Dixie the LIAR!

Jarod said:
I think Ornot came close enough to say you claimed it was justifiable to attack Iraq. Apperantly on this board what you say does not have to really be true... You just have to kick enough dust up to make it seem true! :pke:
Click to expand...


No, I've found, what you say has to be fairly accurate, and you have to prove it's true, or people like myself will jump on it and hand your ass to you, making you look like a complete retard. Starting threads calling someone a liar, is not a wise thing to do, unless you have truth on your side, along with some facts to back it up. In fact, it's pretty damn close to "not really being true, and just kicking up dust to make it seem true."
 
Dixie said:
No, I've found, what you say has to be fairly accurate, and you have to prove it's true, or people like myself will jump on it and hand your ass to you, making you look like a complete retard. Starting threads calling someone a liar, is not a wise thing to do, unless you have truth on your side, along with some facts to back it up. In fact, it's pretty damn close to "not really being true, and just kicking up dust to make it seem true."
Click to expand...



Okay then show me where in the UN resolution it calls Seirn Gas a WMD?:pke:
 
Jarod said:
Okay then show me where in the UN resolution it calls Seirn Gas a WMD?:pke:
Click to expand...

UN Resoultions do not determine whether certain chemical weapons are WMD's. That is not the function or purpose of the UN. They were instrumental in establishing the Chemical Weapons Convention, where weapons experts from assorted countries, determined what would be called a chemical weapon, a weapon of mass destruction, how to handle and dispose of old WMD's, and the outlawing of production and stockpiling of WMD's and precursors. Sarin was the first substance on their list.

UN 678 reaffirms the CWC findings, which means, they agree with the CWC on what is and isn't a WMD. This is what was meant by "the UN classifies Sarin as a WMD in 678." They didn't "state" this, they didn't "proclaim" this, they didn't "determine" this, they support the findings of the CWC, who DID.

Besides, are you claiming that Wikipedia is lying too? That's a Pinhead First!
 
Kay, Duelfer, even Bush admit that Saddam did not have any WMD's. Those rusty old cannister of rotted sarin were not a threat to massively destruct anything or anyone. Only Dixie continues to be willing to die on this hillside that even his blue jean wearing lover has long abandoned.
 
Dixie said:
UN Resoultions do not determine whether certain chemical weapons are WMD's. That is not the function or purpose of the UN. They were instrumental in establishing the Chemical Weapons Convention, where weapons experts from assorted countries, determined what would be called a chemical weapon, a weapon of mass destruction, how to handle and dispose of old WMD's, and the outlawing of production and stockpiling of WMD's and precursors. Sarin was the first substance on their list.

UN 678 reaffirms the CWC findings, which means, they agree with the CWC on what is and isn't a WMD. This is what was meant by "the UN classifies Sarin as a WMD in 678." They didn't "state" this, they didn't "proclaim" this, they didn't "determine" this, they support the findings of the CWC, who DID.

Besides, are you claiming that Wikipedia is lying too? That's a Pinhead First!
Click to expand...


Then why did you claim the UN resolution DID call Seirn a WMD...?
 
I do give you credit for not having decided to ignore me yet! I have to admit I was wrong because I expected you to ignore me when I came after you!

Kudos to you for that!
 
Jarod said:
I think Ornot came close enough to say you claimed it was justifiable to attack Iraq. Apperantly on this board what you say does not have to really be true... You just have to kick enough dust up to make it seem true! :pke:
Click to expand...

Maybe you can point out the words where I said it was justifiable? It is not there. What I said was that there needed to be an evaluation of how great the threat was. In business terms it would be considered "risk management". You determine how great the risk is and then you take steps to minnimize the risk or you ignore the risk if it is not a big enough threat to require assets being devoted to it.

Some fools claim there was no risk at all. Only a fool would say that. There were risks in allowing Saddam to maintain control of Iraq. How great a risk, I honestly can't say. There were also risks in removing him from control. Those risks are a bit more evident today. It is pretty obvious that the risk of invading and occupying Iraq would lead to a volatile situation in the country that may very well end in civil war, and hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Which risk was the best to take? I don't know. I supported and still support the removal of Saddam from power. I have never, ever supported the occupation of Iraq.

Maybe you just need to read a bit more carefully because I very clearly stated that although he was a threat to some extent that did not necessarily justify the invasion and occupation of the country. Saddam was a threat but it appears only a small threat. I will try to put this in simpler terms. Can the threat that Saddam posed justify the loss of 3000+ American Soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis? If there was any way to avoid those losses then I don't see how anyone can justify it.

Immie
 
Immanuel said:
Maybe you can point out the words where I said it was justifiable? It is not there. What I said was that there needed to be an evaluation of how great the threat was. In business terms it would be considered "risk management". You determine how great the risk is and then you take steps to minnimize the risk or you ignore the risk if it is not a big enough threat to require assets being devoted to it.

Some fools claim there was no risk at all. Only a fool would say that. There were risks in allowing Saddam to maintain control of Iraq. How great a risk, I honestly can't say. There were also risks in removing him from control. Those risks are a bit more evident today. It is pretty obvious that the risk of invading and occupying Iraq would lead to a volatile situation in the country that may very well end in civil war, and hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Which risk was the best to take? I don't know. I supported and still support the removal of Saddam from power. I have never, ever supported the occupation of Iraq.

Maybe you just need to read a bit more carefully because I very clearly stated that although he was a threat to some extent that did not necessarily justify the invasion and occupation of the country. Saddam was a threat but it appears only a small threat. I will try to put this in simpler terms. Can the threat that Saddam posed justify the loss of 3000+ American Soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis? If there was any way to avoid those losses then I don't see how anyone can justify it.

Immie
Click to expand...


My point was that Dixie said a specific UN resolution declared Seirn a WMD. That resolution did not do what Dixie says it did. THat is a lie.

When Dixie says there were WMD in Iraq and then makes an argument, no matter how silly that argument is, its not a lie. Like I said he is delusional on that subject, but I would not call that a lie... A Lie is when a fact is stated that no legitatmate argument can be made to make it true... Like this document says "XYand Z". Can you see the difference?:shock:
 
Jarod said:
My point was that Dixie said a specific UN resolution declared Seirn a WMD. That resolution did not do what Dixie says it did. THat is a lie.

When Dixie says there were WMD in Iraq and then makes an argument, no matter how silly that argument is, its not a lie. Like I said he is delusional on that subject, but I would not call that a lie... A Lie is when a fact is stated that no legitatmate argument can be made to make it true... Like this document says "XYand Z". Can you see the difference?:shock:
Click to expand...

We didn't find weapons-grade sarin gas. David Kay and Charles Duelfer said it was degraded to the point, were it was little more that a local public health threat - if somebody tried to drink the stuff, for example.

Its not a WMD.
 
Cypress said:
We didn't find weapons-grade sarin gas. David Kay and Charles Duelfer said it was degraded to the point, were it was little more that a local public health threat - if somebody tried to drink the stuff, for example.

Its not a WMD.
Click to expand...


I know but as diluted as Dixie is to him its true that these 20 year old buried seirn munitions were WMD so that makes it not a lie!
 
Dixie said:
The point is that Dixie claimed the document defined it as a Weapon of Mass Destruction... that claim is clearly FALSE!

No, I never said this, you interpreted what I said as this, and I corrected you. What I said was; "it (Sarin gas) is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687" And according to UNR 678, 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,


In other words, they confer with the CWC, on what constitutes a WMD.
Click to expand...

Or on a real estate contract - "See Exhibit A attached, incorporated herein by reference."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top