Goto page 1 2 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sudaca pero honesto
|
Bush lies
|
Date:
11/27/2007 1:39:25 PM |
Petroleo !! esa es la causa de la invasión de Irak ¡No mientan mas! que no se creen ni ustedes!
|
| Tom
|
Tom's response
|
Date:
9/21/2007 5:50:55 PM |
Primero, quiero decirte, "a", que creo que este foro, que ya fue visitado por mucha gente, es una cosa que puede influenciar las opiniones de un numero grande de personas. Entonces vale la pena argumentar, para que ellas no sean influenciadas solamente por un lado. Si tu no crees que este assunto sea importante, eres tu que eres tonto.
Now for your arguments, Casey...
*Attacks on US forces enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraqi territory. Constitutes military action against US forces, not an attack on the USA. Indeed, whether justified or not, I would identify the USA as the hostile party in Desert Storm [sic. - I meant Desert Fox].
>I don't know when this attitude that it was ok to attack US personnel started. It is an act of war period.
But my point was that the USA was the hostile party.
*Saddam ordered suicide attacks on Americans. So what? By the same argument I could claim that the UK has been repeatedly attacked by Zimbabwe.
>So what? This proves that Saddam was officially assisting terrorist attacks on the US. Again, an act of war. After 9/11, the president said we would go after ALL terrorists and any nation that helped them. Thereby justifying the war.
Doesn't justify, and applying this criterion consistently you should be at war with about 30 countries by now. Good luck with that. Plenty of tin pot dictators say stuff like this to win domestic support, doesn't mean they pose a security threat.
*WMDs were found in Iraq after 2003. Evidence:
Mustard gas and sarin were found etc. etc.. Yes, expired stockpiles, mostly buried in the desert and forgotten about after the Iran-Iraq war. These materials are costly to destroy and plenty of countries, even responsible ones, have left stocks years after closing weapons programmes. Examples include Poland, Albania and Canada.
>You have completely ignored all the facts, and evidence to only address one of the wmd issues. Even your point on that is dead wrong. Drawing conclusions with other countries who were not mandated to destroy these weapons is irrelevant.
They were mandated to destroy them, and they did, eventually. I didn't aim to address the other points on WMDs.
*85% of Iraq is peaceful
85% of Iraqi territory is peaceful, but then the country is largely desert. Of Iraq's population of 27 million, 7 million live in Baghdad alone. Ask them if it's peaceful.
>Nice try, but the reports are populated areas ... not total land mass.
Then the reports are wrong.
*Was the invasion illegal?...
The discussion of American law is irrelevant.
The argument that the war was justified under Resolution 687 is undermined by American efforts to secure a second resolution after 1441 - indicating that the American authorities weren't convinced that 687 was sufficient on its own.
>The discussion of American is always relevant as there are two legal systems discussed in this topic. The UN resolutions provided legal authority for any signatory of the '91 coalition to restart hostilities should Iraq violate the cease-fire ... which they did. The US sought more support from other nations before the second invasion, and received it.
The discussion of American law is irrelevant to the legality of the conflict.
>The UN security council also voted that the US was legally allowed to pursue a military option. The second vote was whether or not the UN would officially be a waring party. That is the vote that failed.
The UN can't officially be a warring party in any conflict, it has no troops of its own. The second vote was whether to mandate a fresh US invasion. It wasn't taken because the US thought they wouldn't get support. Now, if you really believe R687 is a sufficient mandate, why seek a second? The US stopped the resolution from being tabled so that the first mandate wouldn't be explicitly invalidated, but the fact they were intended to table it indicates they thought R687 was too weak on its own.
*Of course every discussion of the war will express a view-point. What I object to here is the presentation of a "factual" account which disingenuously presents itself as unbiased. If you really want a balanced interpretation of the facts, go to Wikipedia.
>As outlined above it is you who have proven themselves to pick and choose your "facts." Nor did I ever say I was unbiased. Furthermore, to cite Wikipedia as your evidence is largely the reason you don't have accurate information.
>This is the same tactic the anti-war crowd uses on a daily basis. You pick one thing here, and one thing there instead of the entire volume of information. That one bit of info is usually innocuous, and only partly true of the facts.
Firstly, I don't pretend to have as comprehensive a knowledge as you. But I do know enough to see that you've overplayed your hand here, which is why I explicitly took selected examples of where I know you fall down - so you can't criticise me for not addressing every point, I'm not even denying some of them might be right.
Second, you didn't say you were unbiased, but you pose your argument as a series of factual questions. You report controversial findings as facts, and that's why I said you're misleading.
Third, Wikipedia is an international site, with free editing rights for all, which allows it to be peer reviewed and include information from every source. The Iraq Survey Group (headed by Duelfer) is an organ of the American government, seeking evidence in support of an American war. Who's going to be more biased?
|
| Casey
|
Now Who's Spinning
|
Date:
9/16/2007 8:35:48 PM |
Your first point is as follows.
Saddam attacked the USA. Evidence:
*Attacks on US forces enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraqi territory. Constitutes military action against US forces, not an attack on the USA. Indeed, whether justified or not, I would identify the USA as the hostile party in Desert Storm.
I don't know when this attitude that it was ok to attack US personnel started. It is an act of war period.
*Saddam ordered suicide attacks on Americans. So what? By the same argument I could claim that the UK has been repeatedly attacked by Zimbabwe.
So what? This proves that Saddam was officially assisting terrorist attacks on the US. Again, an act of war. After 9/11, the president said we would go after ALL terrorists and any nation that helped them. Thereby justifying the war.
*WMDs were found in Iraq after 2003. Evidence:
Mustard gas and sarin were found etc. etc.. Yes, expired stockpiles, mostly buried in the desert and forgotten about after the Iran-Iraq war. These materials are costly to destroy and plenty of countries, even responsible ones, have left stocks years after closing weapons programmes. Examples include Poland, Albania and Canada.
You have completely ignored all the facts, and evidence to only address one of the wmd issues. Even your point on that is dead wrong. Drawing conclusions with other countries who were not mandated to destroy these weapons is irrelevant.
Most of the weapons were NOT expired ... read the military's report on them, it is not classified anymore. You are also ignoring the Duelfer report, 500 tons of uranium (some enriched), the BM-21 rockets loaded with sarin READY TO FIRE, the stockpile of 55gal drums of cyclosarin, and you forgot to mention the sarin and mustard shells used as IED's in 2004 that were in perfect working condition.
*85% of Iraq is peaceful
85% of Iraqi territory is peaceful, but then the country is largely desert. Of Iraq's population of 27 million, 7 million live in Baghdad alone. Ask them if it's peaceful.
Nice try, but the reports are populated areas ... not total land mass.
*The Duelfer Report said Iraq had the capability to produce large quantities of sulphur mustard gas in 3-6 months.
Sulphur mustard gas is not difficult to produce. Any country with a modest chemical industry could produce sizeable quantities quickly, even without production facilities at the outset.
Again, you didn't read the report and are only taking one of Duelfer's findings while completely ignoring his congressional testimony.
Mustard was only one chapter in his report. He testified that Saddam did, in fact, have a nuclear program (hence 500 tons of uranium) that was designed to counter Iran's. He spoke extensively on the illegal weapons programs Saddam had, and his effort to rebuild those programs leading up to the invasion.
Duelfer's report can be summed up very simply. Saddam had weapons ... we found them, he had wmd programs, but they were not as advanced as we had thought.
*Was the invasion illegal?...
The discussion of American law is irrelevant.
The argument that the war was justified under Resolution 687 is undermined by American efforts to secure a second resolution after 1441 - indicating that the American authorities weren't convinced that 687 was sufficient on its own.
The discussion of American is always relevant as there are two legal systems discussed in this topic. The UN resolutions provided legal authority for any signatory of the '91 coalition to restart hostilities should Iraq violate the cease-fire ... which they did. The US sought more support from other nations before the second invasion, and received it.
The UN security council also voted that the US was legally allowed to pursue a military option. The second vote was whether or not the UN would officially be a waring party. That is the vote that failed.
*Of course every discussion of the war will express a view-point. What I object to here is the presentation of a "factual" account which disingenuously presents itself as unbiased. If you really want a balanced interpretation of the facts, go to Wikipedia.
As outlined above it is you who have proven themselves to pick and choose your "facts." Nor did I ever say I was unbiased. Furthermore, to cite Wikipedia as your evidence is largely the reason you don't have accurate information.
This is the same tactic the anti-war crowd uses on a daily basis. You pick one thing here, and one thing there instead of the entire volume of information. That one bit of info is usually innocuous, and only partly true of the facts.
|
| Tom
|
Deeply flawed
|
Date:
9/11/2007 7:58:19 PM |
My main problem is not that this test is factually inaccurate, but there is a selection bias which misleads the reader and very inaccurate language. Some examples:
Saddam attacked the USA. Evidence:
*Attacks on US forces enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraqi territory. Constitutes military action against US forces, not an attack on the USA. Indeed, whether justified or not, I would identify the USA as the hostile party in Desert Storm.
*Saddam ordered suicide attacks on Americans. So what? By the same argument I could claim that the UK has been repeatedly attacked by Zimbabwe.
WMDs were found in Iraq after 2003. Evidence:
Mustard gas and sarin were found etc. etc.. Yes, expired stockpiles, mostly buried in the desert and forgotten about after the Iran-Iraq war. These materials are costly to destroy and plenty of countries, even responsible ones, have left stocks years after closing weapons programmes. Examples include Poland, Albania and Canada.
85% of Iraq is peaceful
85% of Iraqi territory is peaceful, but then the country is largely desert. Of Iraq's population of 27 million, 7 million live in Baghdad alone. Ask them if it's peaceful.
The Duelfer Report said Iraq had the capability to produce large quantities of sulphur mustard gas in 3-6 months.
Sulphur mustard gas is not difficult to produce. Any country with a modest chemical industry could produce sizeable quantities quickly, even without production facilities at the outset.
Was the invasion illegal?...
The discussion of American law is irrelevant.
The argument that the war was justified under Resolution 687 is undermined by American efforts to secure a second resolution after 1441 - indicating that the American authorities weren't convinced that 687 was sufficient on its own.
Of course every discussion of the war will express a view-point. What I object to here is the presentation of a "factual" account which disingenuously presents itself as unbiased. If you really want a balanced interpretation of the facts, go to Wikipedia.
|
| Casey
|
Bottom Line
|
Date:
9/10/2007 3:15:07 PM |
This test is not crap, not flawed, not opinion, nor hypothesis. It is only based on facts. Facts in the Duelfer Report, facts in every media outlet on the planet, and facts from our troops.
Non of the information in this test can be refuted, and I challenge anyone to attempt it. The test is not designed to sway your opinion into pro-war. It is designed to inform you of the information that was reported on extensively, but has been buried. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Digg bury button utilized by the Digg mafia to hide stories they don't like. Well, it is much the same thing in the MSM these days. If you don't like the truth ... lie so much that the truth is buried.
Below are just a couple of links pertaining only to the 500 tons of uranium, the sarin/mustard used on our troops, and a story from 2003 about several US soldiers and Iraqi civilians having to be decontaminated due to sarin exposure. I encourage you to read them all, and take notice of the news source ... enjoy.
Here's a couple of links for the 500 tons of uranium.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/20/85636.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516235/posts
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10613FA345B0C718EDDAC0894DC404482
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml -- this quotes a NY Times article
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml
Here is some links for the sarin and mustard used against US troops since the invasion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/18/content_331563.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/06/iraq/main627580.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5060648/
I hope it helps. Let me know if you need anything else.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31905
Decontamination of soldiers and civilians exposed to sarin in 2003.
|
| Frank
|
Huh?
|
Date:
9/1/2007 11:25:34 PM |
What reasoning errors? The test presents only facts.
|
| me
|
no
|
Date:
8/30/2007 9:56:43 PM |
this test makes a lot of reasoning errors
|
| Screaming Liberal
|
Damn Facts
|
Date:
8/30/2007 7:08:33 PM |
BULLSHIT!!!!! BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!!!!!
Don't be fooled by the facts people! Let your emotions tell you the truth!
|
| Hillary Clinton
|
Very Enlightening!!
|
Date:
8/30/2007 3:42:58 PM |
I had no idea! Thank you for opening my eyes to the truth! Its a shame my husband was too much of a wuss to take Saddam on.
|
| Smarter than you
|
That's because it doesn't ebb with your flawed point of view
|
Date:
8/30/2007 3:42:25 PM |
You lose. Good day sir.
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
|
