Log In Forums Help
Comic Collector Live
Home :: CCL Messageboard
Find Comics for Sale
Items For Sale
All Comics For Sale
New Releases
CGC Comics
Bundled Lots
Store Locator
Search Library
Search By Title
Publisher
Story Arc
Character
Credits
Release Date
Change Request Manager
News & Reviews
Reviews
News
Our Products and Services
Get the Software
Buying Comics And Stuff
Selling Your Comics
Opening A Store
Community
Forum
Store Locator
Member Locator
Welcome Guest Active Topics
War with Syria Options
KingZombie
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 9:42:08 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
lbej wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:

Sorry guys. really. I'm signing off of this particular subject because I seem to have lost my perspective on this subject and am not representing myself very well.


I don't blame you for bowing out of this debate-that-isn't. Personal insults are out-of-bounds--you're absolutely right about that--but the debate on this thread has degenerated, and sadly, that's what happened to the broader public debate on the Iraq War. Too many folks have too much personal pride invested in positions they took a decade ago and have been defending and subtly recasting ever since Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' moment. If there's no consensus as to what is fact and what isn't, or which sources are credible and which aren't, we can't have a debate. We can repeat talking points and cherry-pick data points, but a debate won on the basis of who talks last or loudest isn't really a debate.

Once your view on an issue becomes part of your identity, you can't reverse that view without having to do a lot of ego triage, and it's hard to blame folks with families and jobs and many other responsibilities and interests when they don't want to turn over all the rocks piled on top of their opinion of a war that--finally--ended (albeit eight years after 'Mission Accomplished'). If we can't agree on the difference between fact and opinion, we can't have a meaningful debate. It will be up to future generations to judge us--they won't have made the same ego investments we did. Of course, if the media (left-leaning and right-leaning) doesn't abandon its polarization-for-profit business strategy, future generations will be just as incapable of debating the issues of their time as we seem to be now.


Ah yes, the tried and true "Mission Accomplished" photo op Bush's opponents love to use as another display of incompetency.

First off, that banner was not ordered to be put up there by Bush or anyone from the White House office. That was put up by the naval officers on the carrier. Bush never uttered himself that he felt at that moment that the war was over.

Secondly, "Mission" does not equate to "War". Their mission was accomplished. This does not indicate that the war is over.

Atilla2k
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:45:02 PM

Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Approver, Member, Subscriber

Joined: 10/8/2007
Posts: 1,575
Points: 93,941
Location: NY
KingZombie wrote:
Ah yes, the tried and true "Mission Accomplished" photo op Bush's opponents love to use as another display of incompetency.


Bush was incompetent, he was the worst thing to ever happen to America. Although I'd still rather have had him in charge than his evil, manipulative, soul sucking vice president.


KingZombie wrote:
First off, that banner was not ordered to be put up there by Bush or anyone from the White House office. That was put up by the naval officers on the carrier. Bush never uttered himself that he felt at that moment that the war was over.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! Rolling on the Floor I have some swamp land in Fl. for you too.

KingZombie wrote:
Secondly, "Mission" does not equate to "War". Their mission was accomplished. This does not indicate that the war is over.


Did you know that people who solely watch coverage from their party’s viewpoint are looking for affirmation not information. You can’t really be that naive, can you?

OK, now let the Right Wing verbal smack down begin! FYI- I’m not a liberal or independent, so keep that in mind while you verbally eviscerate me.

KingZombie
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 7:49:14 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
Atilla2k wrote:
KingZombie wrote:
Ah yes, the tried and true "Mission Accomplished" photo op Bush's opponents love to use as another display of incompetency.


Bush was incompetent, he was the worst thing to ever happen to America. Although I'd still rather have had him in charge than his evil, manipulative, soul sucking vice president.


KingZombie wrote:
First off, that banner was not ordered to be put up there by Bush or anyone from the White House office. That was put up by the naval officers on the carrier. Bush never uttered himself that he felt at that moment that the war was over.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! Rolling on the Floor I have some swamp land in Fl. for you too.

KingZombie wrote:
Secondly, "Mission" does not equate to "War". Their mission was accomplished. This does not indicate that the war is over.


Did you know that people who solely watch coverage from their party’s viewpoint are looking for affirmation not information. You can’t really be that naive, can you?

OK, now let the Right Wing verbal smack down begin! FYI- I’m not a liberal or independent, so keep that in mind while you verbally eviscerate me.


Sorry, but who have I verbally abused so far? Everything you just said is strictly your opinion. And according to the moderator who had been doing what you accuse me of, you can't argue opinion.
lbej
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 8:00:26 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Moderator, Subscriber

Joined: 6/7/2009
Posts: 316
Points: 948
Location: North Carolina
KingZombie wrote:


Ah yes, the tried and true "Mission Accomplished" photo op Bush's opponents love to use as another display of incompetency.

[/quote]

It wasn't a display of incompetence, it was a display of arrogance. The incompetence came after that. And I suppose those naval officers also forced the President of the United States to land on that aircraft carrier in a fighter plane and give his rah-rah speech in a bomber jacket. Whatever you think of his reasons for going to war, to declare 'Mission Accomplished' only to then have to increase troop levels is an embarrassment for the man and the country he represented. I don't 'love' anything about that 'photo op,' but I would hate for us to forget it. He really thought that was all there was to it--Saddam's out, mission accomplished. How many times more soldiers died after the mission was accomplished than before?

You also made my point for me by ignoring the point I was making--that a true debate on the subject of the Iraq War is impossible because people like you won't admit that mistakes were made--before and after 'Mission Accomplished'--not even when your hero himself is willing to. To you, acknowledging that mistakes were made is a sign of weakness, when in truth it's a sign of strength. Replace all your pseudo-arguments with 'I was right I was right I was right I was right I was right' and the effect is the same. By failing to understand the point I was making--by failing to even try--you've proven that point better than I could, just as I knew you would, and that's what's truly sad about this whole mess. So characterize me as one of Bush's opponents if you want, but I haven't called him a liar, I didn't call him incompetent until after you'd already accused me of doing so, and I do believe that he did the best job he was able to. I made my point, and you backed it up with your predictably hysterical overreaction. Now I'm done with this thread, and with you.

Please make sure you read and understand the forum rules here
lbej
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 8:03:46 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Moderator, Subscriber

Joined: 6/7/2009
Posts: 316
Points: 948
Location: North Carolina
When I can't even use the quote function anymore it's definitely time to move on.

Please make sure you read and understand the forum rules here
KingZombie
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 8:39:28 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
lbej wrote:
KingZombie wrote:

Ah yes, the tried and true "Mission Accomplished" photo op Bush's opponents love to use as another display of incompetency.


It wasn't a display of incompetence, it was a display of arrogance. The incompetence came after that. And I suppose those naval officers also forced the President of the United States to land on that aircraft carrier in a fighter plane and give his rah-rah speech in a bomber jacket. Whatever you think of his reasons for going to war, to declare 'Mission Accomplished' only to then have to increase troop levels is an embarrassment for the man and the country he represented. I don't 'love' anything about that 'photo op,' but I would hate for us to forget it. He really thought that was all there was to it--Saddam's out, mission accomplished. How many times more soldiers died after the mission was accomplished than before?

You also made my point for me by ignoring the point I was making--that a true debate on the subject of the Iraq War is impossible because people like you won't admit that mistakes were made--before and after 'Mission Accomplished'--not even when your hero himself is willing to. To you, acknowledging that mistakes were made is a sign of weakness, when in truth it's a sign of strength. Replace all your pseudo-arguments with 'I was right I was right I was right I was right I was right' and the effect is the same. By failing to understand the point I was making--by failing to even try--you've proven that point better than I could, just as I knew you would, and that's what's truly sad about this whole mess. So characterize me as one of Bush's opponents if you want, but I haven't called him a liar, I didn't call him incompetent until after you'd already accused me of doing so, and I do believe that he did the best job he was able to. I made my point, and you backed it up with your predictably hysterical overreaction. Now I'm done with this thread, and with you.


Hysterical? Overreaction? Excuse me pot, but your black too. Just the fact that you think anything I've said so far is an overreaction is hysterical. All throughout this thread, I've used calm reserve and judgment while others can only counter with attacking my character. Not that it bothers me but it shows how weak your arguments are when all you can do is just make it personal.

I've said this earlier in my thread but I'll repeat myself because there seems to be some short term memory loss: I admit mistakes were made in the war in Iraq. Things could have been planned better. I even partly blamed Bush Sr. for the mess just to show I'm not completely blind with Republican support.

Now, if you have valid arguments to make, please proceed.

KingZombie
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 8:48:09 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
By the way, here's an article from CNN, a source that is definitely not right leaning reporting about the "Mission Accomplished" banner. It was a joint effort by the White House and the Navy to put it up but as I've stated, this is not an acknowledgment that the war was over.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

Quote:
White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign
Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say

From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Posted: 9:18 AM EST (1418 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- What was once viewed as a premier presidential photo op continues to dog President Bush six months after he landed on an aircraft carrier to declare "one victory" in the war on terrorism and an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

Attention turned Tuesday to a giant "Mission Accomplished" sign that stood behind Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln when he gave the speech May 1.

The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way," the president said Tuesday.

Now his statements are being parsed even further.

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.

Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.

During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

The speech and events surrounding it were widely publicized and served as the symbolic end to the war in Iraq.

At the time, it appeared that every detail of the day's events had been carefully planned, including the president's arrival in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two flybys of the carrier.

The exterior of the four-seat S-3B Viking was marked with "Navy 1" and "George W. Bush Commander in Chief."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

The banner has been used by critics of the Bush administration as evidence of bravado and an unclear sense of how dangerous the postwar conflict in Iraq would be.

Assigning responsibility elsewhere, especially to the military, is not a typical move for the Bush administration and raised suspicions among critics.

Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, defended the president's assertion.

"The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," Chun said.

"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.

At the time of the event, Democrats worried President Bush would use his speech and the dramatic landing for political gain.

On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidates, hoping to make it a political liability for Bush, accused him of trying to shift blame for the stagecraft to the Navy.

"Landing on an aircraft carrier and saying 'mission accomplished' didn't end a war, and standing in the Rose Garden and stating that 'Iraq is a dangerous place' does nothing to make American troops safer," Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said in a written statement Tuesday.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean also issued a critical statement.

"Today, we heard him try to walk away from the USS Abraham Lincoln 'end of major combat operations' announcement, absurdly claiming that the White House was not responsible for the 'Mission Accomplished' banner that decorated the flight deck," Dean said.
comicuniversity
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:41:29 AM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
KingZombie wrote:
Alright, let's break down these "facts"

comicuniversity wrote:
I am going to break thew W./Iraq War into facts and opinions.

FACTS: And these are irrefutable. reported by hundreds of sources, including W. himself and his cabinet.

1) W. sent the nation to war based on 2 basic things.
-----Iraq had strong Al Quaeda links
-----Iraq had useable WMD, with an emphasis on nuclear weapons programs.
All you have to do to confirm this is youtube W.'s speeches from that time period.


I think you, freakdylan, the person who posted that Youtube and everyone else who uses that press conference to say "See! He's admitting he lied!" is not really paying attention and really having a knee jerk reaction to what he's saying.

He even says at the press conference that those were NOT the only 2 reasons he went into Iraq. Remember, the operation was called Operation: Iraqi Freedom. He went in there ALSO, not only, but also to free the Iraqis from tyranny and cut off another government supporting terrorism.

comicuniversity wrote:
2) Absolutely no noteable connection to Al Quaeda existed in Iraq before the war. There was no notable Al Quaeda presence until after we destabilized the government. This is absolute documented fact, confirmed by our own government, intelligence agencies and boots on the ground and reported by hundreds of reputable journalistic agencies..


In that same Youtube video you love to use as a source Bush emphasizes that it was never stated that Iraq ordered the attacks on 9/11 or had direct ties to Al Quaeda.

comicuniversity wrote:
3) There was ZERO nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons materials in Iraq. This is absolute documented fact, confirmed by our own government, intelligence agencies and boots on the ground and reported by hundreds of reputable news agencies.


I'm sorry but again, where is the source for this statement that we went into Iraq on the basis that there were nuclear weapons. There is proof that there was the capacity to make nuclear weapons.

comicuniversity wrote:
4) The only items that could be considered technically WMD were roughly 500 canisters of discarded, non-useable chemicals.This is absolute documented fact, confirmed by our own government, intelligence agencies and boots on the ground and reported by hundreds of reputable journalistic agencies (and, our own, supersoldier).


These are not the only items. Sorry, show me your source that says this. Did you not see the sources I provided on Page 1 of this thread? I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself but I feel like I have to: he had WMDs that he used on his own people! Even Bill Clinton stated that and THAT is a FACT.

comicuniversity wrote:
OPINIONs: And these cannot be argued, because they are opinion.

--It was worth it or not. Some people insist that it was worth the lives and money anyway....and they are entiteled to that opinion. However, I am hoping that those who hold that opinion hold it for the right reasons and stop saying Bush didn't lie at worst, or was incredibly incompetent at best.


I'm sorry, opinions cannot be argued? Since when? Is this China or Cuba now?



Did you not read your own sources you provided on page one? They absolutely confirm what my sources said. lol.

You didn't even read your own sources, that you are using for your entire argument.

You have now lost all credibility.


Lawyered.


comicuniversity
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:52:04 AM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
Look...bottomline.

I may be wrong. But, at least i am going to be wrong with the truth on my side. Not, because I am lying to myself and picking and choosing facts.


As I said before, It may still have been right for W to go into Iraq. The FACT that Saddam didnt mind committing genocide against his own people...the FACT that Saddam was being defiant against the UN. The FACT that Saddam had proven to be a belligerent leader who didnt mind invading sovereign countries....might have been enough.

You are allowed to hold the opinion it was right to go in. Thatis inarguable.
He was a bad man.

BUT...He didnt have noteable links to Al Quaeda and he didnt have WMD beyond 500 cannisters of discarded non-useable chemicals. Which are the reasons W said we were going in and what he used to convince the American people.


It may have been right to go in anyways (although I think history says it wasnt---but that is an opinion based argument)....but you CANNOT, with any credibility, say that W didnt lie at worst, or show massive incompetence that costs tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, at best. You cannot do that with Facts and truth on your side.

lbej
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:54:14 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Moderator, Subscriber

Joined: 6/7/2009
Posts: 316
Points: 948
Location: North Carolina
comicuniversity wrote:
I mean....kingzombies own source absolutely confirms exactly what I said....but he is still denying it. I mean......I can't do anything with that.


That's when it's time to walk away, at least for me. First he said it was the navy officers who put up the banner, then he said it was a joint effort with the White House. He says I attack his character when all I do is point out his mistakes, because he doesn't understand the difference. This is pointless--I'm out.

Please make sure you read and understand the forum rules here
comicuniversity
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:58:07 AM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
And....I don;t give a crap about the "mission accomplished" banner.

yes...it was an act of utter arrogance that is generally, quite frankly, beneath an American president in time of war (when American boys are still dying).

But, after 9/11, we were a nation hungry for moments like that...moments that screamed back at the terrorists. And W gave it to us.

One thing he was good at was grand gestures that actually worked, at leats usually. this banner rubbed a lot the wrong way....but who can forget him standing on top of the trade tower debris, yelling "We can hear you" to the New Yorkers? Great stuff really. And that's sincere.
comicuniversity
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:58:49 AM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
lbej wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
I mean....kingzombies own source absolutely confirms exactly what I said....but he is still denying it. I mean......I can't do anything with that.


That's when it's time to walk away, at least for me. First he said it was the navy officers who put up the banner, then he said it was a joint effort with the White House. He says I attack his character when all I do is point out his mistakes, because he doesn't understand the difference. This is pointless--I'm out.



he's talking about me. I attacked his character. A fact i am embarrassed about and he has a right to be upset about.
KingZombie
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:21:47 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
comicuniversity wrote:
Did you not read your own sources you provided on page one? They absolutely confirm what my sources said. lol.

You didn't even read your own sources, that you are using for your entire argument.

You have now lost all credibility.


Lawyered.


Yes, I read them and I know what you think they are confirming and you really need to go back and read them again. Your contention is that those WMDs were old and unusable. The article I provided states that they were still viable canisters.

Lawyer that.
KingZombie
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:27:05 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
lbej wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
I mean....kingzombies own source absolutely confirms exactly what I said....but he is still denying it. I mean......I can't do anything with that.


That's when it's time to walk away, at least for me. First he said it was the navy officers who put up the banner, then he said it was a joint effort with the White House. He says I attack his character when all I do is point out his mistakes, because he doesn't understand the difference. This is pointless--I'm out.


I was attempting to concede that it wasn't just the Navy but once again you're not looking at the facts but rather assassinating my character to make me look less credible and therefore anything I say is not credible. So no, you are not pointing out any mistakes and you continue to prove my assertion that you're not using facts but just going after me personally. I mean really, you JUST did it.
comicuniversity
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 11:53:36 AM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
KingZombie wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Did you not read your own sources you provided on page one? They absolutely confirm what my sources said. lol.

You didn't even read your own sources, that you are using for your entire argument.

You have now lost all credibility.


Lawyered.


Yes, I read them and I know what you think they are confirming and you really need to go back and read them again. Your contention is that those WMDs were old and unusable. The article I provided states that they were still viable canisters.

Lawyer that.




THIS IS WHAT IS TAKEN FROM YOUR SOURCE: YOUR SOURCE

Since you can't seem to find it, I'll help. This quote comes directly after detailing all the chemical cannisters found.



"The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."



READ IT!!!!!!!!! Then talk about it. And stop saying things that are not even supported by your own damned sources!!!

Nowhere. Nowhere in ANY source you provided, does it say that any of the chemicals were viable. Nowhere. You are making it up. And, that isn't character assasssination. That is what is actually happening.

Lawyered. Again.



This is all a moot point anyways, since WE ALL KNOW that the entire lead up to W's Iraq war was over Nuclear Weapon material and WE ALL KNOW we didn't find even an iota of that stuff. So, clutching at these 500 cannisters of gas in the first place means you're entirely missing the point and grasping at straws to defend an undefendable position.
pottersan
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 1:06:17 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 4,489
Points: 44,329
Location: Bainbridge Island, Washington
comicuniversity wrote:
..It's like the people who say, with a straight face, that the answer to gun violence is......Wait for it.......

MORE GUNS!!!

HAHAHAHHAHAH!
Bah, the other topic degenerated to crappy left wing/right wing BS.... so let's move on to another...


Guns seem to be the answer to other potential violence;

A Marine Corps veteran (Charlie Blackmore) with a concealed carry permit stopped a suspect in a brutal beating in West Allis, Wis., on Tuesday morning when he drew his gun and called the police.

An 86-year-old woman (Lousie Howard) grabbed a gun in self-defense when police say an intruder broke into her home. News 5 sat down with this woman today and listened to her tell about the experience.

STANTON, Calif. — Jan Cooper could see the would-be burglar's dark silhouette through a crack in the vertical blinds as he tried to slide open her porch door.

The 72-year-old Southern California woman had been on the phone for almost eight minutes with the 911 operator, who told her deputies were almost there – but Cooper realized there wasn't time.

"I'm firing!" Cooper shouted to the dispatcher as she pulled the trigger on her .357 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver

Join me on Marvel War of Heroes! Alphacomics, use referral code eng572582 and get bonus items!!



Visit My Facebook Page!

Alpha Comics has LOOSE Action Figures & T Shirts!

Other great CCL Stores;
BlueMoon Comics, The Comic Book Stop, Comics Castle, ComicVortex, TREEHOUSE , The Android's Dungeon, Nerdgasm_Comics
comicuniversity
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 1:09:20 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
lol.

I deleted my gun post cause I didn't want to get into. But you beat me to it.

I see this all the time. Everytime the gun debate comes up gunnuts come up with a handful of stories of gun owners stopping a burglary.

Well...this is all you need to know.


An average of 30,000 people die in the U.S. every year from gun violence.


But, nice that you found 1 person saved from a brutal beating and a couple people who stopped burglars because of them.



I'm sure the mothers of those 30,000 are very comforted by that. lol.

No matter how many smatterings of instances of guns helping someone it doesn't add up to 30,000 dead and hundreds (yes hundreds) of thousands wounded....EVERY SINGLE YEAR. the numbers just don't add up for your side partner.

KingZombie
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 1:37:06 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/14/2007
Posts: 4,543
Points: 90,058
comicuniversity wrote:
KingZombie wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Did you not read your own sources you provided on page one? They absolutely confirm what my sources said. lol.

You didn't even read your own sources, that you are using for your entire argument.

You have now lost all credibility.


Lawyered.


Yes, I read them and I know what you think they are confirming and you really need to go back and read them again. Your contention is that those WMDs were old and unusable. The article I provided states that they were still viable canisters.

Lawyer that.




THIS IS WHAT IS TAKEN FROM YOUR SOURCE: YOUR SOURCE

Since you can't seem to find it, I'll help. This quote comes directly after detailing all the chemical cannisters found.



"The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."



READ IT!!!!!!!!! Then talk about it. And stop saying things that are not even supported by your own damned sources!!!

Nowhere. Nowhere in ANY source you provided, does it say that any of the chemicals were viable. Nowhere. You are making it up. And, that isn't character assasssination. That is what is actually happening.

Lawyered. Again.



This is all a moot point anyways, since WE ALL KNOW that the entire lead up to W's Iraq war was over Nuclear Weapon material and WE ALL KNOW we didn't find even an iota of that stuff. So, clutching at these 500 cannisters of gas in the first place means you're entirely missing the point and grasping at straws to defend an undefendable position.


Let me post this again and bold the parts that do not support your allegations:

Quote:
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.


Not a moot point, show me where it's been stated that this was only about finding nuclear weapons. Because just from you saying it doesn't make it fact.
pottersan
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 1:38:42 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 4,489
Points: 44,329
Location: Bainbridge Island, Washington
comicuniversity wrote:
lol.

I deleted my gun post cause I didn't want to get into. But you beat me to it.

I see this all the time. Everytime the gun debate comes up gunnuts come up with a handful of stories of gun owners stopping a burglary.

Well...this is all you need to know.


An average of 30,000 people die in the U.S. every year from gun violence.


But, nice that you found 1 person saved from a brutal beating and a couple people who stopped burglars because of them.



I'm sure the mothers of those 30,000 are very comforted by that. lol.

No matter how many smatterings of instances of guns helping someone it doesn't add up to 30,000 dead and hundreds (yes hundreds) of thousands wounded....EVERY SINGLE YEAR. the numbers just don't add up for your side partner.

Well, let's waste no time with the name calling (gunnuts), let's get right to it!

I'm curious, how many of those (excluding the 17,000 or so suicides) are crimes committed (not self or home defence) by lawful gunowners?

Join me on Marvel War of Heroes! Alphacomics, use referral code eng572582 and get bonus items!!



Visit My Facebook Page!

Alpha Comics has LOOSE Action Figures & T Shirts!

Other great CCL Stores;
BlueMoon Comics, The Comic Book Stop, Comics Castle, ComicVortex, TREEHOUSE , The Android's Dungeon, Nerdgasm_Comics
Jim
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 1:45:02 PM

Rank: CCL Mobile App Dev
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/16/2007
Posts: 10,419
Points: 10,096,227
Location: Everett, WA
pottersan wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
lol.

I deleted my gun post cause I didn't want to get into. But you beat me to it.

I see this all the time. Everytime the gun debate comes up gunnuts come up with a handful of stories of gun owners stopping a burglary.

Well...this is all you need to know.


An average of 30,000 people die in the U.S. every year from gun violence.


But, nice that you found 1 person saved from a brutal beating and a couple people who stopped burglars because of them.



I'm sure the mothers of those 30,000 are very comforted by that. lol.

No matter how many smatterings of instances of guns helping someone it doesn't add up to 30,000 dead and hundreds (yes hundreds) of thousands wounded....EVERY SINGLE YEAR. the numbers just don't add up for your side partner.

Well, let's waste no time with the name calling (gunnuts), let's get right to it!

I'm curious, how many of those (excluding the 17,000 or so suicides) are crimes committed (not self or home defence) by lawful gunowners?


No kidding. Whats up with that??


Quote:
An average of 30,000 people die in the U.S. every year from gun violence.

There are lots of "articles" out there that pit doctors against guns for cause of death.
Accidental deaths per year caused by physicians are about 120,000.


I trust different tools in the right situations but every tool should be treated with respect or bad things will happen.

CCL Android app
CCL Android Free app
CCL Windows Phone app
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

This page was generated in 0.340 seconds.

ADVERTISEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All images on comic collector live copyright of their respective publishers. © Copyright 2008, MidTen Media Inc. GOLO231