If and when I have time I will provide links and quotes FROM YOUR Proof... Until then I will say you are cherry picking...
On Feb 24, 5:43 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > The information provided to the Committee indicated that Iraq was > renovating and expanding fixed dual-use facilities, was capable of > producing biological warfare agents, and was engaged in research > that was suitable for biological weapons. All of these activities were > were dual-use, however. Therefore, all of the activity could have been > related to legitimate, non-biological weapons activity. Few > intelligence reports suggested specifically that the activity was > relatedto biological weapons. The Intelligence Community also > hadreporting which indicated that Iraq may have had a mobile > biologicalweapons production capability, but most of that intelligence > was obtained from a single HUMINT source to whom the > IntelligenceCommunity never had direct access. > > So far it says that most intel was from a second hand never contacted > and unidentified source. > > "However, the definitive statement that Iraq 'has' such facilities was > not supported by the intelligence." > > NEXT !!!!!! > > delivery > > The majority position in the new NIE was also modified regarding the > intent of the mapping software Iraq had been trying to procure. The > new assessment stated that the software "could support programming of > a UAV autopilot for operation in the United States."132 Even with the > less conclusive assessment in this NIE, the DIA, the USAF, and the > Army all interpreted "recent reporting to mean that the purpose of the > Iraqi request for route planning software and topographic database was > to acquire a generic mapping capability - a goal that is not > necessarily indicative of an intent to target the U.S. > Homeland."133(U) On March 3, 2003, CIA published an assessment of the > threat from Iraqi UAVs. The assessment described the attempted mapping > software purchase,noting that while the CIA could not exclude that > this purchase was directed by Baghdad, "information acquired in > October suggests that it may have been inadvertent on the part of the > procurement agent. We are attempting to collect additional information > regarding Iraq's intentions with this software. > > end meaning...they did not have the software. a year later can you say > "google earth" which geographically maps the entire world giving to > the public the supposedly secret information that would have been > gathered... further in the years right after desert storm they did > fire ONE missile that went further than the allowed 1500 km.... they > destroyed these systems and were left with only the 600km missiles > which were legal under the UN guidelines that the US chose to > unilaterally ignore and invade. they did have more legal missiles than > thought though. > > As far as what is and is not uncivil I am covered under the TOS from > google that leaves that determination of language use up to the norms > in the originating country.... I am NOT in Gringolandia and being > "politically correct" here is taken as insincerity and akin to lying. > If I see an unknown black man on the street and call for him I say > "oy. Negro!!!" no offense was meant and none was taken... it was > simply an identifier of who I was wanting to talk to and we talk. If I > think you are or you are doing something stupid not to say so is > disingenuous. > > jgg, If you are going to try to quote laws, rules and or more`s to me > please be informed on the subject.... it makes you look the fool and I > do not think you are so. > > On 2/24/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I DID... They concluded did have delivery systems that were > > banned... They concluded Saddam did hid some labs... They concluded > > Saddam could restart a chemical WMD program within weeks by using dual > > purpose manufacturing plants... All of which Saddam was obligated to > > either destroy, or not have... I read the post war conclusions BIG > > LETTERS and the develish small print in the conclusions... You might > > try that Mark... > > > >>> To make it simple for you so that you do not have to suffer your own > > >>> inadequacies.... > > > Now this Mark is an example of uncivil insults by the moderator who > > post a warning to me for something far more civil.. > > > On Feb 24, 3:48 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
