Dixie the LIAR!

I feel like its my duty to expose he and his ilk for what they are doing and how they are trying to minipulate the general public.

They still enjoy support of 33% of the population.
 
But the less attention and press they get the weaker thay are. Lets not help em out.
Besides it is like beating you head against a concreate wall. pretty much the same effect, none on them and your head hurts.
 
I think the last several days have illistrated how dishonest and silly Dixie and his ilk are. There are people on this board who now have a lot less respect for him.
 
Exposing someone's lies always helps discredit them for future arguments.

I want to give him a chance here, I may have missed where this resolution calles Sarin a WMD...

Untill he shows it to me however... He is a LIAR. Ill bring it up everywhere he tries to make a point... to show he cant be trusted when he makes a claim!
 
Jarod said:
I think the last several days have illistrated how dishonest and silly Dixie and his ilk are. There are people on this board who now have a lot less respect for him.
Click to expand...

jarod, nobody on the Con side even came to Dixie's defense, that the shells were WMD. He's all alone on this. Of course his argument isn't credible.
 
Cypress said:
jarod, nobody on the Con side even came to Dixie's defense, that the shells were WMD. He's all alone on this. Of course his argument isn't credible.
Click to expand...



I know but it shows his lack of creditability across the board.

If he will lie about this he will lie about just about anything. Untill he resolves this issue and admit he made this up his creditability should be shot with just about anyone but Toby!
 
I didn't lie, you are just an uneducated hick who can't read, spell, or comprehend things. I don't know what gives you the nerve to call someone a liar, Mr. Only Lawyer In America Who Couldn't Pass a 5th Grade Spelling Test!

From UNR687: Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

Noting the importance of Iraq ratifying this Convention,

Noting moreover the importance of all States adhering to this Convention and encouraging its forthcoming Review Conference to reinforce the authority, efficiency and universal scope of the convention,

UNR687 deals primarily with stockpiling and producing WMD's and stipulates Iraq's obligations under several other resolutions and treaties, including the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. Also known as the Chemical Weapons Convention. (CWC) Have you looked into all of these resolutions and treaties to see what they said about Sarin? If not, you can't argue the point you are trying to argue, and you can't call me a liar. Sarin is a prohibited chemical weapon of mass destruction, Iraq and Saddam even agreed with this, as they signed the treaties.

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

In the Annex, look for the schedule of chemicals, this is what is considered to be WMD's:

Schedule 1

A. Toxic chemicals:

(1) O-Alkyl (<C10, incl. cycloalkyl) alkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphonofluoridates
e.g. Sarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate
(CAS Registry: 107-44-8)
Soman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate
======================================

The very FIRST chemical agent listed, is Sarin!. This comes from the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq was a signatory to, and which is the definitive arbiter on what IS and ISN'T a WMD. It also classifies "old chemical weapons" as being those manufactured before 1946, and outlines how those old degraded chemical weapons are to be destroyed.
 
I can see that it lables Sarin as a toxic chemical, I dont see where it calls it a Weapon of Mass Distruction.. and I dont see where it calls degraded serin munitions wmd's!

Now... are you back to the spelling argument, I guess you are getting desperate again!
 
What gives me the right to call you a liar is that you made a claim that clearly was not true!
 
Dixie said:
I didn't lie, you are just an uneducated hick who can't read, spell, or comprehend things. I don't know what gives you the nerve to call someone a liar, Mr. Only Lawyer In America Who Couldn't Pass a 5th Grade Spelling Test!

From UNR687: Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

Noting the importance of Iraq ratifying this Convention,

Noting moreover the importance of all States adhering to this Convention and encouraging its forthcoming Review Conference to reinforce the authority, efficiency and universal scope of the convention,

UNR687 deals primarily with stockpiling and producing WMD's and stipulates Iraq's obligations under several other resolutions and treaties, including the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. Also known as the Chemical Weapons Convention. (CWC) Have you looked into all of these resolutions and treaties to see what they said about Sarin? If not, you can't argue the point you are trying to argue, and you can't call me a liar. Sarin is a prohibited chemical weapon of mass destruction, Iraq and Saddam even agreed with this, as they signed the treaties.

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

In the Annex, look for the schedule of chemicals, this is what is considered to be WMD's:

Schedule 1

A. Toxic chemicals:

(1) O-Alkyl (<C10, incl. cycloalkyl) alkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphonofluoridates
e.g. Sarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate
(CAS Registry: 107-44-8)
Soman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate
======================================

The very FIRST chemical agent listed, is Sarin!. This comes from the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq was a signatory to, and which is the definitive arbiter on what IS and ISN'T a WMD. It also classifies "old chemical weapons" as being those manufactured before 1946, and outlines how those old degraded chemical weapons are to be destroyed.
Click to expand...

Ouch! Jarod, it is all there in black and white. Looks like Dixie has got you here. How are you going to come back on this?

Immie
 
Sorry, Jarod, you posted while I was reading the sites provided by Dixie.

Looks like you are grasping for straws this time. IMHO.

Immie
 
Immanuel said:
Sorry, Jarod, you posted while I was reading the sites provided by Dixie.

Looks like you are grasping for straws this time. IMHO.

Immie
Click to expand...


Maybe I am missing something, but where does this document say anything other than that Serin is a dangerous chemical.
 
Jarod said:
Maybe I am missing something, but where does this document say anything other than that Serin is a dangerous chemical.
Click to expand...

Note the title of the document:

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction

Note particularly the word that I underlined. A weapon is not simply a dangerous chemical. In this case, it is a dangerous chemical developed with the intention of doing harm to human beings. Lots of human beings!

Maineman has stated on fullpolitics.com that these were Weapons of Mass Destruction at one time but because they have degraded are no longer WMDs. Technically one could argue this point; however, it seems to me that this is simply playing with semantics.

I am of the opinion that Saddam at one time had WMD's. It seems that at the time we invaded he had gotten rid of those weapons. How he did so and where they are now is what we should be concerned with. Not just the fact that we have not found them.

I am also of the opinion that Saddam was a threat to the United States. How big a threat is something that those who know more about this than I do can debate all they want. But, the left's claim that he was not a threat is simply baffling to me.

The mosquito that was buzzing around my head this morning was a threat to me. Maybe not a serious threat but still a threat. It could have been carrying West Nile Virus for all I know. The Water Mocassin that is lurking somewhere around my neighborhood is a threat. One that worries me somewhat more than that mosquito. Al Qaeda is a threat to my country and to me somewhat. Who knows where they will strike next? Saddam Hussein was also a threat.

The mosquito didn't bite me, at least I don't think it did, but that doesn't mean it was not (emphasis on was) a threat. That Water Mocassin is still a threat as is Al Qaeda. I will probably never feel the direct result of a threat from Al Qaeda or the water mocassin, but that does not mean the threat does not exist. The same goes for Saddam Hussein. He didn't bite, but he could have. That made him a threat.

Was the threat worth the lives of over 3,000 American Soldiers and untold number of innocent Iraq civilians? I really don't know and we will never know for sure, because thankfully, the threat that Saddam posed has been eliminated.

I think what is important at the moment is just how big of a threat are we facing and from what fronts. Do Iraq citizens pose a threat to us? Does North Korea? Do Radical muslims? Are we accomplishing a reduction of the threat by carrying on this war in Iraq? If so, how should we deal with these threats? A risk assessment needs to be evaluated to determine at what costs we should be in Iraq and whether or not we should be focusing our strengths elsewhere.

Immie

By the way, I eliminated the threat of the mosquito... he or she now resides in the mosquito afterlife.
 
Last edited:
Sarin is bad stuff, but on the dpeleted munitions found, I defer to the military expert that said this was not the WND's they were looking for. So no cigar for those trying to say that Bush's invasion based on the threat of WMD's was justified.
 
But to claim that the UN resolution cited above defines these serin munitions as WMD is a FLAT OUT LIE!
 
Immanuel said:
Note the title of the document:

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction

Note particularly the word that I underlined. A weapon is not simply a dangerous chemical. In this case, it is a dangerous chemical developed with the intention of doing harm to human beings. Lots of human beings!

Maineman has stated on fullpolitics.com that these were Weapons of Mass Destruction at one time but because they have degraded are no longer WMDs. Technically one could argue this point; however, it seems to me that this is simply playing with semantics.

I am of the opinion that Saddam at one time had WMD's. It seems that at the time we invaded he had gotten rid of those weapons. How he did so and where they are now is what we should be concerned with. Not just the fact that we have not found them.

I am also of the opinion that Saddam was a threat to the United States. How big a threat is something that those who know more about this than I do can debate all they want. But, the left's claim that he was not a threat is simply baffling to me.

The mosquito that was buzzing around my head this morning was a threat to me. Maybe not a serious threat but still a threat. It could have been carrying West Nile Virus for all I know. The Water Mocassin that is lurking somewhere around my neighborhood is a threat. One that worries me somewhat more than that mosquito. Al Qaeda is a threat to my country and to me somewhat. Who knows where they will strike next? Saddam Hussein was also a threat.

The mosquito didn't bite me, at least I don't think it did, but that doesn't mean it was not (emphasis on was) a threat. That Water Mocassin is still a threat as is Al Qaeda. I will probably never feel the direct result of a threat from Al Qaeda or the water mocassin, but that does not mean the threat does not exist. The same goes for Saddam Hussein. He didn't bite, but he could have. That made him a threat.

Was the threat worth the lives of over 3,000 American Soldiers and untold number of innocent Iraq civilians? I really don't know and we will never know for sure, because thankfully, the threat that Saddam posed has been eliminated.

I think what is important at the moment is just how big of a threat are we facing and from what fronts. Do Iraq citizens pose a threat to us? Does North Korea? Do Radical muslims? Are we accomplishing a reduction of the threat by carrying on this war in Iraq? If so, how should we deal with these threats? A risk assessment needs to be evaluated to determine at what costs we should be in Iraq and whether or not we should be focusing our strengths elsewhere.

Immie

By the way, I eliminated the threat of the mosquito... he or she now resides in the mosquito afterlife.
Click to expand...


I dont care if its defined as a weapon, a dangerous weapon, or an extremly dangerous weapon....

The point is that Dixie claimed the document defined it as a Weapon of Mass Destruction... that claim is clearly FALSE!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top