So if I say "goat felcher;) " that’s ok. Or "seeping pustule on the rectum of humanity;) " or "Trent Lott;) "
Got it. Boy, this propriety stuff is more complicated than it looks, huh?
And, point of fact, I myself have been called a “liar” by a moderator, and nobody seemed to much give a damn.
I think that’s basically how it works. You should use the tactic more often.
Because it would prick the dignity of a male member of the SDMB.
Would that be Peter Johnson? Or Dick?
Cite, please, that even one, single, solitary, member of the Bush Administration is a murderer or torturer.
Well, since Mr. Clinton has been Our Leader for 8 of those 10 years, why don’t you blame him? Or is Americans in general that you hate?
What, numerous offers to come to a peaceful settlement AFTER Iraq invaded Kuwait? :rolleyes:
Your cite is bogus. Among other idiocies, it includes the attack on the USS Cole as an American military intervention. How does being the target of an attack become a military intervention in your world?
Chumpsky, since Hussein is the reason for the sanctions against Iraq, if we remove him from power, there will be no more need for these “murderous economic sanctions” you speak of. By removing Saddam, we will be removing the sanctions. The people of Iraq will be better off. There will be no more of these economic sanctions if Saddam is removed.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but since it is the government’s job to know foreign policy better than anyone else, when you discount anything that the government says, you are cutting out the most knowledgable people in the field in which we are debating. :smack: I know that I believe that the most knowledgable in various fields have valuable insights, even if they may be somewhat biased. I’d much rather have knowledgable biased opinions in a debate rather than just having the less knowledgable opinions rule.
Oh, and soup_du_jour is a :wally
You guys don’t understand - The U.S. state department is not a credible source for data. To get the at the real truth, you have to read radical leftist web sites being run by disgruntled 18 year olds out of their parents’ basements.
Yes, indeed, Sam! Like that radical 18 year old who held aloft proof positive “I don’t know what more proof you need” that proved to be a report that never existed. The radical web sites that claim to have proof that Iraq has WMD’s and then refuses to back up that claim. The radical lefty 18 year old web sites that tries to rattle American nerves with wild assed tales of incontinental drone aircraft armed with nuclear anthrax.
You mean that disreputable bunch.
Intercontinental drone aircraft.
Unless Saddam is threatening us with aircraft who wet their pants.
Incidentally, Iraq does have WMD.
I don’t know what more proof you need.
Regards,
Shodan
The P-51?
Wow, the New York Post scores a scoop! Nobody else has this story, not Drudge, not CNN, nobody! Wow! They must have taken some reporters off the Bat Boy story!
The whole WMD thing is a shuck. The Bushistas will go to war over anything, they have made this abundantly clear. They would like to have the UN on board, it looks nicer that way.
But Our Leader is not about to make US policy subordinate to UN policy. If Our Leader can bust Saddam bin Laden on WMD’s, fine, he’s happy to do so. But allegedly the authority for these inspections derive from the UN, presumably the decision whether to enforce those resolutions or not, and to what extent, would rest with the UN.
Does anyone here seriously believe that if the UN says “No, thanks, no war today” Our Leader will back down? Of course not.
Unless the US accepts UN authority in this regard, the whole issue of WMD’s only so much window dressing.
That could be true, but I’m not going to consider the informations publically released by the intelligence services of a country about to wage war on another as the most reliable and independant source about this incoming conflict.
Unfortunately, this item was printed in error. The mustard gas was left over from the last war, and Iraq was required not to touch it. The UN merely confirmed that it was still there.
Are you joking, ** Sam Stone ** ? Do you believe the department of foreign affairs of a country is an independant source about international issues this country is involved in??? Especially when there’s a risk of war??? 
That’s an argumentative fallacy there, Chumpsky. Now provide why we can’t trust Iraqi defectors. I expect to see well researched 5 page essay with at least 20 external cites in order to be convinced. Otherwise, you’re just dodging the evidence.
Well, they’re defectors, aren’t they? One has certain expectations from defectors. Not that this can be taken as certain proof that everything they say is false. But neither can the opposite be presumed. After all, a defector who displeases his host is not welcome for long.
I’ll give you that much. It’s still up to Chumpsky, though, to back up his assertion that the source isn’t trustable.
Why? If you already know the source is likely to be compromised, what value can you expect to obtain, with any certainty?