That’s quite an intelligent format for discussing things don’t you think?
I guess this is not the place for facts, but I do like a challenge,
Is anyone up to bringing facts?
Here’s a fact - no-one is impressed by you.
The problem seems to be that he has no interest in a dialogue. He just wants to witness his views. It appears he barely reads what other people are saying and doesn’t make any attempt to understand and address other viewpoints.
Exactly. Case in point, his post in this thread where he asserts a bunch of horseshit that I supposedly said or positions I supposedly hold. It’s what makes him so freaking exasperating.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I was sensibly and factually refuting an Iraq invasion supporter when you butted in basically taking sides with the supporter’s myth that Bush supporters typically cite as the excuse that Bush uses to this day to justify deciding to invade.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t taking sides with him, I was telling you that you were wrong. Again. In addition, you seriously need to learn to read with an eye towards comprehension. Seriously.
Um no…I didn’t. Your ridiculous assertions had already been shot down previously by other posters in that very thread. Pretty much by that point EVERYONE HAD STOPPED ENGAGING YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.
Dude, seriously, as I’ve tried to tell you repeatedly, people can actually scroll up and see for themselves. Really, they can. That is if they can slog through all your convoluted horseshit. I’m guessing most simply don’t want to waste the time, and who can blame them?
Except, as I’ve pointed out several times, I don’t think bush was justified. You seem basically too stupid to grasp this seemingly simple point.
He’s not off the hook, moron. It WAS a stupid decision and one that cost this country dearly. But you are simply 5 of the stupidest people I’ve seen on this board, and we had Gonzomax as a poster. Well, ok…you might be marginally brighter than the Gonz, but that’s not saying much.
I didn’t side with him, I pointed out that you were wrong. You remain wrong. And stupid.
He has a tendency to just hang out in Great Debates and just keep posting long walls of text even if no one is no longer interested in the discussion.
If I remember correctly, tomndebb once told him to not post anything about the US military for one month or something like that because NotfooledbyW just kept going on and on.
I usually don’t bother reading his posts, but then again, I haven’t been going into GD that much lately, either.
When someone chooses a handle that pretty much telegraphs his raison d’etre, it’s not a good sign that he’s got anything uniquely worthwhile to contribute (the fact that his raison d’etre is about five years out of date doesn’t help).
He has accomplished one valuable thing, though: I am now more likely to check the name of an OP before I bother opening a thread.
I’m not fooled by wargs either.
Sorry for the double negative there. It should be “no one is any longer…”
ETA: Actually, even that is an awkward sentence. It would be best to reword it as, “…even if no one is interested in the discussion anymore.”
I consider the following thought process to be cultish:
“Hmm, someone made an accusation against Obama.”
“We know that anyone who makes an accusation against Obama is a right-winger.”
“Right-wingers always lie regarding Obama.”
“Therefore, the accusation is a lie.”
Some people think that because it involves steps and reasoning, they are actually critically evaluating every accusation and coming to an independent conclusion. But, the fallacy in step 2 closes the loop every time and results in an outcome of “no accusations against Obama can possibly be true, and anyone who makes them must be a right-winger acting out of a desire to turn American into Romneyland.”
The above thought process is laid out, explicitly and implicitly, in every single discussion with the administration’s defenders.
Then it should be easy to find and link examples.
Bullshit.
Your nonsense argument breaks down as:
[ul]
[li]Someone is defending the Obama administration[/li][li]The Obama administration is inherently evil[/li][li]Therefor the Obama administration cannot be honestly defended[/li][li]It only follows that the defender has “drank the cool aid” and “believe Obama is the Messiah”[/li][/ul]
This little gem in particular would be beyond funny if it wasn’t so damn sad:
Your dumb fucking ass managed to take a perfectly good pitting of an idiot like NotfooledbyW and actually out-stupid him.
Congratulations! You started at mouth-breathing, uneducated, ill-informed simpleton and managed to start digging your way down.
Quite an accomplishment.
It was post #055 on 06/09 at 11:10 PM when Adaher 06-09-2013 11:10 PM began with a line of logic that that I began to challenge, “… BUT, if Saddam had completely complied, given the
level of doubts in the US over the justifications for war, it would have been very hard for Bush to go ahead with it.”
When Adaher stated “If” as "If Saddam had ‘completely complied’ it is a suggestion that Saddam did not comply. But the truth is there is no evidence that Saddam was not in compliance with the demands of the UNSC at anytime between December and March just prior to the war. -NF 06/20
My response to Adaher came in post #056 on 06/10 at 06:35 AM.
I made this statement of Fact: “Saddam Hussein did completely comply prior to the invasion.”
I stated this reinforcement to that fact, “Since Bush went the diplomatic route he was assenting to be swayed by what the weapons inspectors would determine.”
That sets up my reasoning in determining that Saddam did comply (cooperation-wise) prior to the invasion.
I wrote this, “Blix said prior to the invasion that Iraq’s cooperation was proactive - inspections were working.”
***-NF 06/20 I have heard no dispute about my facts so far:
In that same post, I made a further point that Iraq really was cooperating, I say proactively as early as December 2002:
“With the fact that in December 2002 Iraq offered to allow the CIA enter Iraq to look for WMD … makes it fully a stretch of the imagination to declare that Iraq did not try to cooperate to avoid war and let diplomacy prevail.”
And this I believe is a hearty blow to Adaher’s unjustified excuse making for GW Bush’s decision to kick the inspectors out and start a war. -NF 06/20
I wrote, “And what abolishes I believe your idea here is that the official response from the White House to the offer to bring the CIA in was 'let the UN handle it.”
So Adaher replies with this gem, in post #057 on 06/10 at 06:47 AM, “Problem is, Saddam didn’t even comply completely according to Blix. It may have seemed like enough to reduce the pressure for war in the minds of those opposed to the war, but it wasn’t what Bush had demanded.”
Adaher is wrong since there is no doubt that Saddam began to cooperate, pro-actively prior to the date that Bush kicked the inspectors out, and that is according Dr, Blix himself. It still will take a few months to finish the inspections to get to full compliance. -NF 06/20
In Post #058 on 06/10 at 07:05 AM I continued to argue against Adaher’s false arguments when I wrote, “You must be referring to Blix’s professional position that the disarmament process was not complete and it would take a few more months to complete.”
***-NF 06/20 And here I brought the issue of a ‘deadline’ into the discussion, because there was none:
"Neither Bush, nor Congress nor UN Res 1441 set a deadline or timeline for when the inspection process had to be completed.
The demand on SH was to demonstrate a willingness to get to that deadline and have sanctions lifted and a long term monitoring regime set up.
According to the international law in place it would have had to be the UNSC to declare SH in Material Breach of his FINAL Opportunity to comply, not what George W Bush felt or thinking that it had to be finished by March 17 2003.
Bush’s WH said let the UN handle it not the CIA."
***-NF 06/20 Now does anybody have a problem with what I’ve written thus far?
And then Adaher comes back with this, a bit screwy reply in post #059 on 06/10 at 07:09 AM:
"That’s what Blix said in his last briefing. His first briefing was a lot more scathing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ks-Saddam.html
The British PM’s office said it well: “We always thought this was likely to be part of the drip feed of concessions,” the Prime Minister’s spokesman said. “This is how Saddam plays the concession game. It is not the full, immediate co-operation that the UN demands.”
This is where Adaher is citing a pure falsehood. Tony Blair’s spokesman has no say in what the UN Demands. The UNSC did not ever determine that Iraq did not meet the 'full, immediate co-operation that the UN Demands. -NF 06/20
***-NF 06/20 If anyone has a source telling me that Tony Blair’s spokesman got to decide what the UNSC was demanding, please bring it to me. -NF 06/20
And so I wrote in response to Adaher’s make believe re-write of history and re-write of UN Resolution 1441. In Post #061 on 06/10 at 07:54 AM I asked Adaher, “Was it the British PM’s office running the inspections?”
*** NF 06/20 And then I stated what XT decided to pounce upon:
“Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war.”
But first here comes Ravenman in post #063 on 06/10 at 09:44 AM
*** NF 06/20 So here it starts with XT lurking in the darkness.
I wrote all I wrote, and then I wrote this,
“Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war.”
And from that Ravenman reads into that, this:
“So let’s let Blix speak for himself, rather than making him out to be as anti-war as, say, someone like me”.
I wasn’t making Blix out to be anti-war like Ravenman, whatever that is. Blix had a job to do. And he did in fact declare from the start that he was getting access to all sites, and that was unfettered, and he did state before the war that Iraq could be considered to be cooperating proactively.
Ravenman actually cites the quote where Blix said Iraq is cooperating proactively.
That any sane person could be interpreted as saying that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war.
My statement is correct based upon Iraq being declared by Blix to be cooperating including pro-active cooperation.
*** NF 06/20 In post #065 on 06/10 on 01:07 PM I replied reasonably to Ravenman explaining my view:
*** NF 06/20 And so in post #066 on 06/10 at 03:47 PM XT decided that I needed to cite what Ravenman had already cited. Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively prior to the invasion.
Proactive cooperation means that Blix thought the inspections were ‘working’.
Note that XT asks for more than my statement contained.
This is the kind of dishonesty I have had to deal with since arriving here.
XT takes my statement and Turns it into, " but I’ve never seen a statement where Blix … felt… that the inspections were working to his complete satisfaction.
I base my statement on the fact that Blix was preparing to finish the inspections within months with the Proactive Cooperation on Substance he had received toward the end of February and that he spoke of the preparations for setting up the long term monitoring program which is with an eye looking toward the nearing end of the inspections process moving to the next phase … Long Term Monitoring.
And what is this ‘black and white pictures’ crap that XT brings up. What the hell is that?
I love to have a reasoned discussion about this stuff, but come on XT.
This is pathetic:
According to Blix he never cited Iraq for blocking access to cites and he said the cooperation on process was always good with a few minor issues that needed to be resolved.
Here is what I cited,
Blix was not satisfied with Iraq’s cooperation on substance until Perhaps March. But that is not the issue in determining that Bush had a good reason to start a war.
Blix never cited lack of cooperation on substance being a breach of UN Res 1441.
He said he would let the UNSC decide that. They did not decide that it was. The cooperation on Process was sufficient to get the Inspection Process done but it might take a little longer.
So my point that there was no deadline matters.
Cooperation on Process was the key to avoiding war and Blix got it early on.
Blix tells us in Ravenman’s cite and in the NYT link, that cooperation on substance not only arrived prior to Bush deciding to kick the inspectors out and start a war, but that they were working on resolving the remaining issues. And Blix states emphatically that in his very own words, that “cooperation on substance is needed in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.”
And he said he got it… He got it. XT do you know what that means to your argument that I am all screwed up in the head, or lying about what Blix thought?
It means the inspections were unfettered and working prior to the invasion.
Your big move was to asked me for "a cite (prior to the war) where Blix said that the inspections were either unfettered OR that they were working?
Blix got the Proactive Cooperation prior to the war… How more ‘unfettered’ do you think the inspections had to be?
Your request to me was quite stupid. Since Ravenman posted the answer prior to your demanding a cite.
And so the debate moved to a matter of 'well SH did not cooperate ‘immediate’ enough.
And that argument is even dumber than most.
Here’s where XT tried to weasel out of his demand for a cite that answered .. because Blix did get proactive cooperation ‘before the war’…
XT’s weasel words are … well it was too late … No it wasn’t… Unless you think Bush should be excused for attacking Iraq because Iraq did not cooperate ‘fast enough’.
That ridiculous argument matches Adahers.
Sorry XT, it does.
You have another error XT that I just noticed. “quite clear that the trigger had already been pulled.”
That is bogus because on March 7th Bush authorized or sent Colin Powell to the UNSC with a draft resolution. That resolution contained language that would allow SH to stay in power.
If Bush would allow SH to stay in power… It is certainly not clear that the ‘trigger had already been pulled’.
Look it up. Early March 2003, Draft Resolution… Bush and Blair couldn’t get the votes… But SH could have stayed in power.
That also means that Bush didn’t have the smoking gun intel that Iraq was hiding the ‘most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors’ …
If he had it he would not have made an offer to let SH Stay in power.
And then remarkably Bush announced that he had intel that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding lethal WMD from UN inspectors.
Think about that… instead of attacking me… Why don’t you.
No really think about it.
tl;ts;dr
NFBW: Do everyone, especially yourself, a favor: learn what a paragraph is. I’d make a suggestion about learning Logic also; however, in your case it’s incredibly obvious that boat sailed long, long ago.
I almost thought he was a gonzo sock, but the posting style is different, and at least gonzo would give up eventually. FooledByEverythingUnderTheSun is like a cross between gonzomax and the Every Ready Bunny. The idiocy keeps going and going and…
It takes a special talent, in a certain version of the term “special”, to bring together long standing rivals on this MB.
And as much as I think Human Action is a reasonable poster here, those two should just get a room. DNFTT and all that.
To XT my statement is a bogus, lying, distortion of what Blix said or thought prior to the start of the invasion, “Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war”.
To XT this is accurate:" Security Council 7 March 2003
Blix clearly states that Iraq is fully cooperating, that he expects the remaining issues can be resolved in a matter of a few months, and that the continued presence of the UN team will prevent Saddam from resuming prohibited programs."
Can anyone posting on this thread see the difference in context or substance between the two statements posted above?
So Monty refer to my previos post. Do you deal in facts with logic or just fling insults about it?
Tell the difference in meaning between mine and what Tony Sinclair Linked to.
Are you on the field it in the stands?
I expect you will be impressed with my facts see previous posts here since I doubt you will even try to refute any of them.