slept2long

RED DAVE was speaking about the fact that we went to war without proof of WMD therfore finding them doesn't matter, I think that's what he was saying. Stop building strawmen.

Again more strawmen. And that was our policy. If you get it, it's yours. You can't attack countries for doing what you do yourself. We give weapons to country A enemy of country X and country X gives weapons and assistance to our enemies as payback.


You sound like a radio pundit generalizing for the whole country.

Koyaanisqatsi

[Insult deleted] Not only did I admit to being wrong about over-using the word "arterial" in regard to the head wounds when it was subsequently demonstrated (not by you, if memory serves) that the head does not contain that many arterial wounds making it unlikely that there would be any arterial wounds from the head (thereby contradicting your own precious Meacham source, by the way) in the first thread you "indicted" me with here, but I have admitted to being wrong in this thread on page three:

Not to mention many other times in other fora that anyone here who knows me can attest to.

As for Dostoevsky, you know damn well that I based my opinion of his atheism on his writings (just as I made clear in my response here) and made that abundantly clear in the other thread you used to "indict" me with.

You have pulled some detestable evasion tactics in the past, but this is hands down the worst and if you ever libel me like that again, I'll recommend your immediate banning from this board. We will not be the worse for wear, I assure you.

(deleted instructions on how you might perform a sexual act upon yourself)

leonarde

Caller, you're fading! Please call back tomorrow!

Cheers!

leonarde

Previously posted:But it was not a matter of "overusing" a word but of putting that word in a sentence of Meacham's where it was not in the original document/URL. Furthermore what you left out was:

1) Meacham was reviewing the findings of NUMEROUS previous investigators.

2) ONE of those investigators (out of perhaps 8 to 12 head investigators/studies) said that the head wounds seemed to be arterial OR venous .

So you:

1) dropped the "or venous" part entirely.

2) misidentified whose statement it was originally (attributing it to Meacham himself!!!!)

3) and did this by inserting it into a sentence that Meacham DID write.

And WHY did you do this? So Meacham's distorted statement would buttress YOUR argument about the bleeding ("the milk bottle theory").

So much for your passion for "accuracy"

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post:And in that thread in which we disputed this (partly it's true in awful French------at least mine was awful!) I summarized the plots of Dostoevsky's two most famous novels: "Crime and Punishment" and "The Brothers Karamazov" and showed how chockful of religious sentiment the hero of the latter (Alyosha) was and how religious the protagonist of the former (Raskolnikov) became. But then you didn't want to discuss Dostoevsky's actual works.....

Cheers!

slept2long

What Powell presented was rich in volume but poor in information and virtually devoid of new evidence. The inspectors found nothing as a result of what he presented.

Yes they were. Yet France and Germany weren't as swayed as the Americans.

That wasn't all that was disputed. When the Security Council passes a resolution it's the security council who sees it through. Not some war horny renegade and it's bitch.

Here's 1441

I'll only deal with the stuff concerning violations and consequences.

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq�s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Not that this is keeping the US from defending itself against an immenent attack.

Article 51 of the UN charter says;

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

You can find that here.

Chapter VII BTW.

Article 39:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

It didn't determine and we can't show it was a threat to us.

Appeal to ridicule.

Are you ridiculing a country for taking action based on political/economic assessments and not what there intelligence agencies were saying? Because the US intelligence agencies were saying Iraq wasn't a threat and probably didn't have WMD. They still are regarding the latter I believe.

hezekiah jones

ROFL! Nice edit.

slept2long

HUH? This is from page 2 of this thread.

It says it's the same report from a war ago! Here's the next paragraph that was already posted in this thread I believe:

"The difference between the two reports lies not in the content, but in the timing. It is almost certain that the debriefings top BND officials gave to
senior journalists in Germany were intended, among other things, to prepare German and European public opinion for a possible American offensive against Iraq."

The report talked about in the above link is the only one I am familiar with. Could you link to the other one?

Koyaanisqatsi

And just exactly where the f*ck did I ever do such a thing? Quote me verbatim now or I will lodge a formal complaint. This is an extremely offensive and serious accusation, so if I did it you had damn well better show it!

I did not! I quoted him directly!

Do you see where the attribution is? In the same place that Meacham put it.

DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND THEN SUPPORT IT BY INCLUDING THE SOURCE IT WAS BASED UPON? ANY CLUE AT ALL?

Meacham is the one who is stating "Several clots have the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of coagulation" and then supporting this by referencing the source from which he garnered this information. Do you see any quotation marks around his statement in the original that would lead you to conclude that what he said was a direct, verbatim quote from Rodante?

No, you do not, so he was obviously reviewing what Rodante had found, so what the hell is your point?

As your last stupidity demonstrates, Meacham reviewed other studies. Some sections he directly excerpted, which is clear by the QUOTATION MARKS surrounding the excerpts. In this statement by Meacham, however, there are no quotation marks, which means Meacham was summarizing Rodante's findings, or, in your terms "reviewing" what Rodante had allegedly found and not quoting Rodante directly, or there would have been quotation marks around the statement!

WHAT HAS ANY OF THIS TO DO WITH WHAT I HAVE POSTED HERE?

Yes, I did. I extrapolated from what your own source declared was a possibility; that the wounds could be venous or arterial!

If they had been arterial, then that would have meant a tremendous amount of blood loss. That was my argument based on the possibilities raised by your own evidence which I addressed later when evidence was presented that contradicted your own source!

Sorry, Loren, but BULLSHIT! Meacham did not indicate the statement was a direct quote from Rodante!

Here's a direct quote from Meacham's document (just click on the link and do a word search for "Rodante" and it will take you right to the section I am directly quoting):

So you see any quotation marks indicating this to have been a direct quote from Rodante? No, you do not.

Yet two paragraphs later, Meacham seems perfectly familiar with the most basic rules of attributing direct quotes to a source:

Do you see and/or understand the difference?

As you just pointed out earlier, Meacham had reviewed other studies. Some he quoted direclty (with quotation marks to clearly delineate) and some he merely summarized and made sure to properly attribute the source, SUCH AS THE CASE WITH RODANTE.

Now eat your crow!

PROVE THAT ACCUSATION IN YOUR VERY NEXT POST OR CONSIDER YOURSELF FORMALLY UNDER BOARD REVIEW AT MY INSISTENCE! That is a very serious accusation and if I did it then you had damn well better show me where so I can defend myself, apologize for my mistake, or do everything I can to make sure you are banned from ever posting here again!

And so much for your profound lack of integrity.

You have one more post to prove your accusation before I formally approach the board for your removal.

slept2long

Your right. Sorry for accusing you wrongly of using a strawman.