Not proven once??? Well I suspose you wish one believes that... It is clear my replies are replete with example after example of your failed assumptions... Specific examples match to specific claims of fact... When caught you seek to dodge facts with redefinition... That too is well documented...
And now your claim that I am gaar... Whatever.... On Apr 27, 3:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > you keep saying that yet you havez once to list what I said and make a > proveable denunciation to it. > > That would lend credence that your positions are bullshit and you are gaar. > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:40 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark I am NOT GAAR... I note your confusion about authors and > > suggest it bleeds into your fictional facts... > > > On Apr 27, 2:21 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Know what Gaar, your inability to accept things as they are without > > > inserting a purely uneducated Gringo twist to absolutely every word says > > it > > > sll about you. You do not have the capabilit of reading a document and > > > gathering first the broad intention and then going to the various parts > > and > > > maintain the viewpoint exhibited as is necessary to reach an > > > understanding..... this really is a "gringo"centric problem.... you must > > be > > > proud that no child was left behind.... > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:14 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Here we go again with you redefining terms to preclude admitting an > > > > error.. > > > > > Your claim was "No coalition" not "small as the active participant > > > > group was it was > > > > not worthy of being called a coalition"... > > > > > >>> Show me ANYTHING that Saddam had that was not on the weapons > > inspectors > > > > reports.... > > > > > A rocket motor for one... Which as a part of a delivery system was > > > > banned WMD material... > > > > > >>> that was an EMINENT danger to US sovereign territory > > > > > Here you alter your definition to limit your statement to a > > > > meaningless bumper sticker... National intersels entail properity, > > > > and ALLIES sovereign property as you know all too well.. And of > > > > course there is the term "Here you alter your definition to limit your > > > > statement to a meaningless bumper sticker... National intersels > > > > entail properity, and ALLIES sovereign property as you know all too > > > > well.. And of course there is the term ".. Is that 1 minute? 1 > > > > hour?, or 3 months??? As it only take a couple of weeks to > > > > transport, then use chemical or biological WMD It is shorter than > > > > months... > > > > > >>> To call into the matter the UN sanctions is to self indict. It is > > > > necessary for a use of force decision by the UN....... please display > > tat > > > > text for me. OH !! there is none. > > > > > except of course the UNSC is littered with Chapter VII Resolution > > > > authorizing force all stemming for the 1st Gulf War treaty... I note > > > > also the claim that a 2nd Resolution was required IS A DEBATABLE > > > > point... You make the assumption ONLY YOUR SIDE HAS TRUTH... > > > > > I suggest Mark you stop seeking to win debate by evering changing > > > > definitions and straw-men and false facts... > > > > On Apr 25, 3:21 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:23 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Well DOLT, you claim "Because there is no coalition" > > > > > > > There always was even in 2002... To claim Britain was not part of > > > > > > the coalition in the fall of 2002 is simplely wrong... > > > > > > No, the claim was that as small as the active participant group was > > it > > > > was > > > > > not worthy of being called a coalition. The first Gulf war had a true > > > > > "coalition".... compare it to that please > > > > > > > During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was > > expanded > > > > > > internationally through the United Nations. The U.N. weapons > > > > > > inspections in Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law > > > > > > has been used, and can be used again, to avert conflict. > > > > > > > Then you claim this as a 2002 fact... Problem is Bush said he > > would > > > > > > enforce the UNSC Resolution even after 12 years of refusal to do > > > > > > so... You said the UN had been effective up to 2002.. Truth is > > it > > > > > > had not been as evidenced by Saddam 12 years of refusing to abide > > by > > > > > > UN Resolutions... > > > > > > Show me ANYTHING that Saddam had that was not on the weapons > > inspectors > > > > > reports.... > > > > > > > Except it hasn't... Only when all 5 veto holding powers agree can > > it > > > > > > act... And then the restrictions are usually such that action is > > > > > > ineffective... Please note Saddam ignore 12 years of Chapter VII > > > > > > Resolutions because he had bribe the UNSC from taken action... > > > > > > According to the inspection reports this is false. Again show me one > > > > thing > > > > > he had that was not listed in those reports and show me where a > > single > > > > > prewar Iraquian finger was lifted that was an EMMINENT danger to US > > > > > sovereign territory. Show me ONE Bush prewar claim that has held up. > > > > > > To call into the matter the UN sanctions is to self indict. It is > > > > necessary > > > > > for a use of force decision by the UN....... please display tat text > > for > > > > me. > > > > > OH !! there is none. > > > > > > > As to the point of certitude, that too relates to the facts as in > > > > > > place in 2002... The major intell agencie were of the consensus > > > > > > Saddam had WMD or WMD components in the fall of 2002... > > > > > > Wrong. the Senate report says otherwise and so did German > > intelligence > > > > > (noted in report). The greatest "threat" posed by Bush was nuclear... > > > > since > > > > > all material (500 tons of yellowcake) in iraqi possession was (given > > to > > > > them > > > > > by the US along with the research reactor) accounted for to the gram > > post > > > > > war and in the inspection reports as well was discounted ENTIRELY by > > said > > > > > germans (the originators of the report that Bush quoted incorrectly) > > > > there > > > > > is indeed a HUGE strawman... his name is Bush and ALL his stated > > reasons > > > > for > > > > > urgency of any type have been shot down in their entirty. > > > > > > Proof to the contrary list all nukes, bio agents, non-conforming > > delivery > > > > > rockets and wmds as outlined by Bush in address to congrees that were > > > > found > > > > > please... > > > > > > > So you resort to name calling and straw-men... > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 11:51 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > This was written PREwar you dolt. please cite EXACTLY which facts > > are > > > > > > > wrong.... you failed to do so AGAIN, which means there is no > > > > > > > arguement, no proof. Everything written was upheld by the > > Republican > > > > > > > controlled senate intelligence commitee in 2006. Go figure. kinda > > > > like > > > > > > > a ventriloquist and burro.......... he talked out of his ass as > > well. > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 8:53 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would > > > > disarm > > > > > > Hussein. Bush knows the American public is loathe to go it alone. > > What > > > > he > > > > > > failed to do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. > > Why? > > > > > > Because there is no coalition. > > > > > > > > > Per usual, your facts are wrong ... > > > > > > > > > >>> During the last half of the 20th century, this principle > > was > > > > > > expanded internationally through the United Nations. The U.N. > > weapons > > > > > > inspections in Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law > > has > > > > been > > > > > > used, and can be used again, to avert conflict. > > > > > > > > > Except it hasn't... Only when all 5 veto holding powers agree > > can > > > > it > > > > > > > > act... And then the restrictions are usually such that action > > is > > > > > > > > ineffective... Please note Saddam ignore 12 years of Chapter > > VII > > > > > > > > Resolutions because he had bribe the UNSC from taken action... > > > > > > > > > >>> By tossing out any reasonable standards of evidence as a > > > > > > prerequisite for military action, the White House puts us in a > > state of > > > > > > constant uncertainty and increased insecurity where almost anything > > > > could > > > > > > lead to war. > > > > > > > > > Except to you reasonable means certitude... Read Eisenhower's > > > > > > > > farewell speech... He notes that a nation can not wait to > > prepare > > > > for > > > > > > > > war after the fact (as had been the case)... The slippery > > Slope > > > > of > > > > > > > > Technology and Modern Communication decreases the reaction > > time > > > > > > > > between certitude and uncertainty.... Today Saddam could have > > > > > > > > produced, delivered then used chemical or biological WMD in a > > > > matter > > > > > > > > of weeks... > > > > > > > > > Further you ignore the consensus of the world's major intel > > agency > > > > > > > > that Saddam had WMD capacity of some level... Again you twist > > > > facts > > > > > > > > to fit an ideology... > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:51 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Keith In Tampa < > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Studio, > > > > > > > > > > > Horse Hockey. > > > > > > > > > > > There is no spin here. I reference the Preamble of the > > > > > > Constitution > > > > > > > > > > because OUR Nation was being attacked, and WE ALL believed > > that > > > > > > more attacks > > > > > > > > > > were going to happen. Osama bin Laden promised as much. > > Khalid > > > > > > Shaykh > > > > > > > > > > Mohammad promised as much, Abu Zumdayah promised as much. > > Abu > > > > al > > > > > > Nashiri > > > > > > > > > > promised as much. > > > > > > > > > > Small and isinificant points: > > > > > > > > > > The preamble applies on US soil ONLY. > > > > > > > > > > I believe my neighbor is selling black mold tainted marihuana > > by > > > > the > > > > > > ton... > > > > > > > > > this will > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
