In Defense of Iran

[eyeball]

As mentioned earlier, while America did ship Saddam some items that had potential chemical/biological weapon use, it was a few notable European countries plus a UAE firm located in Singapore that shipped the precursors that made the actual weapons.

Well that was pretty lame. You reach a new nadir every day.

[DogOnPorch]

Well that was pretty lame. You reach a new nadir every day.

You're free to provide the evidence re: US materials being turned into chemical weapons.

[bloodyminded]

then the inspections stopped because they were kicked out.

Nope. Pulled out.

Edited February 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Well that was pretty lame. You reach a new nadir every day.

You mean like Canada shipping uranium, napalm, or Agent Orange to the USA?

Oh the humanity!

[GostHacked]

View PostDogOnPorch, on 22 February 2010 - 07:52 AM, said:

Unlike yourself, I don't use the government for military information.

Well, Bush did.

Bush was part of the Government of the United States...the Executive Branch. Thus, your response makes no sense.

I think I am missing something here.

So no guesses what Iraq did with the VX precursors? Or do you also believe that Iraq didn't use nerve gas?

We have established that Iraq had WMDs (biological) before the first gulf war. No one is denying this. But I don't think they had them leading up to the 2003 invasion. They never had the chance to reconstruct the program regardless of them knowing how to.

[eyeball]

You're free to provide the evidence re: US materials being turned into chemical weapons.

I did.

[eyeball]

You mean like Canada shipping uranium, napalm, or Agent Orange to the USA?

Oh the humanity!

Yes BC that's right, in fact we're probably even worse, given we should know better. You didn't honestly think I was giving Canada a free pass did you?

[DogOnPorch]

I did.

Your word doesn't equal proof.

[eyeball]

Your word doesn't equal proof.

It wasn't my word. It was evidence.

[DogOnPorch]

We have established that Iraq had WMDs (biological) before the first gulf war. No one is denying this. But I don't think they had them leading up to the 2003 invasion. They never had the chance to reconstruct the program regardless of them knowing how to.

That's not what I asked. The question was: any guesses as to where the VX nerve agent precursors went?

Re: biological weapons. I assume you mean anthrax...I don't think Saddam managed to weaponize anthrax...but he did have samples provided to him for animal vaccine purposes.

[DogOnPorch]

It wasn't my word. It was evidence.

Well since you're not going to link to it...I'll have to take your word for it...eh?

[eyeball]

Well since you're not going to link to it...I'll have to take your word for it...eh?

Well, we had to take your word for it that the West actually didn't ally with communists to defeat fascists in WW2 so...I don't think there is any amount of evidence that could ever penetrate your denial of the facts.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, we had to take your word for it that the West actually didn't ally with communists to defeat fascists in WW2 so...I don't think there is any amount of evidence that could ever penetrate your denial of the facts.

I didn't disagree with the statement per se, just the bit that fighting WW2 was our chance to allign with Stalin...there wasn't really much of a choice at that point...but I doubt you're aware of the actual history involved.

So...any sign of that proof of yours? No? Didn't think so...

[eyeball]

I didn't disagree with the statement per se,

Bullshit you didn't disagree.

Luckily for the planet, only you and other conspiracy wingnutz actually believe the revisionist crap you spew. Your words.

You made it so clear that the fact we partnered up with communists to defeat fascists was revisionist crap that Michael was compelled to ask you...

Have you ever heard of Stalin ?

Are you one of those righties who deny that The West has ever done anything wrong ever, or are you one of the smart, pragmatic ones ?

Link

So...any sign of that proof of yours? No? Didn't think so...

Proof, what possible use would you ever have for proof?

[DogOnPorch]

Bullshit you didn't disagree.

I diagree with the notion that we fought WW2 in order to get into bed with the Soviets. That is indeed revisionist thinking. Like we went.....

Hmmmm...Hitler or Stalin? Tough choice. Stalin, I suppose...

Churchill wanted to attack the USSR in 1939/40 over Finland. The Soviets became 'our friends' by default when it became clear that Germany would win hands-down unless cooperation occured.

Proof, what possible use would you ever have for proof?

Don't worry, I know you have no credible proof re: America arming Saddam with chemical weapons.

[eyeball]

I diagree with the notion that we fought WW2 in order to get into bed with the Soviets. That is indeed revisionist thinking. Like we went.....

No kidding its revisionist thinking, I never once said that we fought WW2 in order to get into bed with the Soviets. You seem to think you know a thing or two about what constitutes revisionist thinking but you can't even do it yourself without cocking things up. Notice you even italicized your own bullshit for all to see this time.

I'm pretty sure this is what you call your typical strawman argument. If there's anything that moderators should probably be banning around here it's this type of intellectual dishonesty. There is little that ruins a good forum faster.

The Soviets became 'our friends'

Exactly. We became friends.

Then we chose to befriend several blood-thirsty dictators including a few who were just as psychopathic as Hitler once we decided to dump our communist buddies. And them's the facts Jack.

[bloodyminded]

Then we chose to befriend several blood-thirsty dictators including a few who were just as psychopathic as Hitler once we decided to dump our communist buddies. And them's the facts Jack.

It's ok; there's a sober, nuanced, sophisticated answer for this, which is usually summoned at just this time.

The talismanic term: The Cold War.

A euphemism for: Anything Goes. For Us.

[DogOnPorch]

No kidding its revisionist thinking, I never once said that we fought WW2 in order to get into bed with the Soviets. You seem to think you know a thing or two about what constitutes revisionist thinking but you can't even do it yourself without cocking things up. Notice you even italicized your own bullshit for all to see this time.

eyeball: Or really stupid - it's clear our original idiocy was climbing into bed with a communist dictator to defeat a socialist one back in WW2. Then we got all close and intimate with Islamo-fascists to defeat the commies. But don't look now - here we are allied with the commies again, this time to defeat democracy of all things.

I'm pretty sure this is what you call your typical strawman argument. If there's anything that moderators should probably be banning around here it's this type of intellectual dishonesty. There is little that ruins a good forum faster.

You're a revisionist and a liar.

Exactly. We became friends.

Friends in quotation marks. It's clear your understanding of the events of WW2 needs much work.

Then we chose to befriend several blood-thirsty dictators including a few who were just as psychopathic as Hitler once we decided to dump our communist buddies. And them's the facts Jack.

No...that's called revisionism.

[eyeball]

it's clear our original idiocy was climbing into bed with a communist dictator to defeat a socialist one back in WW2[/1].

Now it sounds like you're accusing me of saying that we fought WW2 in order to get into bed with the Soviets, like we'd planned for this all along. You're teetering on the border of implying that I said we started WW2. I've seen a cornered animal before but you take the cake for twisting and turning.

You're a revisionist and a liar.

So much for the adage it takes one to know one.

Friends in quotation marks. It's clear your understanding of the events of WW2 needs much work.

Quite the contrary, if you'll notice I've also used the term ally to describe our relationship with communists and dictators. These relationships can range from allied to conspiratorial, friendly and even intimate.

No...that's called revisionism.

No, its calling a spade a spade.

Edited February 24, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

It's ok; there's a sober, nuanced, sophisticated answer for this, which is usually summoned at just this time.

The talismanic term: The Cold War.

A euphemism for: Anything Goes. For Us.

There's another nuance here that I'm quite certain he's going to fall head first into any time now. He's already stepped on it a few times but...it's just a matter of time.

[DogOnPorch]

Now it sounds like you're accusing me of saying that we fought WW2 in order to get into bed with the Soviets, like we'd planned for this all along. You're teetering on the border of implying that I said we started WW2. I've seen a cornered animal before but you take the cake for twisting and turning.

Your words again: Or really stupid - it's clear our original idiocy was climbing into bed with a communist dictator to defeat a socialist one back in WW2. Then we got all close and intimate with Islamo-fascists to defeat the commies. But don't look now - here we are allied with the commies again, this time to defeat democracy of all things.

[eyeball]

Yup that's what I said alright.

Now how could that possibly be translated as meaning we fought WW2 so we could get into bed with the Soviets?

[DogOnPorch]

Yup that's what I said alright.

Now how could that possibly be translated as meaning we fought WW2 so we could get into bed with the Soviets?

[eyeball]

I diagree with the notion that we fought WW2 in order to get into bed with the Soviets. That is indeed revisionist thinking. Like we went.....

So now you're denying that you said this, you're actually revising your own revisions within minutes of each other now. This is some kind of phenomenon that scientists should be studying.

[DogOnPorch]

You're both a revisionist and a liar as I pointed out.