Banned!!!!

83 posts / 0 new

I've been banned twice now... I've not attacked anyone personally and I've not been unruley. Says something for how Liberals feel about free speech and how they control the media doesn't it? Think about it.

I wonder how long this will stay up.

theeducator's picture
theeducator
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 8:37 am

Comments

Says something for how Liberals feel about free speech and how they control the media doesn't it?
Nobody is denying your right of free speech This Message Board is private property. The first amendment doesn't guarantee your right to use it as a soapbox.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ive never seen anyone banned on a conservative message board for speaking their opinions, sometimes aggressively, about the opposite party. Only on left leaning sites do I see conservatives banned so easily.

Using the "private property" line is nothing more than a lame excuse.

theeducator's picture
theeducator
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 8:37 am

If I had a dollar for every time I have heard of a liberal, or even centrist, member of this MB getting banned from one conservative MB or another, I could buy a new car. Funny the only people I hear contradicting that kind of assessment are cons.

BTW, what was your username before you got banned?

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Clearly you have violated the Forum Rules in some fashion. Being that most are vague and subjective and subject to the whims of controlling party.

On your third attempt... Just agree with Thom and his designated hitters and you'll be fine. Whatever you do. Do not disagree with a Thom post. I’ve watch 3 people posts disappear and the persons banned or they just went away. If you get flustered or confused.. Just blame Bush. It’s the universal catch all.

Like: Bush made us Ban you from this forum or If it wasn’t for Bush, this would be a utopian forum.

Snuggles's picture
Snuggles
Joined:
Jul. 22, 2010 10:26 am
Using the "private property" line is nothing more than a lame excuse.
Merely pointing out that the "free speech" issue won't work for you here.

Ive never seen anyone banned on a conservative message board for speaking their opinions, sometimes aggressively, about the opposite party. Only on left leaning sites do I see conservatives banned so easily.
I wouldn't know about that. We see a lot of anecdotes from people saying that they tried this conservative message board or that, only to be instantly banned, or at least, having their posts quickly deleted.

Don't know which side is more credible, but the righties have gained a certain "reputation", haven't they?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The Snuggles "tude" can lead to the behavior cons cannot recognize in themselves because they are such persecuted victims who have to toe the party line over here where Liberals do not have to be "tolerant dissidents." Here, we can be the "thought police" of their projected paranoia.

It is true that protracted rants and continual assertion of opinion in the face of facts and reasoned disputation can be both boring and lead to personal antagonism. Anyone who comes here to save us from Liberalism runs some risk of being seen as the latest Jehovah's Witness at the door.

Rewriting reality or refusing to see the failure of policies that have been given a lot more than a scientific best opportunity to do their promised stuff can also be a burden on productive conversation. The failure to invest in a productive infrastructure is not good fiscal conservativism, for example. We need to get over the low tax road to prosperity unless we want to have the Mississippi Model as our vision. We know what we don't get from tax breaks for the wealthy. We will be glad to share the tax burden when we share the wealth and not just do the work.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Please don't bore us with your "we use facts" bullshit, That is beneath even intellectual contempt
Oh, really? Can you support this claim?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Ive never seen anyone banned on a conservative message board for speaking their opinions, sometimes aggressively, about the opposite party. Only on left leaning sites do I see conservatives banned so easily.

Using the "private property" line is nothing more than a lame excuse.

I was dumped from freerepublic.com for speaking about Bush's lies about Saddam.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
I was dumped from freerepublic.com for speaking about Bush's lies about Saddam

That is so Wierd... I was banned from DU, and POAC just for asking them to show me the lie.

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am
Quote Northwestpeep:
I was dumped from freerepublic.com for speaking about Bush's lies about Saddam
That is so Wierd... I was banned from DU, and POAC just for asking them to show me the lie.

I don't see how, since that is such a softball. Bush insisted WMDs existed in Iraq and he had "proof", The Niger yellow cake situation, linking Saddam with 9/11 and Al Queda when no such links existed, the list goes on and on. I suspect that if you got banned from those sites it was for reasons regarding your demeanor at the time rather than the question itself.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
That is so Wierd... I was banned from DU, and POAC just for asking them to show me the lie.

All of it. Saddam was not the threat Bush painted him as as was proven that nothing the administration said about WMD and illegal weapons programs proved true. Nothing. Add to that fact that UN weapons inspectors were on the gound verifying the situation from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003 the date they left because of Bush's ultimatum. Bush had nothing to support the allegations, and had fabricated some such as that "yellow cake" paper, and manipulated intelligence with the intent to decieve the American people into supporting an Iraq invasion. Thus the entire discussion on their side was a lie.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
don't see how, since that is such a softball. Bush insisted WMDs existed in Iraq and he had "proof",

You sure about that? Hans Blix says otherwise in his 2003 Unresolved disarmament Report. In case your missing the pretext. They had them, now can't account for them.

A lie being the Intentional telling of a falsehood for deception.

The Niger yellow cake situation, linking Saddam with 9/11 and Al Queda when no such links existed, the list goes on and on

You mean the Yellow Cake story that the British, after three reviews still stand by and was refered to by Bush or the Joe Wilson Club Med Blowjob Yellow Cake story?

I suspect that if you got banned from those sites it was for reasons regarding your demeanor at the time rather than the question itself.

Assumption are fantastic but hardly factual..

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am
You sure about that? Hans Blix says otherwise in his 2003 Unresolved disarmament Report. In case your missing the pretext. They had them, now can't account for them. A lie being the Intentional telling of a falsehood for deception.

The report was unresolved because Bush drove the UN weapons inspectors out with his ultimatum and threat of imminent invasion if Saddam and his sons did not leave power. Bush lied. What people believed prior to the UN weapons inspectors starting their insepctions on November 27, 2002 is absolutely irrelevant because they were in a position to prove the situation. That the Bush administration purposely cherry picked intelligence to support their claims is lying. That they manipulated intelligence to further their cause is lying. They intentionally deceived the American people and Congress because they firmly thought they were right when they weren't.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
The report was unresolved because Bush drove the UN weapons inspectors out with his ultimatum and threat of imminent invasion if Saddam and his sons did not leave power.

That doesn't address the issue at all.. Although funny.. 12 years just wasn't enough time.. Just 6 more months..

Bush lied. What people believed prior to the UN weapons inspectors starting their insepctions on November 27, 2002 is absolutely irrelevant because they were in a position to prove the situation.

to you... the unresolved Arms was from the List Compiled at the end of Gulf war 1 of all the WMD he DID have. That he was to dispose of. So unless you have something that says Bush Knew that all the prior WMDs in Saddam arsenal were destoryed (which apparently not even Iraq knew) then you have ZERO basis to claim Bush Lied. Cherry Picked or otherwise.

I see the claim the liberals love facts while Cons are morons.. Facts would be nice right about now on the Bush lied us into wars claim.

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am

Try bringing up the Constitution Party over at the site www.frontlineconservatives.com and see how fast the Republi-Cons over there ban you.

Conservatives are worst, on average, banning free speech than liberal sites are.

I am allowed to post here but I got banned over at Ed Schultz's board just for posting Alex Jones Films.

Of course certain elements on both sides get funding from the Bilderbergers so of course any speech that they deem "offensive" will get banned.

I am surprised how I never got so much as warning for posting AJ's films here. Ed Schultz should take a hint.

Volitzer's picture
Volitzer
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
That doesn't address the issue at all.. Although funny.. 12 years just wasn't enough time.. Just 6 more months..

It does address the issue. The inspectors were verifying the situation and would have found that Saddam had no WMDs or illegal weapons programs just as surely as the U.S. did after the invasion. That's a fact that is beyond dispute.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I thought I had posted on here earlier, but now my post has vanished!

That leads one to ask the question; is it better to be banned outright or allowed to stay and be secretly censored???

(Although, I am not accusing anyone of censoring, but then where DID my post go???)

I basically said that we live in a fascist country and there is. in reality, no 'free' speech. That is, speech and expression of views for which we may not pay a price. Perfect example is Norman Finkelstein.( Although, i did not bring him up in my initial post.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Finkelstein

Pro-Liberate!

-OSR

OneSmartRat's picture
OneSmartRat
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2010 10:10 am
It does address the issue. The inspectors were verifying the situation and would have found that Saddam had no WMDs or illegal weapons programs just as surely as the U.S. did after the invasion. That's a fact that is beyond dispute.

See.... that probably why I was banned. You have nothing more than a cute platitude with no factual bases. Most people can't come to terms with it and would like to expell such irrating challenges. That quite frankly are fact based.

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am

Question Northwestpeep. If you were banned, why are you still here?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:Question Northwestpeep. If you were banned, why are you still here?.

I said I was Banned From DU and POAC.
Now I am here. From Daily Caller, which I am not banned from.

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am

There you go clouding the issues with the facts again.

MA'AT's picture
MA'AT
Joined:
Jul. 6, 2010 6:45 pm
you have ZERO basis to claim Bush Lied.

Ronald Dumbsfeld knew where the WMD's were:

"They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Well duh! Dumbsfeld wasn't lying. They were east and west and south and north and northeast and southwest and northsouth and westeast.

Colon Bowel knew where they were too. He showed pretty lil pitchers of the scary mobile weapons labs to he UN. Bowel wasn't lying...because we found all the scary mobile weapons labs right? Right next to the yellow cake and the aluminum tubes. TUBES and CAKE...BE AFRAID!

Really the worst thing about Saddam was that he actually used all the WMD's that right wing superhero/messiah freedumb fighter Ronald Ray-Gun arranged to sell to him through DOW chemical. Naughty Saddam to use up all the sarin we sold you on the Marsh Arabs and not leave any behind to justify GWB's Iraq crusade.

http://tinyrevolution.com/mt/mt-static/images/rumsfeld.jpg

lil rawr
Joined:
Jul. 21, 2010 10:28 am

None of the moderators have answered the question about whther the statements made that cause people to be banned are available for viewing for the others on this board. If you want to have a policy great, but if you want to have a secret unspeakable policy I have a problem with that. As for those who suggest this is "private property." Do you not think that is in opposition to the principles of transparency and egalitarian interaction that Thom and the rest of us seem to proclaim?

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
See.... that probably why I was banned. You have nothing more than a cute platitude with no factual bases. Most people can't come to terms with it and would like to expell such irrating challenges. That quite frankly are fact based.

If that's how you think then you were banned for being stupid. You consider the fact that the U.S. ultimately found that Saddam had no WMDs and operational illegal weapons programs that would have been the result of the UN weapons inspection a "cute platitude"? It's actually an undisputable fact. The only reason that the U.S. found that Saddam had no WMDs or operational illegal weapons programs was because he had no WMDs or operational illegal weapons programs prior to the invasion, which would date back to the same time period that the UN weapons inspectors were on the ground in November 27, 2002 until Iraq, March 18, 2003. Therefore, there was no need to invade as the UN would have proven that Saddam posed no threat as he had no WMDs or operational illegal weapons programs, which indicates that Bush lied as all he had to do was to wait until the UN completed its verification that would have produced the same results as the U.S had after Saddam was removed from power.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have been banned from every conservative blog I have tried to comment on.

Redlocks's picture
Redlocks
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
If that's how you think then you were banned for being stupid.

Yea... that must be it..

You consider the fact that the U.S. ultimately found that Saddam had no WMDs and operational illegal weapons programs that would have been the result of the UN weapons inspection a "cute platitude"? It's actually an undisputable fact.

Odd... that has nothing to do with the "Bush Lied" platitude.

Therefore, there was no need to invade as the UN would have proven that Saddam posed no threat as he had no WMDs or operational illegal weapons programs, which indicates that Bush lied as all he had to do was to wait until the UN completed its verification that would have produced the same results as the U.S had after Saddam was removed from power

Day late a dollar short.. If only unicorns were real.
I guess the UN should have never written UN 1441 proclaiming Iraq in Material Breach of the Ceasefire. You seem to be grasping at thin air for your "Bush Lied" platitude.

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am

The Bush administration lied over and over, when they claimed that not only did Saddam have wmd's, but that we (Rumsfeld/Powell) knew where they were.

That's a lie, son. We all know it's a lie. Now take a seat.

In other news, you don't know what the word "platitude" means. If you did know what this word means, you'd realize that using it is actually a tacit admission that Bush obviously DID lie.

A platitude is a phrase that is trite because it is so obviously true; i.e. "The children are our future."

lil rawr
Joined:
Jul. 21, 2010 10:28 am

Gez.. with such overwhelming factual evidence supporting the "Bush Lied" platitude ( a banal, trite, or stale remark) it seems so obvious now that Bush Lied. It's a amazing for a President that most people would agree is the stupidest president we've ever had somehow know something that nobody else on the planet (including Saddam) knew. Must be the Magic 8 ball he uses for all his big decisions.

The entire UN must have been in on the Big Lie.

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am
Odd... that has nothing to do with the "Bush Lied" platitude.

It has everything to do with it. Bush said that Saddam posed a clear and imminent threat enough to warrant military action. That was a lie.

Day late a dollar short.. If only unicorns were real.
I guess the UN should have never written UN 1441 proclaiming Iraq in Material Breach of the Ceasefire. You seem to be grasping at thin air for your "Bush Lied" platitude.

Man, you are stupid. What don't you understand about the fact that the UN weapons inspectors were on the ground and inspecting thus verifying the situation, including clarifying all unknowns, starting November 27, 2002 and left on March 18, 2003 only because of Bush's ultimatum? Had they been allowed to complete their work they would have proven without military action that which was proven with military action as Saddam had no WMDs or operational illegal weapons programs. Thus proving that Bush lied as he claimed Saddam posed a clear and imminent threat. He made that claim with support from a system created to manipulate intelligence to further their agenda, which is the definition of "lie".

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There, there. Calm yourself. Put the 8-ball away.

Just because a person is stunningly stupid, does not mean it is impossible for them to lie. Stupid people often lie.

The entire UN must have been in on the Big Lie.

The entire UN (the weapons inspectors) said they could find no WMD. Bush and his administration assured us they knew exactly where WMD's were, and they sent Powell to go and lie to the big bad UN.

lil rawr
Joined:
Jul. 21, 2010 10:28 am
It has everything to do with it. Bush said that Saddam posed a clear and imminent threat enough to warrant military action. That was a lie.

Yea.. ah huh..
Too bad nobody believed that in 2003. Certainly not the Israelis, Saudis or the Kuwaitis, the UN or most the US congress.

Man, you are stupid

Must be it...

Have you ever read the Weapon inspection reports from 1991 through 1998? Probably not..
You can repeat it all day long if you think that is going to help your baseless, factless accessions.

I think I’ll just let you be…. You don’t seem to have anything that supports your claim that “Bush Lied” and you seem perfectly content to keep it that way. But then again... I must be Stupid.

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am
Yea.. ah huh.. Too bad nobody believed that in 2003. Certainly not the Israelis, Saudis or the Kuwaitis, the UN or most the US congress.

You really don't know what you're talking about. The UN weapons inspectors were proving the situation. There was nothing to believe, only facts being gathered, the same facts found by the U.S.

Must be it...

It is it. Again, what don't you understand about the fact that the UN weapons inspectors were in the process of verifying the truth about the threat Saddam posed starting in November 27, 2002? It doesn't matter what people thought or didn't know prior to that point as current facts were being gathered starting November 27, 2002. Answer that question and discuss how what people believed prior to that inspection mattered and even took precedence over those inspections.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Saddam must have hidden the weapons really well. We still haven't found them.

What he once had...he no longer had when we invaded.

Probably, the U.S. shouldn't sell chemical weapons if it doesn't want anyone to use them.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote theeducator:

I wonder how long this will stay up.

Sorry if this doesn't follow the current "thread;" I was struck by the original post and wanted to comment on that, just to get back to the issue.

Of course a site can manage its content. I wouldn't disagree. However, I would caution the managers against what might be a hidden authoritarian spirit (even liberals can be authoritarian), where dissenters are banned, simply for being contrary.

I'm quoting here from The Guru Papers by Kramer and Alstad, re indications of authoritarianism in groups:

1. No deviation from the party line is allowed. Anyone who has thoughts or feelings contrary to the accepted perspective is made to feel wrong or bad for having them.

2. Whatever the authority does is regarded as...right...

3. One trusts that the leader or others in the group know what's best.

(4 & 5 do not apply)

6. At times one is confused and fearful without knowing why. This is a sign that doubts are being repressed.

I'm not saying the forum here is manned by authoritarians. That would be crazy. However, I would hope whenever a person is "banned," there is a very good reason, such as they use profanity, etc. Simply having a view that is conservative IS NOT A REASON TO BAN A PERSON.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
You really don't know what you're talking about. The UN weapons inspectors were proving the situation. There was nothing to believe, only facts being gathered, the same facts found by the U.S.

Isn't just too bad it was the UN inspection team report that earned Iraq the Material Breach of the Ceasefire Agreement UN resolution.

Hans Blix " Iraq had "not genuinely accepted UN resolutions demanding that it disarm."

It doesn't matter what people thought or didn't know prior to that point as current facts were being gathered starting November 27, 2002.

Sorry I didn't put the date to Hans Blix statement. January 2003

Does it matter what People thought in January of 2003? Because in 2003 everyone thought Saddam was in material breach of weapons disarmament. 12 years after Gulf War 1.

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am

I was banned from Sean Insanity’s site but I was not offended, on the contrary, I’m glad that they were paying attention and I hope I really pissed them off. It’s fun to get in their wheelhouse!

Coklan's picture
Coklan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have been banned from conservative blog(s) and two webpage posts of Senators of my state. The Senators representatives state that the site belongs to them and they or he has every right to regulate what appears on his, their, webpage. I have been pushing an issue of corporate corruption and corporate control of Congress and the corruption of Congress via greed.

So the answer is YES, conservatives have a different idea of freedom of speech. I would assume that they would invite debate, not this name-calling, belittling comments but an honest exchange on the issue(s).

Honestly, if it was my website or page I would edit out profain language, and people who exchange ideas by name-calling, belittling comments would grow old quickly. I think I would ban those individuals. Those who can intelligently convey a thought in a respectful debate I would welcome regardless of their point of view. One other issue, there seems to be people who really don't have a life and post so many times the blog begins to look like "whoevers" blog. I think that would get old as well but I would ask if the person would just make a post or two and leave room for someone else. If refused then I would consider a block on that person for abusing the original intent of the blog/comment posts whatever.

Political_Paul's picture
Political_Paul
Joined:
Jun. 26, 2010 11:51 am
Isn't just too bad it was the UN inspection team report that earned Iraq the Material Breach of the Ceasefire Agreement UN resolution. Hans Blix " Iraq had "not genuinely accepted UN resolutions demanding that it disarm."

As it turns out Saddam did disarm! So, even Blix's opinion is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the UN was in the process of proving the state of Saddam's WMD and weapons programs when they were forced out by Bush.

Sorry

Yes, you are.

Does it matter what People thought in January of 2003? Because in 2003 everyone thought Saddam was in material breach of weapons disarmament. 12 years after Gulf War 1.
Again, it doesn't matter what anyone thought or believed as the UN was in process of verifying facts when the inspectors were driven out, which would have been the same finding as that of the U.S. after the invasion. Again, as it turns out, Saddam had no WMDs or illegal weapons programs thus making what people believed or thought irrelevant, which would have been proven by the UN weapons inspectors.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
As it turns out Saddam did disarm! So, even Blix's opinion is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the UN was in the process of proving the state of Saddam's WMD and weapons programs when they were forced out by Bush.

A state they have been in for 12 years and had they not had a war, more than likely it would be another 12 years.

Your complaint is not really about "Bush Lied", because he didn't. It that you think the UN should have never proclaimed Iraq in Material Breach of the Ceasefire.

The only way your baseless claim of "Bush Lied" works is if you can produce something that shows Bush had prior knowledge of Iraq's disarmament. Which you can't. Having Bad intellegence is Not Lying, Its having Bad intellegence. Either way, It was the responsibility of Saddam to disarm, not the UN or the US.

Again, it doesn't matter what anyone thought or believed as the UN was in process of verifying facts when the inspectors were driven out, which would have been the same finding as that of the U.S. after the invasion. Again, as it turns out, Saddam had no WMDs or illegal weapons programs thus making what people believed or thought irrelevant, which would have been proven by the UN weapons inspectors.

Which of course has nothing to do with your "Bush Lied" platitude. A little Hindsight fallacy

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote theeducator:

I wonder how long this will stay up.

Simply having a view that is conservative IS NOT A REASON TO BAN A PERSON.

As far as I know, this has never happened. However, bannings aren't made public on this MB (and I believe rightly so). It just ain't like that so much around here; it just looks that way from time to time.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Back to the original thread...

There's nothing wrong with having a "clubhouse" where folks of like mind can come together without constantly being interrupted by folks with differing views. This goes for the left, right, middle, top, bottom, straight, gay, male, female, black, white, yellow, orange, red, etc., etc., etc.

Just make that clear up front. It's called "Freedom of Assembly" and it's in our Constitution (last I looked). You may personally not like that kind of thing and choose to go elsewhere. That's also a personal freedom that's constitutionally guaranteed.

This ISN'T a public forum like a town hall or a public park. It's more like a political convention hall. Or at least it can be if the sponsors that are paying for the bandwidth decide to make it so.

Whiny little...

BadLiberal's picture
BadLiberal
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
A state they have been in for 12 years and had they not had a war, more than likely it would be another 12 years.

Are you really that stupid? The difference was that prior to November 27, 2002, Saddam and the Iraqis had not been as forthcoming as they needed to be. In November 27, 2002, they were getting full cooperation because the U.S. was threatening invasion if they didn't prove that they had no WMD or operational illegal weapons programs. The UN was provided full support to avoid invasion and to come clean.
Your complaint is not really about "Bush Lied", because he didn't. It that you think the UN should have never proclaimed Iraq in Material Breach of the Ceasefire.

The only way your baseless claim of "Bush Lied" works is if you can produce something that shows Bush had prior knowledge of Iraq's disarmament. Which you can't. Having Bad intellegence is Not Lying, Its having Bad intellegence. Either way, It was the responsibility of Saddam to disarm, not the UN or the US.


Wrong. Lying is also about deception. The Bush administration created a system, stovepiping, that manipulated intelligence to make Saddam appear to be an imminent threat. Also, by insisting that Saddam had WMD and illegal weapons programs when they didn't know is lying. It was the responsibility of the UN to verify whether Saddam had complied or not, and where there was an issue to rectify it.

There was no need to invade. Saddam wasn't a threat. This was proven by the U.S. after the invasion and would have been proven prior had the UN been allowed to complete its process. You're a great example as to why conservatives should not be allowed in power, too stupid and too quick to use violence.

Which of course has nothing to do with your "Bush Lied" platitude. A little Hindsight fallacy

It has everything to do with proving that Bush lied. As lil rawr states in post #27, an element had to do with the fact that the administration KNEW that Saddam had WMDs. The UN was in the process of verifying the facts, which would have resulted in proving that Saddam did not have the WMDs the Bush administration said they knew he had.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Are you really that stupid? The difference was that prior to November 27, 2002, Saddam and the Iraqis had not been as forthcoming as they needed to be. In November 27, 2002, they were getting full cooperation because the U.S. was threatening invasion if they didn't prove that they had no WMD or operational illegal weapons programs. The UN was provided full support to avoid invasion and to come clean.

Your getting very boorish.. Although a fitting Thread to note that I would bet money that if I had called you Stupid as many times as you have I'd be banned from here.

Regardless of your wishfull thinking. Hans Blix and the UN felt Saddam and Iraq were not as forthcoming as they needed to be in march 2003 either. There is nothing you can provide that would counter UN resolution 1441 and the final March 7th UN meeting where Saddam and Iraq was found to still be in material Breach.

Wrong. Lying is also about deception. The Bush administration created a system, stovepiping, that manipulated intelligence to make Saddam appear to be an imminent threat. Also, by insisting that Saddam had WMD and illegal weapons programs when they didn't know is lying. It was the responsibility of the UN to verify whether Saddam had complied or not, and where there was an issue to rectify it.

You have a very loose definition of lying. Where I would think one would have to know the truth in order for it to a lie.

Last i Checked, the Ceasefire was with the US not the UN. therefore the Material breach was against the US.

There was no need to invade. Saddam wasn't a threat. This was proven by the U.S. after the invasion and would have been proven prior had the UN been allowed to complete its process. You're a great example as to why conservatives should not be allowed in power, too stupid and too quick to use violence.

Hindsight bias again..

On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

It has everything to do with proving that Bush lied. As lil rawr states in post #27, an element had to do with the fact that the administration KNEW that Saddam had WMDs. The UN was in the process of verifying the facts, which would have resulted in proving that Saddam did not have the WMDs the Bush administration said they knew he had.

It really is just too bad nobody from that time believed anything your are saying.. I suppose if they had, Saddam would still be throwing people into wood chippers today. Having bad intellegence is not lying..

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am
Hans Blix and the UN felt Saddam and Iraq were not as forthcoming as they needed to be in march 2003 either.

This argument is irrelevant and not worth discussing as the UN was forced to end their inspections prematurely. Had they not been prevented from finishing, they would have proven what was proven after the invasion, that Saddam had no WMD or operational illegal weapons programs.
You have a very loose definition of lying. Where I would think one would have to know the truth in order for it to a lie.

And you don't know the definition of "lie". From dictionary.com:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

Therefore, using the facts that a) Bush did not know what Saddam had and claiming that they did, (b) choosing to tell only certain opinions and not others, and (c) choosing to put in a good light evidence of highly questionable validity prove that the Bush administration was acting to further their agenda of removing Saddam from power using deception by not providing all relevant facts and opinions. They lied.

Hindsight bias again..

No, not hindsight. I have to ask again, are you really that stupid? You are claiming that there was a chance that the UN would not have come to the same conclusion without an invasion that the U.S. did after the invasion, that Iraq had no WMD, under the same situation. This is just stupid.
It really is just too bad nobody from that time believed anything your are saying.. I suppose if they had, Saddam would still be throwing people into wood chippers today. Having bad intellegence is not lying..

Agains, it doesn't matter what people believed as the UN was in the process of verifying the situation and would have come to the same conclusion without an invasion that the U.S. did after the invasion because the state of Iraq's WMD was the same for both inspectors.

It's funny how the same people you are currently apologizing for, the Bush administration, had previously fully supported Saddam, knowing full well how he ruled. This didn't matter to them then and he only mattered so far as oil went, as in Middle East stability.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

jeff, you do know who you are debating once again don't you? The king of if I write the words, it must be true.

It's the equivalent of trying to have a discussion with a 2 year old, with his fingers stuck in his ears, stomping his feet, screaming.

Just be warned, and you might want to refrain from using the word stupid.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I thought the pattern looked familiar.

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drew013:

I thought the pattern looked familiar.

Jeff calling people stupid that he disagrees with?

I concur.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
This argument is irrelevant and not worth discussing as the UN was forced to end their inspections prematurely. Had they not been prevented from finishing, they would have proven what was proven after the invasion, that Saddam had no WMD or operational illegal weapons programs.

You really are missing the humor of it. Bush says it, he's a lying asshat, UN/Blix says it and it's irrelevent.

They never were going to finish and it never would have been proven had there not been an invasion.

No operational illegal weapons systems... LOL Iraq inspectors find banned missile system I'll even note the Date "February 13, 2003"

Therefore, using the facts that a) Bush did not know what Saddam had and claiming that they did,

Sure he did. At mimumum Bush had the Complete list of WMD's in Iraq arsenal at the end of 1991. Hence the "unresolved WMD issues" report.

b) choosing to tell only certain opinions and not others, and

That isn't even realistic..

They lied

Only to those that want to believe it without factual support.

You are claiming that there was a chance that the UN would not have come to the same conclusion without an invasion that the U.S. did after the invasion, that Iraq had no WMD, under the same situation. This is just stupid.

Exactly what I am saying.. 12 years... For a job that should have taken 1 year. As the above story confirms.

Agains, it doesn't matter what people believed as the UN was in the process of verifying the situation and would have come to the same conclusion without an invasion that the U.S. did after the invasion because the state of Iraq's WMD was the same for both inspectors.

Wasn't going to happen.

Northwestpeep's picture
Northwestpeep
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2010 10:29 am
You really are missing the humor of it. Bush says it, he's a lying asshat, UN/Blix says it and it's irrelevent.

Yes, because the inspectors were in the process of verifying the situation and were forced to leave. Had they been allowed to continue they would have come to the same conclusion that the U.S. did after the needless invasion.

No operational illegal weapons systems... LOL Iraq inspectors find banned missile system I'll even note the Date "February 13, 2003"

And it would have been destroyed. Again, a nonissue.
Sure he did. At mimumum Bush had the Complete list of WMD's in Iraq arsenal at the end of 1991. Hence the "unresolved WMD issues" report.

This doesn't matter as the UN was in process of updating the situation. Note that the date you provide is 1991. The UN was on the ground in 2002.
Exactly what I am saying.. 12 years... For a job that should have taken 1 year. As the above story confirms.

Wrong. The UN was in the process of not only verifying the situation but also destroying anything out of bounds. That the U.S. found little if anything out of bounds after the invasion proves that Saddam had no WMD or illegal weapons programs before the invasion.
Wasn't going to happen.

It was happening. That Saddam had no WMD and no illegal weapons programs before the invasion, that would have been confirmed by the UN without an invasion, was proven by the U.S. after the invasion. What don't you understand about that? Why is that so unfathomable for you?

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Just be warned, and you might want to refrain from using the word stupid.

Thanks for the warning. Perhaps people like him should be removed from the forum as no one can have a rational discussion with him or his ilk.

Jeff calling people stupid that he disagrees with? I concur

I'm calling him stupid not because he disagrees with me but that he's claiming that the same situation, no WMD and no illegal weapons programs, would result in two diametrically opposed results in inspections. If the U.S. found none after the invasion, then the UN would have too without an invasion as the UN inspectors were pulled out on March 18, 2003 and the invasion commenced immediately after. No WMD and illegal weapons programs after means that there were none before.

Why do you feel compelled to support these types? Do you read what they say?

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system