact, as of now, the only source that you have presented that supports your claim is the word of Saddam Hussein.

As another thing for you to ponder ... how do explain Iraq hitting Kuwait City with a Chinese made cruise missile that they supposedly didn't have? </div></div>

Yes, the Time Magazine article discusses the issue in broad terms, but not the specifics of the dispute. Amazing! Yes, it is entirely surprising how little the Iraq claims were discussed in our wartime media, or rather how difficult it is now to find any such discussion. Because, of course, they would have to be lying about everything they said, or else our own country would have been lying instead. Oh wait! Our <s>country</s> then-ruling regime DID lie about everything, as we've found out.

Iraq had MANY THINGS later outlawed by the UN cease fire resolution, in the first Gulf War. Some 10 years before the time frame in discussion, during which time these things were mainly dismantled and destroyed, by all credible evidence and now international consensus.

LWW
02-19-2012, 04:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a challenge ... show me in UN Resolution 687 where it says what you claim?

Asked, and answered already. You quoted my answer in this repeated question.
</div></div>

It was not answered because what you claim it says simply isn't there ... and you lack the integrity to face this.

The only question is whether you are doggedly clinging to a lie spoon fed to you ... or making it up on your own.

LWW
02-19-2012, 04:59 PM
Saddam wasn't required to mainly disarm Iraq of these weapons, he was required to completely disarm Iraq of these weapons.

Next lame excuse?

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 08:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a challenge ... show me in UN Resolution 687 where it says what you claim?

Asked, and answered already. You quoted my answer in this repeated question.
</div></div>

It was not answered because what you claim it says simply isn't there ... and you lack the integrity to face this.

The only question is whether you are doggedly clinging to a lie spoon fed to you ... or making it up on your own. </div></div>

More than one can play your game.

Show me where in the Affordable Health Care Act it says either that religiously-affiliated institutions must cover birth control prescriptions, or that insurance companies providing those institutions with policies must provide such coverage apart the religiously-affiliated institutions' premium payments, without additional charge.

As it is not in the original bill, by your thinking, it CANNOT BE REQUIRED, and yet is.

The law of unintended consequences, as well as intended consequences that aren't explicit in the original text of a new law, is obviously a hazard with laws. Happens all the time. New laws may even contradict old laws, unwittingly or otherwise, and oft-times the courts have to sort these things out.

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:22 AM
OBAMACARE said almost nothing specific ... which is what made it such a horrible law.

The bill was riddled with instance after instance of statements like "AS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY OF HHS" ... so when Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to see what was in it, she was certainly telling the truth for once.

Not one single member of congress who voted for the bill actually knew what the bill was actually about. Not one.

What they voted for was to save Obama's presidency ... nation be damned, and even Biden said so.

Next ridiculously lame analogy?

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:23 AM
Now ... can you show me where it says what you claim, or not?

The answer is that you can't.