Smoking gun de-smoked, so to speak

From Yahoo/AP

I'll bet Administration officials will be avoiding questions on this like Neo dodges bullets.

i dont think they can move THAT fast..........

Really? The pre-war claims don''t stand up to scrutiny? Who could''ve guessed?

Here, I''ll fill in for the rebuttal side of the debate:

""Lies, lies, lies!""

""How dare they impugn America! Those Air Force people must be traitors bought off by Saddam, France, and the Dixie Chicks.""

""Who are these people, anyway? Just because they''re UAV experts doesn''t make them qualified enough to evaluate UAVs. Oh wait...""

Yeah, that''s about what it would be.

You know the old statement about how if someone isn''t trusting, it must be because they are untrustworthy? The point of the saying is that we tend to look at things through our own eyes...and that those who expect the worst of people are probably just seeing reflections...

Looking at how Rat thinks others will respond sure tells us a lot about howheresponds to arguments...

As vacantly and dissmissive as you just did now?

I think this is a classic example of if they cant dispute the findings, they insult the source and change the subject.

As vacantly and dissmissive as you just did now?

Please explain what argument I was responding to. If you meant the way I responded to your bitter characterization of a position no one has even offered, you are correct - I dismiss it.

Rat, you have been doing this a lot lately. Instead of waiting for people to respond to arguments or posts, you make snide comments and accusations.

The other day you declared that you had nailed me for ignoring your argument, when I hadn''t even posted a response (when I did respond, pointing out how your argument had been covered by me several posts earlier, you were strangely quiet).

Today, you post a link andin the same postaccuse Ulairi of ignoring it. Hard to make that charge when he hadn''t even posted...

Here, no one has argued with you at all, and you accuse people of dismissing it - before they have stated anything on the topic at all.

I know you ignore a lot of what''s posted, but the premature defensiveness comes off a little odd. Everything ok, buddy?

I think this is a classic example of if they cant dispute the findings, they insult the source and change the subject.

Fang, when Rat Boy writes a snide satire to demonstrate how people will answer his post, it is not changing the subject to comment on it.

When Ulairi introduces a thread that says the CIA thinks SCUD missiles, and components of Iraq''s chemical and biological weapons were moved to Syria, and Rat''s response is: ""the Air Force knew all along that the UAVs wouldn''t be used to atttack US sports stadiums"", THAT''S changing the subject...

"ralcydan" wrote:

When Ulairi introduces a thread that says the CIA thinks SCUD missiles, and components of Iraq''s chemical and biological weapons were moved to Syria, and Rat''s response is: ""the Air Force knew all along that the UAVs wouldn''t be used to atttack US sports stadiums"", THAT''S changing the subject...

Especially when the subject isn''t as solid as it could be. It wasn''t the CIA after all...

It wasn''t the CIA after all

Got it - US intelligence never uses foreign services as sources. Thanks for the clarification on that. [/sarcasm]

Stick with the topic. If you can''t even follow your own standards...

Stick with the topic. If you can''t even follow your own standards...

Hey, if I were you I wouldn''t want me to respond to my posts either

So far, your only defense against the assertions made in the article has been:

"ralcydan" wrote:

Par for the course. Don''t let real facts bother you. Keep on blindly believing whatever your president and his associates tell you. You''ll make a great Cabinet member some day.

Don''t let real facts bother you. Keep on blindly believing whatever your president and his associates tell you.

Hey Rat, maybe I wasn''t trying to defend the assertions made in the article.

I continue to enjoy your imaginary conceptions of my opinions though. Once again, I haven''t even posted a stance, and you have accused me of taking a particular side, ignoring facts, and being a blind believer in whatever I hear. All that without me offering one word on the subject.

Nice job. Keep up the insanity!

You''ve certainly had plenty of opportunity to state your opinion. I count six posts in this two-day old topic where you could have codified your position. Instead, you try to change the topic and you say ""I haven''t even posted a stance"" when you could have very well done that. To quote fang:

I think this is a classic example of if they cant dispute the findings, they insult the source and change the subject.
Instead, you try to change the topic and you say ""I haven''t even posted a stance""

You guys need to do some research on the concept of ""changing the subject"". I had no comment to make on the article, so I didn''t post. I did find your post after the topic to be funny and insightful into understanding you, so I posted a response stating as much.

Sorry. In the future I will only respond to the main post, never again will I post a reply to a specific comment anywhere else in the thread.

By the way, if I say ""I have no stance"" on a topic, that''s technically responding to the topic, not changing the subject. In case your taking notes, remember that one...

"ralcydan" wrote:

By the way, if I say ""I have no stance"" on a topic, that''s technically responding to the topic, not changing the subject. In case your taking notes, remember that one...

I believe I said ""state your opinion"" and ""codified your position,"" neither of which you have done. But, if you don''t feel like commenting on an article that''s extremely damaging to your position, be my guest.

if you don''t feel like commenting on an article that''s extremely damaging to your position, be my guest.

I didn''t comment on it. Thanks for supporting my right not to post.

And if you feel like crazily inventing an opposing position and then ranting on about the imaginary people who hold it, help yourself...

I think this is a classic example of if they cant dispute the findings, they insult the source and change the subject.

Edit: On second thought, this is perfect. After months and months of asking for proof of lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, and misleading statements made by the Administration, there''s now a definitive article that states that the Administration was simply wrong (whether intentionally or not) about what they feared Saddam would use against the world. And this is all ralcydan has to say about it. Yes, on reflection, I much rather prefer the ""no comment"" approach to this.

Yeah, I really hate it when people are ""insulting"":

I''ll bet Administration officials will be avoiding questions on this like Neo dodges bullets
Really? The pre-war claims don''t stand up to scrutiny? Who could''ve guessed?
Here, I''ll fill in for the rebuttal side of the debate:

""Lies, lies, lies!""

""How dare they impugn America! Those Air Force people must be traitors bought off by Saddam, France, and the Dixie Chicks.""

""Who are these people, anyway? Just because they''re UAV experts doesn''t make them qualified enough to evaluate UAVs. Oh wait...""

Yeah, that''s about what it would be.

As vacantly and dissmissive as you just did now?

Congratulations, Rat. No one wanted to argue with you on the weapons inspectors findings on the UAVs. Given how maturely you''ve handled having the thread to your self, I can''t imagine why...

Maybe you can keep posting here over and over to get your unopposed thread to 2 pages...

Fang, when Rat Boy writes a snide satire to demonstrate how people will answer his post, it is not changing the subject to comment on it.

True, though you must admit its odd you commented on the snide remark and have chosen not to argue the news item. I would have fully expected someone to say its not significant enough. Something akin to a misdemeanor. I''d buy that. Yield nothing I guess.

When Ulairi introduces a thread that says the CIA thinks SCUD missiles, and components of Iraq''s chemical and biological weapons were moved to Syria, and Rat''s response is: ""the Air Force knew all along that the UAVs wouldn''t be used to atttack US sports stadiums"", THAT''S changing the subject...

Again true. However, if they are starting to ressurrect Syria bashing again... Also, I havent read the thread but if Ratboy''s statement is used to express distrust with CIA findings, its valid in context.

Just to give you purpose again:

After months and months of asking for proof of lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, and misleading statements made by the Administration there''s now a definitive article that states that the Administration was simply wrong

Yes, you''ve uncovered the truth - George Bush went to war to prevent model airplanes from attacking sports arenas, and it was all a lie!

Maybe I don''t have anything to say since it''s a non-issue. The Iraqis showed us the UAVs before the war. We were pretty sure that in their current form they were no threat. Does this mean that 10 years from now, terrorists couldn''t have built upon this technology and used it to carry out attacks against American interests or on American soil? Luckily people with more concern for the American people are answering that question.

Nobody ever said we went to war because Saddam was about to lob a nuke at us or drop smallpox over Mile High Stadium. The President made it very clear in the State of the Union that we were acting in spite of the fact that the threat wasn''t imminent.

Saddam liked WMDs. Saddam hated us. That meant Saddam had to go. I''m sorry you don''t like it, but as I said, luckily it wasn''t up to you.

"ralcydan" wrote:

The President made it very clear in the State of the Union that we were acting in spite of the fact that the threat wasn''t imminent.

And that alone makes a war to defeat a ""maybe"" unjustifiable by any reasonable standard. Amazing how you can say that, but still say he was a threat to the US and needed to be taken out now.

And that alone makes a war to defeat a maybe unjustifiable by any reasonable standard.

Obviously not, since most of America and Congress supported it. Maybe you should remember that you don''t have a monopoly on ""reasonable""...

Amazing how you can say that, but still say he was a threat to the US and needed to be taken out now.

Why? What kind of person sees a threat and decides not to act on it, because it isn''t big or close enough? Not a ""reasonable"" one, if you ask me...

"ralcydan" wrote:

Why? What kind of person sees a threat and decides not to act on it, because it isn''t big or close enough? Not a ""reasonable"" one, if you ask me...

Hey, you''re the one saying Saddam wasn''t an imminent threat. Funny, now it looks like you endorsed attacking a country that wasn''t a threat to the United States.

Hey, you''re the one saying Saddam wasn''t an imminent threat. Funny, now it looks like you endorsed attacking a country that wasn''t a threat to the United States.

Now it looks like you can''t keep up with an argument if there are commas involved. Read your own statement. Not being an ""imminent threat"" is not the same as not being ""a threat"". Read it slowly if you need to...

"ralcydan" wrote:

Not being an ""imminent threat"" is not the same as not being ""a threat"".

Despite your doublespeak, it can be said that Iraq was not a threat to the US. Even if you are right and they would eventually become the threat they were alleged to have become, they were not one when the war was launched. Therefore, the US attacked a country that posed no threat to them. Now, would you like me to draw a flow-chart to diagram this for you, or would you like to hold off on the insults to my intelligence?

And maybe we should go back to this statement of yours:

The Iraqis showed us the UAVs before the war. We were pretty sure that in their current form they were no threat.

An assertion by you that isn''t held up by this assertion by Colin Powell during the UN presentation:

However, Iraq is now concentrating not on these airplanes, but on developing and testing smaller UAVs, such as this.

UAVs are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons.

There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth. One of these lies is graphically and indisputably demonstrated by intelligence we collected on June 27, last year.

According to Iraq''s December 7 declaration, its UAVs have a range of only 80 kilometers. But we detected one of Iraq''s newest UAVs in a test flight that went 500 kilometers nonstop on autopilot in the race track pattern depicted here.

Not only is this test well in excess of the 150 kilometers that the United Nations permits, the test was left out of Iraq''s December 7th declaration. The UAV was flown around and around and around in a circle. And so, that its 80 kilometer limit really was 500 kilometers unrefueled and on autopilot, violative of all of its obligations under 1441.

The linkages over the past 10 years between Iraq''s UAV program and biological and chemical warfare agents are of deep concern to us.

Iraq could use these small UAVs which have a wingspan of only a few meters to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or if transported, to other countries, including the United States.

Seems clear that the Administration considered them a threat ""in their current form."" Try again.

it can be said that Iraq was not a threat to the US

It can also be said that Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan who are never planning to go the US aren''t a threat to New Yorkers, but that load of horsesh*t doesn''t fly with me either. A threat is ""a possible danger"". Saddam was a threat. That isn''t doublespeak, it''s the very definition of the thing.

Now, would you like me to draw a flow-chart to diagram this for you, or would you like to hold off on the insults to my intelligence?

I''ll take the flow chart.

Edit:

ralcydan wrote:
The Iraqis showed us the UAVs before the war. We were pretty sure that in their current form they were no threat.

Rat Boy wrote:
An assertion by you that isn''t held up by this assertion by Colin Powell during the UN presentation:

The Iraqis showed us the UAVs after Colin Powell''s speech. Nice try though.

Funny how you can spend all that time missing the point.

A threat is ""a possible danger"". Saddam was a threat.

Saddam could not have threatened the US with the sanctions regime in place. You say it is a ""possible danger;"" the war in Iraq proved that possibility quite impossible, as well. That you cannot deny.

The Iraqis showed us the UAVs after Colin Powell''s speech.

So, are you now saying the US was proven wrong in its assertions on Iraq in this circumstance? Seems by that statement that the Iraqis came out and dispproved an accusation made by Washington.

Saddam could not have threatened the US with the sanctions regime in place.

Sure he could have.

the war in Iraq proved that possibility quite impossible

And once again, I guess it would be ""impossible"" for the US to use nukes, since Baghdad isn''t a smoking hole.

So, are you now saying the US was proven wrong in its assertions on Iraq in this circumstance?

The UAVs as currently configured wouldn''t be used to deploy biological agents. But there is no reason to think that UAVs couldn''t be configured for this, which is all the administration claimed.