Responsibility for Iraqi Nuclear materials

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by PeterWolf,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PeterWolf,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Impenitent,@ <!--QuoteBegin-PeterWolf, Well, let's see. If you are refering to the documented materials, that were under UN seal. The sites were documented, leftovers from the Iraqi nuclear programs. When the US invaded, it failed to secure these sites, the US knew that it should have done so. :rolleyes: you mean the sites the left wing idiots screamed didn't exist? the ones blix couldn't inspect or find? no WMDs there... In some cases it was reported it was US troops broke into the sites. They had a responsibility to guard these sites. :rolleyes: and you KNOW that the WMDs were there when we went in? you KNOW they were not hidden elsewhere or moved to syria? saddam had a responsibility to disarm and the un had a responsibility to make sure saddam disarmed 17 times before we went in... These were not the Iraq WMD Bush was tryin to make out existed. These were known, fully documented, and sealed and had been so for what, 10 years? Now you see why it is Bush's failure. :rolleyes: no, now I see why the left clings to conspiracy theories and lies

Sigh, you're delusional.[/b][/quote]

:rolleyes: I take that ad hominem as your concession

Impenitent

Strange, making a statement of the obvious is not an "ad hominem". You are either clueless, of completely fallacious in your little diatribe. You know it, so do I.

You prattle about Bush being right about the WMD due to the already documented sites, which were under UN seal (You do know what that means right?) is akin to someone visiting New York, seeing the statue of Liberty and then claiming to have discovered it.

But then, the US did try and pass off well known, well inspected and disused weapons sites as big finds during the invasion didn't it. I think the first and probably most notable one was reported by Carolyn Glick if I recall correctly.

So, my statement was certainly not an insult, just a statement of the obvious.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by PeterWolf, Impenitent Strange, making a statement of the obvious is not an "ad hominem". You are either clueless, of completely fallacious in your little diatribe. You know it, so do I. :rolleyes: take a logic course... I state the obvious that you are a myopic closed minded bush hater... you haven't proven a thing... "You know it, so do I." You prattle about Bush being right about the WMD due to the already documented sites, which were under UN seal (You do know what that means right?) is akin to someone visiting New York, seeing the statue of Liberty and then claiming to have discovered it. :rolleyes: not at all... the media was reporting that the WMDs were gone... no WMDs... iraq was innocent and bush was the evil bully... were they there or not? the left can't have it both ways... But then, the US did try and pass off well known, well inspected and disused weapons sites as big finds during the invasion didn't it. I think the first and probably most notable one was reported by Carolyn Glick if I recall correctly. :rolleyes: no, they were not big finds, rather they were concerned about what was missing... but have no fear, they will turn up one way or another in iraq or another country like syria... So, my statement was certainly not an insult, just a statement of the obvious. :rolleyes: as is mine... it is obvious that you have lost the argument

Impenitent

Sigh, I guess you have discovered the statue of liberty eh. Pray tell where WMD was mentioned in the posted article?

I haven't lost any argument, you haven't presented one. But keep right on blathering, it suits you.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by PeterWolf, Impenitent Sigh, I guess you have discovered the statue of liberty eh. Pray tell where WMD was mentioned in the posted article? :rolleyes: the yellow cake... easy to make dirty bombs... I haven't lost any argument, you haven't presented one. But keep right on blathering, it suits you. :rolleyes: it is obvious to everyone else too... keep on hating bush, it suits you...

Impenitent

My goodness, so now yellowcake because it can be used to make a dirty bomb is a WMD in your language? My my. What's next, uranium because it can be mined and processed and used to make a WMD is also a WMD?

And so, because you've been caught out blathering you end up claiming I hate Bush. How very cute.

All you point out is as I contend, you're just blathering.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by PeterWolf, Impenitent My goodness, so now yellowcake because it can be used to make a dirty bomb is a WMD in your language? My my. What's next, uranium because it can be mined and processed and used to make a WMD is also a WMD? :rolleyes: your ignorance is amazing... it is so damn easy to make a dirty bomb if you have the radioactive component... 10 pounds of C4, a bit of uranium, in ANY populated city... boom! a few sticks of dynamite, a bit of uranium, another populated city... boom! can you see the terror? not only are the ones caught in the immediate blast killed, the other people are irradiated... but you are the expert on WMDs And so, because you've been caught out blathering you end up claiming I hate Bush. How very cute. :rolleyes: no, as much as you would like to change the issue, I am not blathering... I simply point out the fact that you are nothing but a petty bush hater and you have no intellectual honesty All you point out is as I contend, you're just blathering.

I agree that this is very bad news if radioactive material is lost somewhere in Southern Asia. I am confused though, PH are you suggesting that Bush knowingly allowed such material to be absconsed from Iraq believing it would be used to kill in an American city for the purpose of imposing martial law?

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by dave654, PH are you suggesting that Bush knowingly allowed such material to be absconsed from Iraq believing it would be used to kill in an American city for the purpose of imposing martial law?

I didn't say that, but given the history of government involvement in terror and the successes of 9/11 in augmenting the Police State I wouldn't consider it out of the question. Bush = Puppet. "Knowingly?" I think he knows very little.

How do you interpret Gen. Franks take? Ever hear of psyops, preparing the multitudes for what is coming next? Why has "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla never been charged?

Do I fear the Feds? Yes I do, Washington is not my friend these days.

Impenitent

Let's recap on your assertion, to quote you:

"wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that..."

Now, you claimed this in relation to the posted information on the claims of the IAEA that the coalition forces had not properly secured the known existing nuclear materials in Iraq which were stored in documented locations under UN seal. This storage was the result of the inspections process and so forth and stripping Iraq of its nuclear programs.

For you to claim firstly, that the missing yellow cake constitutes WMD in Iraq, is simply fallacious. Bush's claims were not to do with what was known about but rather what was unaccounted for and allegations of secret stocks of WMD, secret facilities, secret programs and so on. Nor does the yellowcake of itself constitute a WMD, it is at best, an element, a component.

If this situation however proves anything, it proves the abject failure of coalition forces to adequtely secure the well known, documented storage sites. There was no mystery about these sites. There was no mystery that these sites would need to be secured to prevent the likes of looting etc.

One of the Bush claims was that Sddam Hussein might provide WMD to terrorists. While that assertion has not been proven, what has been proven is that despite the Bush assertions of the dangers of this type of event (i.e. radioactive materials in the unknown hands or unaccounted for radioactive materials) there was not sufficient attention applied to securing these sites. This is a failure on the part of Bush, quite the opposite of your claims.

Now quite bluntly, I've had enough of your stupidity, your fallacious assertions, you're ass backwards logic. I am content with my contribution to the thread, as I am content that your assertions are sheer stupidity.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by PeterWolf, Impenitent Let's recap on your assertion, to quote you: "wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that..." Now, you claimed this in relation to the posted information on the claims of the IAEA that the coalition forces had not properly secured the known existing nuclear materials in Iraq which were stored in documented locations under UN seal. This storage was the result of the inspections process and so forth and stripping Iraq of its nuclear programs. :rolleyes: they KNEW it was there... read the press accounts... "no wmds, bush was wrong" For you to claim firstly, that the missing yellow cake constitutes WMD in Iraq, is simply fallacious. Bush's claims were not to do with what was known about but rather what was unaccounted for and allegations of secret stocks of WMD, secret facilities, secret programs and so on. Nor does the yellowcake of itself constitute a WMD, it is at best, an element, a component. :rolleyes: so your argument is "if saddam had VX it wouldn't be a WMD because saddam had no delivery system?" the vital component is the WMD... If this situation however proves anything, it proves the abject failure of coalition forces to adequtely secure the well known, documented storage sites. There was no mystery about these sites. There was no mystery that these sites would need to be secured to prevent the likes of looting etc. :rolleyes: then why didn't blix secure them before the war? One of the Bush claims was that Sddam Hussein might provide WMD to terrorists. While that assertion has not been proven, what has been proven is that despite the Bush assertions of the dangers of this type of event (i.e. radioactive materials in the unknown hands or unaccounted for radioactive materials) there was not sufficient attention applied to securing these sites. :rolleyes: when we got there, the WMDs were already moved... how can it be bush's fault for not finding that which we knew was there but wasn't there? why didn't blix secure these? why didn't france, germany and russia and the rest of the un make certain that the inspections found something? This is a failure on the part of Bush, quite the opposite of your claims. ****** no, the failure was not on bush, it was on the incompetent un and the do nothing idiots on the left who didn't take care of the problem when they had the chance... bush finally put his foot down and is taking care of the problem Now quite bluntly, I've had enough of your stupidity, your fallacious assertions, you're ass backwards logic. I am content with my contribution to the thread, as I am content that your assertions are sheer stupidity. ***** sorry, it is you who are in error and your continued name calling does not advance your position... you must get past your hatered of bush and see what actually happened...

Impenitent

Sigh, Tell you what. You mention name calling, how about this then. You have claimed now in multiple posts that I hate Bush. I would suggest you prove it, given it is your statement.

Produce evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that I do indeed hate Bush.

I do look forward to you proving your statement, I wouldn't want to see your credibility damaged by you telling blatant lies.

To quote you;

"sorry, it is you who are in error and your continued name calling does not advance your position... you must get past your hatered of bush and see what actually happened"

"it is obvious to everyone else too... keep on hating bush, it suits you..."

"no, as much as you would like to change the issue, I am not blathering... I simply point out the fact that you are nothing but a petty bush hater and you have no intellectual honesty"

Oh, there's another. You will also need to prove your statement that I have no intellectual honesty. Of course, should you fail to prove your statements, your intellectual honesty is most certainly going to be open to question.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by PeterWolf,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PeterWolf,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Impenitent Sigh, Tell you what. You mention name calling, how about this then. You have claimed now in multiple posts that I hate Bush. I would suggest you prove it, given it is your statement. :rolleyes: NICE TRY TO SHIFT THE ARGUMENT... BUT YOUR HATRED OF BUSH IS YOUR STRAW MAN BECAUSE I HAVE BEATEN YOU ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE NUCLEAR MATERIALS ARGUMENT :rolleyes: I expect to see your evidence for the many names you called me first... Produce evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that I do indeed hate Bush. I do look forward to you proving your statement, I wouldn't want to see your credibility damaged by you telling blatant lies. ROFLMAO... the only credibility damaged is yours for not knowing when to quit when you have lost the argument... To quote you; "sorry, it is you who are in error and your continued name calling does not advance your position... you must get past your hatered of bush and see what actually happened" "it is obvious to everyone else too... keep on hating bush, it suits you..." "no, as much as you would like to change the issue, I am not blathering... I simply point out the fact that you are nothing but a petty bush hater and you have no intellectual honesty" Oh, there's another. You will also need to prove your statement that I have no intellectual honesty. Of course, should you fail to prove your statements, your intellectual honesty is most certainly going to be open to question. <!--QuoteBegin-PeterWolf, Now quite bluntly, I've had enough of your stupidity, your fallacious assertions, you're ass backwards logic. I am content with my contribution to the thread, as I am content that your assertions are sheer stupidity.

when you can't win the argument, attack the man... yours is the perfect example of an ad hominem fallacy...

:rolleyes: and I thought you were "content"



[/b][/quote]

Impenitent,

Actually, I haven't lost any argument. Your previous question as to why Blix didn't secure the sites when he was in Iraq is living proof of your fallacious arguments. To quote your question;

"then why didn't blix secure them before the war?"

To make the point, the sites were secure prior to the US led invasion. The question of security of the sites did not arise until during and after the invasion. If you cannot understand that point and need to ask the question you did, it is clear that you have little or no understanding of the topic in question. Further, it seems to escape your logic that neither Blix, nor the UN are the acknowledged or legitimate occupier of Iraq.

But, while you refuse to answer my request to prove your statements, I am happy to answer yours;

Stupidity: It is stupid to contend as you have that yellowcake alone is a WMD. It is further stupid to contend that the existence of the sites containing radioactive materials which were under UN seal proved Bush correct about there being WMD in Iraq.

Fallacious: You claimed the existing problem proved Bush right. That is not the case at all.

Ass Backwards Logic: Again, you try to use a clear and distinct failure as already noted by several sources, and not only recently, the issue of the yellowcake being removed from a site that was, unitl the invasion under UN seal, is an old one. Already well documented.

On the words blather and prattle:

blath·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blthr) also bleth·er (blth-)
intr.v. blath·ered, blath·er·ing, blath·ers
To talk nonsensically.
n.
Nonsensical talk.

prat·tle ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prtl)
v. prat·tled, prat·tling, prat·tles
v. intr.
To talk or chatter idly or meaninglessly; babble or prate.
v. tr.
To utter or express by chattering foolishly or babbling.
n.
Idle or meaningless chatter; babble.
A sound suggestive of such chattering; a babbling noise

Oh, I was content, But of course, you weren't. You had to keep right on going. So, I thought you deserved the chance to actually prove your claims. And again, I call on you to prove the accuracy of the statements you have made.

BTW, calling one on the statements one makes, in particular what you reference as "ad hominem" was not a change of subject ny me, it was in fact a point raised by yourself.

So, I look to you taking this oppurtunity to prove your intellectual honesty by proving beyond any reasonable doubt your statements that I hate Bush and that I have no intellectual honesty are accurate and honest.

[Mia]

You can't win or lose an argument with someone just making assertions and offering no citation or even a reasoned argument. It is a waste of time and space and distracts from the topic.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by PeterWolf, Impenitent, Actually, I haven't lost any argument. Your previous question as to why Blix didn't secure the sites when he was in Iraq is living proof of your fallacious arguments. To quote your question; "then why didn't blix secure them before the war?" To make the point, the sites were secure prior to the US led invasion. The question of security of the sites did not arise until during and after the invasion. If you cannot understand that point and need to ask the question you did, it is clear that you have little or no understanding of the topic in question. Further, it seems to escape your logic that neither Blix, nor the UN are the acknowledged or legitimate occupier of Iraq. :rolleyes: secure? secure in saddam's murderous hands? where are they now? they were never secure because blix himself said they didn't exist But, while you refuse to answer my request to prove your statements, I am happy to answer yours; Stupidity: It is stupid to contend as you have that yellowcake alone is a WMD. It is further stupid to contend that the existence of the sites containing radioactive materials which were under UN seal proved Bush correct about there being WMD in Iraq. :rolleyes: I never contended that yellowcake alone was a WMD, it is the primary ingredient in a dirty bomb... yellowcake and ANY EXPLOSIVE is a WMD... the un seal protected the world from the yellowcake? then why was the un seal burst? bush didn't bust the un seal... Fallacious: You claimed the existing problem proved Bush right. That is not the case at all. :rolleyes: yes it is but you refuse to see it for what it is... Ass Backwards Logic: Again, you try to use a clear and distinct failure as already noted by several sources, and not only recently, the issue of the yellowcake being removed from a site that was, unitl the invasion under UN seal, is an old one. Already well documented. :rolleyes: UNDER SEAL BY WHAT UN ARMY?!? WHICH UN AGENCY WAS GUARDING THE WORLD FROM SADDAM'S YELLOWCAKE?!? the only ass backward logic is yours... On the words blather and prattle: blath·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blthr) also bleth·er (blth-) intr.v. blath·ered, blath·er·ing, blath·ers To talk nonsensically. n. Nonsensical talk. prat·tle ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prtl) v. prat·tled, prat·tling, prat·tles v. intr. To talk or chatter idly or meaninglessly; babble or prate. v. tr. To utter or express by chattering foolishly or babbling. n. Idle or meaningless chatter; babble. A sound suggestive of such chattering; a babbling noise Oh, I was content, But of course, you weren't. You had to keep right on going. So, I thought you deserved the chance to actually prove your claims. And again, I call on you to prove the accuracy of the statements you have made. :rolleyes: and once again I have proven my claims BTW, calling one on the statements one makes, in particular what you reference as "ad hominem" was not a change of subject ny me, it was in fact a point raised by yourself. ************* no, your ad hominems were your ad hominems, that is the majority of your blather and prattle... the straw man you tried to erect showed how you lost the argument, and this is a continuation of your unfounded assertions from the start So, I look to you taking this oppurtunity to prove your intellectual honesty by proving beyond any reasonable doubt your statements that I hate Bush and that I have no intellectual honesty are accurate and honest. ************** again, nice try to divert the discussion, but no, I demand you prove that they aren't true because you have yet to prove that bush was wrong, and you cannot

Impenitent

You have proven in the above quite how deluded you are. How? That's easy if we look at one of your prior claims which you are now trying to claim you didn't state. Here's what you claim now;

"I never contended that yellowcake alone was a WMD, it is the primary ingredient in a dirty bomb... yellowcake and ANY EXPLOSIVE is a WMD..."

Here's what you claimed previously;

"wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that..."

You obviously have very little idea of anything.

It's further interesting to note that you present no credible evidence or proof of your claims, you simply claim you have. You can demand what you like, but all you are doing is making assertions, your abject failure to prove, your own refusal to prove tham and instead your attempt to have myself prove they aren't accurate is ludicrous.

So, seeing as false assertions and false logic are your thing, here's something for you to prove wrong. An exercise using your very own brand of logic:


It would seem that your logic and the contents of your posts are provided for you by a 4 year old, mentally challenged French pygmy with severely limited motor functions and about 2 fully functioning brain cells. Of course, said pygmy is actually your master. As for you, it would appear that you are the result of a failed experiment in mating humans with chimpanzees.

Oh, and Margie Schoedinger's allegations about Bush, are true.


Now, using your very own logic, if you cannot prove the above examples wrong, they therefore must be correct.

Gee, your logic is fun. Have fun now.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by PeterWolf, Impenitent You have proven in the above quite how deluded you are. How? That's easy if we look at one of your prior claims which you are now trying to claim you didn't state. Here's what you claim now; "I never contended that yellowcake alone was a WMD, it is the primary ingredient in a dirty bomb... yellowcake and ANY EXPLOSIVE is a WMD..." Here's what you claimed previously; "wmd's were in iraq? wait.... that means bush was RIGHT... no no no, can't have that..." :rolleyes: nice try to take that out of context... if you understood sarcasm of the media's reports you would have seen that for what it was... the WMDs WERE in iraq... the press was screaming the WMDs were not in iraq... but they were in iraq, the press was wrong and bush was right... THINK You obviously have very little idea of anything. ******** nice ad hominem but it is your ignorance, not mine It's further interesting to note that you present no credible evidence or proof of your claims, you simply claim you have. You can demand what you like, but all you are doing is making assertions, your abject failure to prove, your own refusal to prove tham and instead your attempt to have myself prove they aren't accurate is ludicrous. :rolleyes: the evidence I use is based on your claims... YOUR CLAIMS So, seeing as false assertions and false logic are your thing, here's something for you to prove wrong. An exercise using your very own brand of logic: :rolleyes: nothing false about my assertions, which you haven't countered with "facts" that prove me wrong... It would seem that your logic and the contents of your posts are provided for you by a 4 year old, mentally challenged French pygmy with severely limited motor functions and about 2 fully functioning brain cells. Of course, said pygmy is actually your master. As for you, it would appear that you are the result of a failed experiment in mating humans with chimpanzees. :rolleyes: nice diatribe, but your continued name calling only illustrates your maturity, and the repeated attempts to refute my post simply by spewing insults at me shows the level of your debate skills Oh, and Margie Schoedinger's allegations about Bush, are true. ************** which ones? Now, using your very own logic, if you cannot prove the above examples wrong, they therefore must be correct. Gee, your logic is fun. Have fun now. :rolleyes: that wasn't my logic, and I always have fun exposing your name calling and misunderstanding of basic aristotelian logic...

Impenitent,

Oh, I'm happy now, you have proven once again quite how fallacious you are, you see, I didn't insult you where you claim I did. I clearly pointed out they were simply examples of your false logic.

Anyway, I am certainly content now. You show beyond any reasonable doubt that you have little or no interest in truth or fact. Of all though, your refusal to substantiate your own claims tells the most about you. Besides, all trespassers will be prosecuted.

[Pooeypants]

Impenitent, about from slick sarcastic comments and childish tactics, do you have sources stating that the nuclear materials were originally ready to be used (within say 45 minutes :rolleyes: ) as a WMD and be launched into the US or her allies?
Oh and for the last 3 pages all you've been arguing in defence boils down to you saying "I'm right and you're wrong" whilst other members have been slamming into your defunct logic. I guess you never give up.