GAWD jgg, You have no idea on how to read a report. The precursors which you are quoting are part of the "evidence" that is to be admitted or not and if admitted (after checking source and giving weight accordingly) at a later stage in the report.
To make it simple for you so that you do not have to suffer your own inadequacies..... Go to the parts that are in big letters at the end of each general section marked CONCLUSIONS. These are for the laymen. Then you will be more likely to be less confused with the universally used and accepted bureaucratic legalese. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:56 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gawd Mark, how wrong you are... It is in your own proof.... > > pgs 32-34 (undeclared precursors), p55 (dual manufacturing capacity > which was banned) Conclusion 8 (missiles) > > The main problem you have here is refused to admit that by the UNSC > definitions of WMD (stockpiles, precursers, manufacturing capacity, > research, delivery systems, components thereof) Saddam had WMD... > Now you might argue that the degree he had them was insufficient for > invasion, but he in fact had them... Secondly you ignore the reliance > by the leaders in both parties on faulty intel by all the major intel > agency in both the Clinton and Bush years (and before).. Thirdly your > ignore that Saddam refusal to provide full and unfettered access so > outside third party could not verify the facts which was required due > to Saddam prior programs, use and lies concerning them prior to > 1996... > > The Kay Report stated that Saddam was waiting for Sanctions to end to > redo his WMD programs... > > Your requirement of ONLY letting me use previously approved "proof" is > another standard tactic to limit an honest and and civil debate > Mark... > > > On Feb 24, 10:30 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since public domain empiracal data ( > http://politicalforum.googlegroups.com/web/iraq.pdf?hl=en&gda=H27U8Do...) > > says and proves me correct your point is forfiet. > > > > I have seen NOTHING from you that bears up to any standard of proof. > > > > I will wait while you argue your Republican position with the > > Republican committee that authored the report mentioned above.... I > > will accept as proof of your position ANY and ALL info they did not > > have when forming the report as pertinent. Lacking that ........... > > your position goes by the way of all other emotional and second hand > > informed opinions.... > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:52 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > To quote a poster on this board > > > > > "and not a single point countered... not a single question answered" > > > > > You claimed "Saddam had no WMD" , "Saddam was no threat", and the > > > "Saddam had no involvement with AQ"... All three conclusions are > > > wrong... I made my counter arguments, you changed the topic... > > > > > Civil debate requires a number of things > > > > > 1) sufficiently respectful between debaters > > > > > 2) the debaters respond the points made by others with relevant facts > > > and logic > > > > > 3) a willingness to accept there may be errors in your logic and facts > > > > > On Feb 23, 5:50 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> If you want to gety that involved then we need to talk "blue jeans" > > >> and "music" and travel rights. > > > > >> Just how deep is your knowledge ?? > > > > >> On 2/23/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > 1) Using the definition used by the UNSC, Saddam did have WMD, > > >> > period... Do you know what they were? > > > > >> > 2) Saddam's Iraq, as described by the Kay Report was in fact a > failing > > >> > state... That combined with the Saddam induced corruption in the > UN, > > >> > Saddam's refusal to follow UN Resolution (and the UNSC alowing it to > > >> > happen), the rise of stateless terrorism to deliver WMD, and the > > >> > willingness ofr the failing state of Iraq to introduce WMD in the > > >> > hands of stateless terrorists DID pose a threat to the US and the > > >> > entire world order... That you refuse to even address this point > is > > >> > telling -- you insist on seeing Saddam in a traditional state to > state > > >> > conflict, when this was NOT about that... > > > > >> > 3) Bush went into Iraq to address the sytematic causes of groups > like > > >> > AQ -- bad governance in the ME and their export of terrorism to > > >> > maintain internal order... > > > > >> > 4) What you are not addressing is that the WOT is not just about OBL > > >> > or AQ, but the entire structure that allows for those types of > groups > > >> > to exist... > > > > >> > On Feb 23, 5:14 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > No matter how many times these arguments are proven wrong > > >> > > you will never listen to the truth of the facts. > > > > >> > > Saddam was not a threat, had no WMD.s, was not harboring > > >> > > Al qaeda, and was not involved in the 9/11 attack. > > > > >> > > Bin Laden who Bush promised to get dead or alive on the burning > > >> > > ashes of american dead at ground zero, was the Terror Threat, > > >> > > is trying to get WMD's, is harboring Al qaeda cells and > > >> > > spreading terror, was involved in the 9/11 attack, and is STILL > > >> > > FREE TO CONTINUE ALL OF THE ABOVE! > > > > >> > > So how did we win? > > > > >> > > On Feb 23, 4:40 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > 1) an AQ linked group was granted a limited haven in Iraq under > Saddam > > >> > > > (NE Iraq) in part due to Saddam's lack of influence there.. > > > > >> > > > 2) AQ went to Iraq in force to "defeat" America.... By going to > Iraq, > > >> > > > Bush force AQ to "defend" Iraq, and AQ tried to do that by > seeking but > > >> > > > failing to chase the Americans out... Instead of victory, AQ > saw a > > >> > > > strategic defeat because Sunni Moslems turned against AQ and > supported > > >> > > > America because of AQ thuggish death cult was exposed by AQ's > actions > > >> > > > to ordinary Sunni Iraqis... > > > > >> > > > 3) You just do not "get it", in war you seek to engage your > enemy in a > > >> > > > place and time of your choosing. Bush choose Iraq and AQ rush > in > > >> > > > onto this battlefield and was defeated... > > > > >> > > > 4) Your next point will be we should not have invaded Iraq > because > > >> > > > they did not attack us... But here you ignore who the enemy in > the > > >> > > > WOT is and was - the nexus between radical Islam (Sunni and > Shia), > > >> > > > failed and failing states (as Iraq was), and WMD (stockpiles, > > >> > > > manufacturing, and knowledge)... Stateless terrorist ARE the > ideal > > >> > > > delivery system for any failing state wishing to deny "offical" > > >> > > > responsibility in a chemical, biological, or dirty nuke > attack... > > >> > > > Until you comprehend this, your POV of what Bush did lacks > fundamental > > >> > > > understanding... > > > > >> > > > On Feb 23, 1:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > There was no AQ in Iraq prior to the US arrival. Your point > has no > > >> > > > > value. The Bush family has more proveable links to AQ and its > finances > > >> > > > > than Hussein ever did. > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM, jgg1000a < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > Except VT we did win in Iraq... AQ and Iran have suffered > strategic > > >> > > > > > defeats... The refusal to grasp that concept is why your > opinion in > > >> > > > > > this matter is not factual... > > > > >> > > > > > On Feb 22, 5:37 am, VT VirtualTruth < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> Just like Iraq this is another no win situation left > > >> > > > > >> for another person to clean up. Bush should have dealt with > this mess > > >> > > > > >> but he could not, or would not admit HIS OWN MISTAKE! > > > > >> > > > > >> Bush had no business being President and it will become > clearer > > >> > > > > >> with each month that goes by! > > > > >> > > > > >> On Feb 21, 2:16 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > if he did he would enrage his Leftie base... If he > doesn't, another > > >> > > > > >> > example of Obama the-just-another-politician come to > light... How > > >> > > > > >> > many will it take for the media to see Obama is just > another Emperor > > >> > > > > >> > without clothing??? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/guantanamo-bay-military-prison-m... > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> According to a Pentagon review ordered by President > Obama. So... great. I'm proud of our military. But am I proud of our > President who first promised to close the place and then got the study > showing the facts relevant to the question whether it should be closed? > > > > >> > > > > >> > Let's see if he can say now, as he has before, I screwed > up. > > > > >> > > > > -- > > >> > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com-Hidequotedtext - > > > > >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > >> -- > > >> Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > > -- > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
