Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

moustache · May 30, 2005, 06:08 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ericsp23

So should we bomb everyone who uses Round Up on their yard in case they may be making chemical weaponst?

There is no proof that it was round-up. That is only a theory. The other theory, and the theory that I support, Is that Empta was in the soil.

Quote:

Quote by: ericsp23

The rest of what you posted is merely circumstantial evidence and in no way directly connects that particular building to chemical weapons production.

what of this..."the plant had recently been paid $199,000 by Saddam, ostensibly as part of the UN's infamous "Oil-for-Food" program. But oddly, there was no record of any "medicine" being delivered to Iraq in the eight months from the inking of the contract and the destruction of the plant by the United States. There was just the money from Saddam, and the nerve gas."

does saddam just give $199,000 to Indira for no reason? And then he has nerve gas...sounds like a connection to me.

Quote:

Quote by: ericsp23

I also have to assume that the US government can in no way prove those claims given that they unfroze Idiris' assets without a court fight (again refer to my post above).

Maybe the U.S government did not have enough evidence to put Indira away. But you do not have enough evidence to put the U.S goverment away.

moustache · May 30, 2005, 06:11 pm

Quote:

Quote by: fedfem

first of all, your link is not working and secondly what is cshink.com?

Here is a link that should work: http://cshink.com/saddam_the_atm.htm
check cshink out for yourself

Quote:

Quote by: fedfem

Thirdly, those of us who are not Clinton apologists or Bush apologists and have no ridiculous party loyalties look at FACTS not excuses or circumstantial crapola.

Im sorry, I posted facts, If they are not good enough for you I do not know what is.

ericsp23 · May 30, 2005, 06:20 pm

The Empta traces in the soil was the ONLY hard evidence that the building was being used to develop chemical weapons. That evidence is made considerably weaker by the undisputed fact that the same chemical can be produced when a certain commonly used pesticide/herbicide breaks down. Don't you think we should have more solid evidence before we start bombing buildings?

The US government was not trying to put Irdis away. Irdis was fighting to clear his name and unfreeze his assets and he demanded his day in court. If there was any real evidence that linked him to Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein then no US court would have released his assets, but the US government did not even bother to make a case against him. The only assumption that can be made is that they did not have any such evidence.

fedfem · May 30, 2005, 06:43 pm

Quote:

Quote by: moustache

Here is a link that should work: http://cshink.com/saddam_the_atm.htm
check cshink out for yourself

Im sorry, I posted facts, If they are not good enough for you I do not know what is.

I do not feel the website of a "remote viewer" or an article from a neocon should be considered factual without some backup. If you do, then there is no use debating with you.

http://cshink.com/about/c_s.htm

**Chris the Chees** · May 30, 2005, 06:49 pm

Quote:

Quote by: The Analog Kid

I was curious as to how the membership at large views Noam Chomsky, MIT professor and outspoken political commentator.

In my opinion, there aren't many things I detest more than someone who takes full advantage of the opportunities afforded to him by the nation he lives in and spends the bulk of his time attacking that nation and the very system that has enriched him so much.

What are your thoughts on him?

Ah, so you hate the likes of Geogre Washingon, Jefferson, etc?

Gorgo · May 30, 2005, 07:24 pm

http://cshink.com/saddam_the_atm.htm

Frontpage.com This is where he gets his "america hater" insanity.

Gorgo · May 30, 2005, 07:29 pm

Quote:

Quote by: moustache

check cshink out for yourself

Again, you don't read anyone else's links, so why should we do any work for you. You're not here to debate, just to preach idiotic freak show Horowitz crap.

Gorgo · May 30, 2005, 07:49 pm

None of this has anything to do with Chomsky. It is illegal to attack other countries, except to remove an "imminent threat," such as a plane in the air. Otherwise, this must be taken up with the UNSC.

Moustache will say that the UNSC is not U.S. law, but again, of course it is. The Constitution makes it U.S. law.

Had it been a chemical weapons plant, which of course it was not, it still would have been a crime. Especially if it had been a chemical weapons plant, spreading who knows what all over the countryside.

Gorgo · May 30, 2005, 08:05 pm

On the pharmaceutical thing - http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/61/barlet61.pdf

RickSp · May 30, 2005, 08:35 pm

As Gorgo has pointed out the Cshrink article has nothing to do with Chomsky. In fact it has almost nothing to do with anything. Unless I am greatly mistaken it has been pretty well established that Bin Laden's funding has been primarily from Saudi sources. Of course he received money from others, including the US. This not particularly well written article seems like a last minute attempt to justify one of the Bush fabrications - that Bin Laden,the Islamist, had close ties to Saddam, the secularist. There never was a compellling case and this article doesn't do any better making it than those who came before.

Regarding Somali, it was probably a really stupid attack to launch. As a general rule when you do something stupid you analyse it so you don't do it again. Regrettably this doesn't seem to be the case in US foreign policy. We don't just repeat our mistakes, we perfect them.

Mr.Vicchio · May 30, 2005, 09:18 pm

See Gorgo, you operate from a false preconception drilled into your head by Chomsky and his propoganda site, Z-mag.

War is not illegal, attacking another country is not illegal and that is that.

International desire for peace and the well constructed words of Ivy Tower Acedemics that sit upon high passing judgement on others notwithstanding, war is diplomacy through arms.

Always has been.

moustache · May 30, 2005, 09:57 pm

To ericsp23:

Quote:

Quote by: ericsp23

Don't you think we should have more solid evidence before we start bombing buildings?

Yes actually I do. But whats done is done, and what has been said has been said.

To Fedfem:

Quote:

Quote by: fedfem

I do not feel the website of a "remote viewer" or an article from a neocon should be considered factual without some backup.

And I do not feel that statements by Norm Chomsky should be considered factual, as he is a "remote viewer".

To Gorgo:

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

Again, you don't read anyone else's links, so why should we do any work for you. You're not here to debate, just to preach idiotic freak show Horowitz crap.

The reason I said " check out cshink for yourself", is because Fedfem asked me what cshink was... This message had nothing to do with you, so dont get on my back about "preaching horowitz crap". I dont know what your problem is, but all youve done is bitch and moan about what I have to say, even when im not addressing you.

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

It is illegal to attack other countries, except to remove an "imminent threat,"

So if this really was a chemical weapons plant, which clinton obvioulsy thought it was, and this plant was providing nerve gas to saddam, then I dont see why this wouldnt ualify as an "imminent threat".

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

On the pharmaceutical thing -
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/61/barlet61.pdf

Thanks Gorgo. but I really dont have time to read a novel.

Gorgo · May 30, 2005, 10:10 pm

Quote:

Quote by: moustache

Thanks Gorgo. but I really dont have time to read a novel.

Then stay out of discussions you know nothing about.

Gorgo · May 30, 2005, 10:12 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

War is not illegal, attacking another country is not illegal and that is that.

You never heard of Nuremberg, or the UN, or the Geneva Conventions? You're not alone in your insane beliefs, 'V,' that's what you and Hitler and Saddam Hussein and George Bush all say.

moustache · May 30, 2005, 10:14 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

Then stay out of discussions you know nothing about.

Did you read that 22 page report? :rolleyes:

I know plenty about this topic

Gorgo · May 30, 2005, 10:18 pm

Quote:

Quote by: moustache

then I dont see why this wouldnt ualify as an "imminent threat".

Was the factory flying towards the District of Columbia?

moustache · May 30, 2005, 10:20 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

Was the factory flying towards the District of Columbia?

The factory provided nerve gas to saddam. I would qualify that as an imminent threat.

Gorgo · May 30, 2005, 10:21 pm

Quote:

Quote by: moustache

Did you read that 22 page report?

I know plenty about this topic

I skimmed it and other articles for relevant information. And again, none of it is relevant to the topic of Chomsky. It is clear that this type of behavior is criminal. That is all we need to know.

moustache · May 30, 2005, 10:25 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

I skimmed it and other articles for relevant information.

I skimmed it very briefly, and I have read other articles for relevant information also...So we have both done our research, and I know nothing about the topic according to you. funny.

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

It is clear that this type of behavior is criminal.

We will forever disagree on this topic.

fedfem · May 30, 2005, 11:08 pm

To Fedfem:

Quote:
Quote by: fedfem
I do not feel the website of a "remote viewer" or an article from a neocon should be considered factual without some backup.

And I do not feel that statements by Norm Chomsky should be considered factual, as he is a "remote viewer".

Do you even know what a remote viewer is? The website you linked is from a guy that says he is a psychic or something.

When Chomsky states something he gives the source or says it is in his opinion.

Then again, people are not dying because of anything Chomsky said.

May 30, 2005, 08:35 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,589	As Gorgo has pointed out the Cshrink article has nothing to do with Chomsky. In fact it has almost nothing to do with anything. Unless I am greatly mistaken it has been pretty well established that Bin Laden's funding has been primarily from Saudi sources. Of course he received money from others, including the US. This not particularly well written article seems like a last minute attempt to justify one of the Bush fabrications - that Bin Laden,the Islamist, had close ties to Saddam, the secularist. There never was a compellling case and this article doesn't do any better making it than those who came before. Regarding Somali, it was probably a really stupid attack to launch. As a general rule when you do something stupid you analyse it so you don't do it again. Regrettably this doesn't seem to be the case in US foreign policy. We don't just repeat our mistakes, we perfect them. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

May 30, 2005, 09:18 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	See Gorgo, you operate from a false preconception drilled into your head by Chomsky and his propoganda site, Z-mag. War is not illegal, attacking another country is not illegal and that is that. International desire for peace and the well constructed words of Ivy Tower Acedemics that sit upon high passing judgement on others notwithstanding, war is diplomacy through arms. Always has been. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

May 30, 2005, 06:20 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
ericsp23 Pragmatic liberal Posts: 421	The Empta traces in the soil was the ONLY hard evidence that the building was being used to develop chemical weapons. That evidence is made considerably weaker by the undisputed fact that the same chemical can be produced when a certain commonly used pesticide/herbicide breaks down. Don't you think we should have more solid evidence before we start bombing buildings? The US government was not trying to put Irdis away. Irdis was fighting to clear his name and unfreeze his assets and he demanded his day in court. If there was any real evidence that linked him to Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein then no US court would have released his assets, but the US government did not even bother to make a case against him. The only assumption that can be made is that they did not have any such evidence.

May 30, 2005, 07:24 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	http://cshink.com/saddam_the_atm.htm Frontpage.com This is where he gets his "america hater" insanity.

May 30, 2005, 07:49 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	None of this has anything to do with Chomsky. It is illegal to attack other countries, except to remove an "imminent threat," such as a plane in the air. Otherwise, this must be taken up with the UNSC. Moustache will say that the UNSC is not U.S. law, but again, of course it is. The Constitution makes it U.S. law. Had it been a chemical weapons plant, which of course it was not, it still would have been a crime. Especially if it had been a chemical weapons plant, spreading who knows what all over the countryside.

May 30, 2005, 08:05 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	On the pharmaceutical thing - http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/61/barlet61.pdf

May 30, 2005, 11:08 pm	#80 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	To Fedfem: Quote: Quote by: fedfem I do not feel the website of a "remote viewer" or an article from a neocon should be considered factual without some backup. And I do not feel that statements by Norm Chomsky should be considered factual, as he is a "remote viewer". Do you even know what a remote viewer is? The website you linked is from a guy that says he is a psychic or something. When Chomsky states something he gives the source or says it is in his opinion. Then again, people are not dying because of anything Chomsky said.