I pointed you to the conclusions as well... I will say further that to judge if someone lied or was justified doing a particular course of action using 20/20 hindsight is in the main a faithless line of arguing... People in acting can not go into the future to know what they do not know while deciding...
On Feb 25, 4:10 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > My cherry picking is from the CONCLUSIONS drawn by a republican > committee.....after they investigated ALL public and "secret" > documentation and testimony. > > If I'm cherry picking itn is because I am in a Cherry Orchard.... you > seem to be doing your cherry picking in a bean field. > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:24 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
