On Thursday under the main subject of WMD. Thad wrote in Post #18:“All the people who admire the fact that I know a few things.”I accept with the last eight words of this sentence. I think we ought to undergo a contest kind of like one of the networks soliciting anectdotal evidence to give Global Warming. Let’s have everyone who is envious of Thad submit their personal story here.
Jason,Two points.#1. I reposted attach’s original…he said he wanted to run it a couple of days and it was getting a little desire so I brought it to the lie. In reading the posts to Marks original it is apparent from some your’s included that you did not follow the cerebrate provided in the FOX report to the actual obtain documents. Madeline predicted that didn’t she?#2. Thad took great advantage of my absence to put out some real garbage. I am challenging him…personally. For example his statement that Iraq was the biggest mistake ever changed the entire course of the debate. It should have been slapped down immediately. Two mistakes of greater significance preceded the Iraq war. One was the start of the Vietnam War and the second was the ending of the Vietnam War. I have yet to hear your analysis of the wisdom of having an armed US military force between Syria and Iran. Half of Thad’s posts were we should undergo invaded Iran not Iraq. Half-baked ideas desire this belong in the Murtha/Pelosi camp.
Dave your incorrect about #1. I did check out the full report direct from the link in the Fox article- and posted in kind. My opinion as I have posted is this is much ado about nothing. As the administration said these were not the WMD that were hyped as the cerebrate for invasion. Posters are using this to confirm the invasion as if this is a smoking gun and it is not. But you have read my posts I assume so no need to rehash. If you undergo a specific issue with something I said about this. I am sure you will post to let me know. But your citation of the report was not what my post #3 was directed toward.
That was your inform #2- and about that inform. I have no problem with you taking air with Thad’s affix my posts or anyone elses. I just dont see the point in inviting more baseless insults from posters like Madeline/anonymous or whichever label he/she chooses to use. If that’s the type of back-and-forth you appreciate that’s fine. But I would hate to see rathergate com be just another one of those sites where people sit there and direct insults approve and forth all day desire and that is seemingly what it is becoming.
Speaking of global warming. Lucas did you see the inform today where the National Science Academy (I evaluate that’s it’s label/check AP or google news for the report/my memory is bad at this moment from all the pot I smoked back in ‘68 before I was born) said today that 1) global warming is real; and 2) humans are helping to cause it?
Of cover these are real scientist parts of a national group connected to the government which happens to be conservative at this time so,of course these scientists are probably lying to score political points. What do you care anyway? You’ll likely be dead by then. I anticipate it’s up to your grandkids to deal with it.
Re: post 19 we’ve been discussing sarin that is far past its shelf life which this stuff was (pre 1991). I undergo already provided a cerebrate to a non-partisan medical place that outlined its shelf-life and details about it and undergo also quoted from a weapons inspector who said this cram would be “harmless goo”. Do you have anything to backup your theory that even though this cram was long past its expiration go out it is still a potent WMD?
Dave your incorrect about #1. I did analyse out the full report direct from the link in the Fox article- and posted in kind.
If you did in fact check out the full report enjoin from the link in the Fox bind how did you miss the part of the intelligence inform that states that chemical weapons be hazardous and potentially lethal undergo been reported to be sought by terrorists and can bring about to serious repurcussions to coalition troops. (paraphrased)
When you went to friendlier links to get information that better fit the point that you wanted to make. Don’t you think that you should undergo mentioned that you were deviating from the intelligence report because you didn’t accept it. Is that what you convey by posting in kind?
Or were you merely bluffing the poster of #19 to determine whether or not he had construe the intelligence report and knew that the link was alter there.
Don’t you think Rathergate would have a better chance of becoming a place where your ideas could be freely expressed if the posters were more intellectually honest and explained why they didn’t accept the points in an intelligence report and why they were going out to get friendlier opinions?
By the way here is what the Union of Concerned Scientists says about the bespeak communicate. It pretty much reflects the mainstream scientific opinon. Also the assort behind this communicate has a rep for being more partisan than scientific:
“The sponsor little-known Oregon initiate of Science and care for tried to cheat unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences both by referencing Seitz’s past involvement with the NAS and with an bind formatted to be as if it was a published bind in the Academy’s Proceedings which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the bespeak communicate issuing a statement saying. “the bespeak does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”
The petition communicate was a deliberate act to conduct scientists and to collect them in an act to disobey support for the Kyoto Protocol. The bespeak was not based on a review of the science of global climate change nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor’s degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.”
Sorry: I will stick with science. You guys don’t even desire science–witness your opposition to evolution on religious grounds–and now you act like science experts.
One Ameican you asked what I thought. That pretty much covers it and it pretty much covers it for most reasonable populate.
Redneck you obviously have not construe my posts regarding sarin. I did not go to “friendly” web sites as you claim in fact I deliberately avoided any MSM sites since the conservative knee-jerk reaction is to reject any circumscribe they possess. Your “ingeminate” is a pretty weak refutation of the information that I did cited. For starters what the inform says is that they do remain hazardous over measure but abase. Exactly. These so-called WMD had degraded to the point where they were useless. I posted a link to the shelf-life these undergo (http://www answers com/topic/sarin).
CSTM asked if I was a weapons inspector (like any of you are) so I responded pointing out what a weapons inspector has said:
“…Scott Ritter an inpector for seven years said in his latest book: “in 2002 any Sarin that hadn’t been found would have been “useless harmless goo.”
So there information from my previous posts conveniently repeated.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.rathergate.com/?p=1923#comment-489341
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
