So where are they, Mr Blair?

Not one illegal warhead. Not one drum of chemicals. Not one incriminating document. Not one shred of evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in more than a month of war and occupation

20 April 2003

So where are they? In case we forget, distracted by the thought of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, looted museums and gathering political chaos, the proclaimed purpose of this war, vainly pursued by Britain and the US through the United Nations, was to disarm Saddam Hussein and to destroy weapons of mass destruction deemed a menace to the entire world.

But, Mr Blair, where are they? A month has passed since American and British troops entered Iraq, more than a week since the fall of Baghdad. But thus far not even a sniff. Not a drum of VX or mustard gas, not a phial of botulin or anthrax, not a shred of evidence that Iraq was assembling a nuclear weapons programme.

But that wasn't what they told us. Remember Colin Powell at the Security Council two months ago (though today it seems another age on another planet): the charts, the grainy intelligence satellite pictures, the crackly tapes of the intercepted phone conversations among Iraqi officials? How plausible it all sounded, especially when propounded by the most plausible figure in the Bush ad- ministration.

And what about those other claims, wheeled out on various occasions by Messrs Bush, Blair, Cheney and Rumsfeld? The Iraqi drones that were supposed to be able to attack the US east coast, the imports of aluminium tubes allegedly intended for centrifuges to enrich uranium, the unaccounted-for lethal nerve and germ agents, in quantities specified down to the last gallon or pound, as if exact numbers alone constituted proof. All, it seems, egregious products of the imagination of the intelligence services – one commodity whose existence need never be doubted.

Maybe the Saddam regime was diabolically cunning in the concealment of these weap-ons, but the shambolic manner of its passing suggests otherwise. Maybe, as those "US officials" continue to suggest from behind their comfortable screen of anonymity, the weapons have been shipped to Syria for "safekeeping". But that theory too is dismissed by independent experts.

Indeed, it collapses at the first serious examination. Why should Saddam part with his most effective means of defence, when the survival of his regime and himself was on the line? Nor will that hoary and disingenuous line advanced by our political masters wash any longer – oh yes, we know a lot more, but if we told you, we would be showing our hand to Saddam and endangering precious intelligence sources.

Just believe us, old boy, the Government told us, and you'll see we were right all along. And the British, being on the whole a reasonable and trusting people, mostly accepted the word of their rulers.

Well, Saddam is now gone. And with him has disappeared any conceivable risk to those intelligence sources (assuming they ever existed). So just what was this information on the basis of which Washington and its faithful ally launched an unprovoked invasion of a ramshackle third world country? A country with a very nasty regime to be sure, but not a great deal nastier than some other potential candidates for "liberation" in the Middle East and elsewhere.

If only for the credibility and reputation of our country, this newspaper hopes that enough weapons of mass destruction will be discovered to justify a war that has grievously weakened the UN, strained the Atlantic alliance and split the European Union.

But they'd better be found pretty soon. Having rushed into war to suit its own military and domestic electoral timetable, the Bush administration now has the nerve to claim that a year may be required to establish the whereabouts of the WMD – and that it may never do so unless led to them by co-operative Iraqis. But no longer can London and Washington rely simply on the impossibility for the former Iraqi regime to prove a negative, that the weapons do not exist. It is up to the "coalition" of two to provide proof positive that they do.

This pointless war cannot be un-made. But we urgently need to know that the invasion was not illegal as well. With Britain and the US in full control of Iraq, a month should suffice. If no "smoking gun" has turned up by then, a full parliamentary inquiry is essential – into the competence and accountability of the intelligence services, and into how our Government used them to sell a mistaken and reckless policy.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=398837&host=6&dir=141

...there.

Tell me again how it was not about Oil and Geopolitical Control.

WMD? who cares? is that all you people can concern yourself with?
Peronally, I could care less if we ever find any...
The United States of America finally stood up for the beliefs we profess..we finally have a president with BALLS!
So keep on looking for your validations, pantywaists of America.
Who really gives a shit? We won...democarcy won..freedom won...pure and simple

Who could believe that liar anyway? The risk was too great. The removal of Saddam has saved hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and given them freedom.

Yet people still think there's something to complain about.
The antiwar movement played a cynical game with the lives of the Iraqi people and were shown up.

i, personally, can't wait until we find some 10 year old sarin in a rusting warhead that the administration holds up proudly as it says, "see?"

i will then log on to laindymedia and see bush admirer and his kind talk about how this justifies the war.

do you not remember that's what justified going in? "saddam has had 12 years to disarm!" i kept hearing from this clique. "he's not disarming!"

well, now its about getting rid of saddam and freeing the iraqis. and after the iraqis make it clear they don't want us there anymore it'll be about something else.

it seemed to me like the administration changed the rationalization so many times so fast people got dizzy. you can do that when you own the "liberal" media.

...is Liberal when there is a "Liberal" in office.

It is NeoCon when there is a Fascist in office.

It makes sense given that the corrupt politicians of both parties serve the same masters.

It is the Hegelian Dialectic at work. When they want to get something done that only a Liberal pResident can do then we get a Liberal pResident.

When they want something only a "Convervative" can do then we have a "Conservative" pResident.

Example:

Welfare Reform. No Republican would have dared do it as they would have been flayed alive.

Defense Spending: Did somebody say "Republican".

So when we needed a nice agressive war in the middle east the Puppet Masters put Duhbya in office. The public has been thororoughly conditioned to accept a "Republican" as a "good" War Chief.

This War was NEVER about WMDs© (The White House 2001).

It was about establishing a foothold to exercise greater control. In this case over the Muslim World. The U.S. is conquered territory.

However they do have a Tiger by the tail. Keep hammering to wake people up. That is one of their biggest fears is that Americans will wake up. We are one of the biggest collection on individualist misfits that you could ever hope to run into. The "Spirit of 76'" is not dead just sleeping.

That's why the Media is kept under such tight control. If enough people started becoming aware of how they were being screwed then the Puppet Masters could not stem the tide. Keep hammering away.

NEVER EVER EVER give up. It's that important folks.

we know how the press works and who contols them. we are also smart enough and have the common sense to know what is really going on and many common sense folks are interviewed by the right even though those who are interviewed are on the right. you know why? becausse they have common sense.

"The removal of Saddam has saved hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and given them freedom. "

"The removal of Saddam has saved hundreds of thousands " Yeah, Saddam was a real threat. So much a threat that none of his neighbors wanted to join in the coalition to fight him. So much a threat that we whupped his ass in three weeks.

And as for giving freedom, freedom isn't given, its taken. If you give something to someone, they owe you. Lets wait and see what happens before you say we gave Iraqi's freedom. It seems like the protests that are occuring there are saying, "we aint free yet."
Perhaps things will get better and the redcoats will leave with grace, but the jury is out on this one.

"The removal of Saddam has saved hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and given them freedom. "

"The removal of Saddam has saved hundreds of thousands " Yeah, Saddam was a real threat. So much a threat that none of his neighbors wanted to join in the coalition to fight him. So much a threat that we whupped his ass in three weeks.

And as for giving freedom, freedom isn't given, its taken. If you give something to someone, they owe you. Lets wait and see what happens before you say we gave Iraqi's freedom. It seems like the protests that are occuring there are saying, "we aint free yet."
Perhaps things will get better and the redcoats will leave with grace, but the jury is out on this one.

...but this is interesting, if it pans out. From the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert
By JUDITH MILLER


WITH THE 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION, south of Baghdad, Iraq, April 20 — A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said.

They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs.

The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said.

The Americans said the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein's government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990's, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq's giant weapons plants.

Well, well, well. WMD. Shipping them to Syria. Ties with Al Qaeda.

America's worst nightmare, because it may confirm the suspicion that such weapons might be used against us. The Left's worst nightmare, because it may prove they were wrong.

Not that they'll admit it. The stuff was planted, the "scientist" is a shill, the NYT is a propaganda rag...any and every excuse. Predictable.

1 the united nations was conducting weapons inspections in Iraq
2 the united states says that the Iraqis were in violation of these resolutions
3 the united nations states that Iraq was complying with weapons inspectors (slowly)
4 the united states says "no" they have WMD, and will use them if given the chance
5 the united nations security council vetos a war resolution
6 the united states says "no" Iraq is a danger to the world and posesses WMD
7 the united states invades Iraq
8 Iraq uses no WMD against coalition forces
9 the united states finds no WMD
10 later one "scientist" claims they were destroyed days before the invasion
How convienient..........
Its seems that the united states would be able to find more than one "scientist" to back thier story,
especially from someone who knows so much.
No name given, no job description relating prior histories
Well then, he must be able to provide numerous locations where the "alleged" disposal took place.
ps
the link "neo" gave is unusable

I am not NEO. I am daveman. You hacked the wrong guy. Get over it. Where am I at? You need me to make it easy for you? Post a news article? Send you a brochure? Surely a Mazter H@kker such as yourself, calling on the Mighty Power of the Official H@kker Noze Ring (tm), can figure out where a guy is.

Back on topic: I knew you wouldn't buy it; can't have anything make you look wrong, can we? I'm amazed you didn't shout, "But they admitted they were disarming! He said they were destroying WMD!" You're so predictable.

The link is good. You have to sign up; it's free and easy. Need me to walk you through it?

Please feel free to address the issue.......

...any attention at all?

Read the link.

did you read the articles in the weblinks
didnt think so.......
i love how you avoid the main issue at hand......
sUKKa

Yes, I read it. I countered with another link, which you apparently couldn't figure out how to read.

What about this is giving you so much trouble?

"sUKKa"? How old are you? Twelve?

i dont give my name
or
give passwords to any websites
dont need to
your the one trying to justify your cause
surely]
you can find another relevant post
for me........
ps
i like taunting you
because
you lose your cool
and
lose your ability to rationally argue the points o f the argument
hahahhhahahhhahh
im 35
dick (i guess i lose the argument again for profanity_)

...like "sUKKa" and "dick" and "hahahhhahahhhahh"?

You're too much. 35 goin on 12.

I don't lose my cool. Your attempts to aggravate me only make you look foolish.

You don't give your name or password? You don't have to. Make up a username and set up a Hotmail account.

Or are you afraid of what you'll read on that link?

please provide relative (alternative) links to support your argument.
pleeeze dont lose your cool
it only makes you look stupid

neocon

you are a traitor to the constitution

waiting for your answer
its up to you to prove your argument
not me
hahahhahah
dildoe
(ps)
have you gotten laid lately?
-
-
didnt think so
pss
say H(I
to
palmala
and
her
five friends

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030421/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_chemical_weapons&cid=540&ncid=1473

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030421/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_us_weapons&cid=1514&ncid=1473

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/21/sprj.irq.chemical.weapons.ap/index.html

These all reference the NYT article that you had so much trouble getting in to.

You keep saying I should post items relevant to the current discussion. So, I'm curious...how is my sex life relevant?

I have to revise my estimate of your emotional age...you're down to 9 now.

didnt want to be named for fear of what?
saddam hussain
was the guy interviewed?
or
just slipped a note to the journalist?
you proved yourself to be a program
hows
it feel
to
live life
as a brainwashed program?
ps
did you even read these articles?
hahhahahhahah
what a ignorant fool
just
like
the babies dropped on the floor fron thier incubators/////////
ps
im 9 years old eh?
did you read these articles?
can you be
any more
vague and obscure?

Apparently, I do.

He didn't want to be named for fear of reprisal from regime remnants.

You have proven your self to be an idiot. One warning: crack kills.

Any time you have anything rational to say, go ahead. I'm still waiting.

Hey, I'm waiting fo rsomething else, too...an admission from you that you hacked the wrong guy.

Just a few thoughts:

One article and one, potentially bought off or threatened, Scientist are the beginnings of an argument but they by no means prove the case.
Articles deriving from the original add no evidence. They are just that - derivatives of the initial report and represent no new data.

Certainly this does not prove the existence of any threat against the United States.
No significant stockpiles have been found to have existed.
No Delivery Systems have been found or documented to exist.
One shut down site does not make the case for an invasion and conquest.

It amounts to “see, see, he really did have something”. Whoopee.
No rational argumenter on this side of the aisle was ever prepared to say none whatsoever existed. Just that there were none of any significance.
That is still true even IF this proves to be a bona fide site.

Again we have to return to the following as it never been answered:

The Bush Junta said that they KNEW where the weapons were.
They would not, or could not, give valid information to the Arms Inspectors.
The Inspectors called every “lead” they gave them “Trash” and a waste of time.

That Saddam had a ROBUST NBC weapons program and was an imminent threat.
NO evidence exists to substantiate that case.

IF the Bush Junta had sufficient information to launch a War then they should have been able to drive, or walk, right up to the Weapons Site(s). They Can’t.

Regardless of how you try to spin it the Bush Junta is left bare ass naked caught in a series of lies to justify an illegal aggressive war.

This War was NEVER about so-called WMDs© (2001 The White House).

"Just that there were none of any significance. "

Oh, so now it's just that they didn't have ENOUGH WMD. I knew that was coming.

By the way, do a search of my posts over the last few weeks and you'll find numerous absolute refutations of all of your conscious lies concerning the existence of WMD.

Did you think you'd try to slip them back thru again like a wrinkled dollar bill into a coin changer.

By the way, what's the point of even discussing this or positing when they will be found since you will not and can not accept any proof otherwise. You've said all along that if any ARE found you've already convinced yourself that they will have been planted.



Shame on you Dio.

...patience, SF, Diogenes.

Lack of proof of their existence (yet) is not proof that none exist.

it's this logic of yours that said in 1492 that the earth was flat, because there was no proof it was round.

"By the way, what's the point of even discussing this or positing when they will be found since you will not and can not accept any proof otherwise. You've said all along that if any ARE found you've already convinced yourself that they will have been planted."

Fresca's got your number, Diogenes. You've decided already. Nothing will convince you otherwise.

That's keeping an open mind!

...meant to say, "It's this logic of yours that said in 1492, before Columbus returned to Europe, that the earth was flat because there was no proof it was round."

...there are a few "small" holes in your arguments:

“Lack of proof of their existence (yet) is not proof that none exist. “

Translation: No proof exists.

“it's this logic of yours that said in 1492 that the earth was flat, because there was no proof it was round.”

Actually the Flat Earth story is a myth. That may have been the view among the ignorant, but the educated classes were well aware of the shape of the Earth and had been since AT LEAST the Classical Age of Greece. The Greek Ptolemies even had made Maps based upon a Spherical Earth and had calculated it’s size (they were pretty close considering the crude instruments they had). The Great Pyramid at Giza is in the exact Geometric Center of the World’s Land Masses. That could only have been done if they knew that the Earth was Spherical.
The Maps Columbus used, derivatives of the Piri Reis Maps, even used Spherical Trigonometry in their construction. See Professor Charles Hapgood’s “Maps of The Ancient Sea Kings”.

Like the Mythical Flat Earth the Mythical Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction® do not exist. Why do I think of Grimm’s Fairy Tales?

As for “fresca” having my number his post proves nothing and offers nothing other than childish derision to support his case. Much like you.

“Lack of proof of their existence (yet) is not proof that none exist. “

"Translation: No proof exists."

Further translation: None exists, therefore, none will EVER exist.

To extend: 500 years ago, there were no digital computers. Therefore, there are none now.

Try again, Diogenes.

...throw in a totally irrelevant datum and then act like you just invented the wheel.

GIGO

You are well trained davie, but I don't bite on your standard PsyOps crap. I'm well trained too.

...you offer no refutation of the logic. Hmmm...

Looks like I was right.

"...but I don't bite on your standard PsyOps crap."

It's not standard; it's my own home brew.

...you sure are patient with these weasels.
Far more than I am. I appreciate the thoughtful
analysis, dissecting their script/spin however.

Who cares? A Good Thing has been done. As opposed to a Bad Thing, which was to let the situation drag on with a hostile dictator free to pass nasty weapons on to the bad Al Qaeda men who wouldkill many innocent US civilians. As for the Iraqi civilians who died, well, the sanctions would have killed many more than that number, not to mention the people Saddams Mukhabarat would have maimed and tortured.

Besides, the vast majority of Iraqis, Shias and Kurds wholeheartedlyapproved of the removal of Saddam.

That's what evil does, it forces good people into the position of having to make horrible choices like weighing up the number of lives lost from either option.

Bush did the right thing. Saddam's repellent regime was justification enough.

...most of the people in here don't see it that way.

No, they are so opposed to the Bush administration, they're willing to sacrifice any number of little brown people to get their way.

Good thing they didn't.

...having lost the argument we now get the character assassination?

Davie can't allow the loss to stand. It destroys his spin.

Solution: Bury the earlier debate under Posts consisting of character assassination and name calling.

...we (CIA) put him in, let him kill and torture to
his hearts' content, got him to start a war with Iran
(helping both sides, of course) and then lured him into an
invasion of Kuwait and killed a shit load of civilians.
Then we poisoned the area with DU while blocking medical
supplies, shot up their water and power systems (biowar)
and for 12 years ran a bombing campaign on this country.
Now we replace the terrible Saddam political machine with
his former thugs who now report to the pentagon.
All we did was cut out the middle man and provide a way
to enrich military contracts and recruit more fanatics
to strike at the people here. Good going.

Caveman: "Lack of proof of their existence (yet) is not proof that none exist. "

You fuckin' idiot, you can't prove a negative. You must prove they exist, it is not up to us to prove their non-exisitance.

God, you are dumb....

gEt your head outa Dio's ass.

We know they exist. We've known all along. We allowed them to be imported.
However, NO proof exists for them ever having been destroyed. Therefore, all existing evidence points to the proof of their existence.
You people are either bad liars or morons.
This is all first year logic.

a) proof exists that WMD were in Sadam's possesion.
b) no proof exists for their being destroyed
c) the ONLY conclusion is that they still exist.

If not, give some compelling evidence otherwise or shut the fuck up.

Those WMD's are in Syria. Or in Iran. Or whichever country we invade next, that's where those WMD's are.

Diogenes:
"Notice how having lost the argument we now get the character assassination?"

Uh, I didn't lose...and as for character assassination, you don't have any.

KPC:
"You fuckin' idiot, you can't prove a negative. You must prove they exist, it is not up to us to prove their non-exisitance."

That's not what I said. Diogenes asserts that there is no proof of their existence, so they don't exist. My point is that there being no proof of their existence is NOT proof they don't exist.

Time will tell. Have patience; all will be revealed...and then you won't believe it anyway.

-just about anything. We are the television people.

All will be revealed when the CIA plants those WMD where I tell them to. Then, we'll "find" them.

Caveman: "That's not what I said. Diogenes asserts that there is no proof of their existence, so they don't exist. My point is that there being no proof of their existence is NOT proof they don't exist. "

What are you, a fuckin' illiterate or what? I just got finished pointing out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something DOES NOT EXIST..and you say, "that is not what I said..." and then proceed to repeat the same stupidity. I think being a fuckin' idiot is a Bushite prereq, judging by your mental performance.

Which is all besides the point. Existance does not prove threat, and in any case NONE of it justified invasion...

...so fuck off...and take your stale ass friend with you....

...misrepresents my position. I did not say that Saddam had nothing. I said there is no proof that he has anything significant left.

There is no proof that Saddam had any significant stocks of banned weapons.

The Inspectors found none.

The Bush Junta's information given to the Inspectors was in their words Trash.

0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0

No proof exists. I don't care how many times you try to spin it some other way you cannot avoid that fact.

The Bush Junta LIED.

It is really that simple.

"IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something DOES NOT EXIST"

Do you really want to stick with this assertion KFC?
We'll give you a chance to retract.
C'mon now, think again.

fresca, I know you've been with my flock doing unspeakable things to them.
Prove you haven't.

"...misrepresents my position. I did not say that Saddam had nothing. I said there is no proof that he has anything significant left.

There is no proof that Saddam had any significant stocks of banned weapons.

The Inspectors found none. "

Do you even proof-read your posts before uploading? Quite frankly, you're making an ass of yourself. For weeks you've been getting hammered every time you try to float you're inane and illogical, "there are no WMD's(sic) in Iraq" fantasies. While it's nice to see that you've finally given that wholesale lie up, since you've been soundly refuted time and time again, it's unbelievable that you are now taking a step back and saying that, "well, you know, they're there but not really enough do matter." What a typical retreat when you're obviously beaten. Not to mention your wholesale denial of any validity within recent reports of WMD info given up by a captured Iraqi leader. You just CANNOT accept defeat can you?

How will your tune change next? And, make no mistake, you have changed your tune. You've been trampled. Easily and thoroughly.

...my position is consistent. I have maintained that there is no proof of the existence of any significant amount of banned weapons.

No current evidence exists to contradict that position.

There are no banned weapons that the Bush Junta can put their hands on to justify their position and the invasion.

If their intelligence was good enough to justify an invasion and conquest of another country they should be able to drive up to the sites with Media Camera Crews in tow.

They have not done so.

So, when they said they had the Intelligence to prove it they LIED.

No significant quatity of banned weapons or the systems to deliver them exists.

So let me repeat this in small words: THEY LIED.

The only other lack of intelligence is by those who robotically reapeat the mantra of Weapons of Mass Destraction oops Destruction and expect the repetition to make it true.

You can make the same tired arguments ad infinitum, or nauseam - your choice, and it will still not make the LIE true.

"fresca, I know you've been with my flock doing unspeakable things to them.
Prove you haven't."

I assume you feel that this is a clever response backing up KFC's posit that the non-existence of something cannot be proven.
Of course it's possible to prove the non-existence of certain situations. KFC seems to feel that it is an absolute immpossibility given his use of emphatic caps.

If I claim that a covered box does not contain an apple, lifting the lid to reveal an empty box is proof of the apple in the boxs' non-existence.

So again, the existence of WMD in Iraq has never been in question. The onus is on you to prove that they have been destroyed. Which you cannot do because we have current proof of their continued existence (of course, I realize that this is all fabrication and lies in your mind so I won't bother linking to articles.) . Furthermore, all evidence and reason point to Iraq, most assuredly NOT destroying their stockpiles. Sadam endured sanctions instead of giving verification. Inspectors were always there to monitor the destruction of WMD, not search them out. The failure of inspectors to find these weapons is a strawman; they were never looking for them to begin with.

Conclusion: There is no reason whatsoever to believe that WMD somehow miraculously dissapeared from Iraq short of Sadam transferring them or destroying them in the very near past. Everything we know points to the contrary.

And just so you know, I couldn't care less about whether or not WMD are found other than the joy of watching you squirm. I believe we will find them but so what. This war is a complete success because Sadam is gone at minimal cost of human life and that's all I ever wanted.

If that's what you need to believe Dio, that's cool.
Enjoy yourself in your ever shifting fantasy world.
The rest of the world will move on now.

...for wmd is only in it's infancy. I beg we give it time to mature. Only them will the truth be known. All we have now is one side that "knows" they exist and those who "know" they do not exist. Once the fighting is completely over and efforts in the search for these weapons can be intensified we will have our answer. It doesn't really matter however, if they are found, people like Diogenes will insist that they were somehow planted or are outdated or whatever, and if they are not found others will say they were destroyed just before the war or that they have been moved to Syria or Iran.

Daveman, Fresca - You are wasting your time trying to argue with Diogenes. His mind is made up. George Bush, in his eyes, is the enemy. Anything Bush or anyone affiliated with the Bush administration says is a lie. Diogenes cannot be swayed from this. It is in his blood to foster such feelings towards the government, it seems to make him feel powerful in some way.

I do believe the WMD will be found over time, but that will change nothing in the eyes of those who REFUSE to see.

To Diogenes: Please refrain form the useless dribble of my having no argument, or my use of character assassination - we've heard it all before, it's getting kind of stale.

Well young man (just kidding) - you are logic chopping again (not kidding).

However, my argument is not founded upon demanding proof of a negative.

The Bush Junta made a positive statement i.e., that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Distraction oops there I go again - Weapons of Mass Destruction®.

They made a positive statement - Colin Powell even got up in front of the U.N. to forward the LIE. Not my fault that his “evidence” was fatally flawed and nonexistent.

My position is founded upon the ABSENCE of evidence to prove the positive statement.

Again and again it was stated that the Purpose of this War Crime was to disarm Saddam from the nonexistent massive horde (and nearly unlimited production facilities all cleverly hidden in the backs of Semi Trailers) of Weapons of Mass Distraction - oops Destruction®.

The evidence supporting the positive statement does not exist.

There is no way they could not know the evidence did not exist as it was, after all, their evidence.

Now thousands of people are DEAD. GOT THAT - D-E-A-D.

A country has been put to ruin.

A fabulous Treasure Trove of History has been looted and plundered - in what increasingly looks like pre-planned attacks on the Iraqi National Museum - designed to take advantage of the chaos created by the U.S. Attack.

Many more people WILL DIE as a result of the destruction of Iraqi Infrastructure - Sanitation, Water, and Food Production and Distribution.

The publicly stated rationale for this War Crime is, and has been all along, a LIE.

You may well pretend that your contorted demonstration proves something. However, it does not.

As for moving on. Let us see how many more mountains of corpses we can create. Great fun eh?

"Daveman, Fresca - You are wasting your time trying to argue with Diogenes. His mind is made up."

You're right and I should know better, but it's sorta like slowing down to look at a car crash.

You make a good point. Some people on both sides will never be satisfied with whatever is revealed about Iraqs WMD. I believe we will find them, but I would not support going into Syria or Iran to get them if that was the next suggested step. At a certain point we need to accept that we can only do so much.
I am happy that the war is over and was such a success with so little damage, human and otherwise.

...and I will start a Thread with a public admission of error.

Needless to say I feel confident that I will not have to.

What would you require in order to be proven wrong?
Certainly all links to news sources (recent reports of Iraqi leaders giving up WMD info for instance) have been systematically denied by you as lies and fabrication, so that's out. I'm not going to even waste my time with that one.
As far as simple logic goes, I've shown that your theory of no, er excuse me, your new theory of not "enough" WMD is faulty as you have no evidence at all of the destruction of something which has been documented and witnessed to exist over and over and over and over again.
You can't accept the possibility that even the absolute BEST intel just might not be sharp enough to "lead the forces to WMD with embedded news crews in tow". That maybe it might take some time to find ANYTHING that is probvably hidden or forgotten in an area the size of california.
So tell me Dio, what sort of appeal to your intellect will be suficient? What will not send you into an apoplectic fit of paranoid anti-Bush rantings? Tell me?

...independently verified sites and weapons in such quantity that there is no question that it represented an attempt to build up a stockpile sufficient to launch a War of Aggression. Verified by a non-aligned 3rd Party such as the U.N.. Even better would be verification by a partisan anti-Bush Junta source - but like I said I do not expect to have to make good.

I am a Poker Player not a Gambler.

There is however one major problem and hurdle to get over at this late stage of the game:

The Bush Junta claimed to KNOW. Not suppostion, not speculation, THEY KNEW. However, they seem to be suffering from an evidence deficit.

And if we had sufficient Intelligence to launch a "Pre-Emptive" strike it should have been confirmable, hard evidence. Not "we think" he has them. We KNOW he has them. Which the latter is what the Junta claimed.

Where's the Beef?

"weapons in such quantity "

So then, a vial of sarin or VX or a misslie or two equipped with C or B capable delivery systems would suffice correct. I mean how much is sufficient? How many people would need to be in danger for you to be convinced?

"The Bush Junta claimed to KNOW. Not suppostion, not speculation, THEY KNEW. However, they seem to be suffering from an evidence deficit. "

This means nothing. They KNEW that Sadam existed as well, but we haven't found him either. Are you suggesting that this proves he never existed either?

The best analogy so far was brought up by someone earlier last week.
I know my neighbor has car keys. I know for certain he has them because I've seen him use them every day. I've seen him walking to and from his house with them. Furthermore, I sold him the keys with the car. He still has the car. It's safe to say he still has the keys.Because I don't know exactly where they are does not mean he doesn't have them.

I think your car keys analogy needs to be revamped to accurately describe the
situation......
I know my neighboor has WMD
I know because i sold the WMD to him.
(Even though he gassed his family and half the neighboorhood)
Ive seen the WMD because i have the reports to prove it
and i carry out high tech surveillance of his house.
My neighboor and I are in a fight now because he
invaded one of my buisiness partners house.
About 12 years ago
I blew up my neighboors house.
Since that time I have conducted no-flyzones and
not let any supplies enter his house.
(im pretty sure he doesent like me anymore)
But then again I dont like him either......
I claimed to the local police that he was a threat to the city
and was hiding WMD under his bed.
The police knocked but he wouldnt let them in
I said hes hiding them, i KNOW he is
The police said "we have no evidence to kick in his door"
I said "i dont need you, ill do it myself, because I KNOW he has WMD"
i burned down his house
I still havent found the WMD
BUT I KNOW THAT THEY ARE THERE!!
I KNOW
I KNOW
I KNOW

"Daveman, Fresca - You are wasting your time trying to argue with Diogenes. His mind is made up."

That's for sure. But it's like having a sore in your mouth...even though it hurts, you poke it with your tongue every once in a while.

Diogenes, the Bush administration said they know Saddam has WMD. They did NOT say they know where they had them. The Saddam regime had a vested interest in keeping the things hidden; they're not lying around on the street, waiting to be stumbled over. The radioactives that were found? The UN inspectors did not know the underground complex even existed, even though they had been to the site. Now, do the math...if there was one site the inspectors did not know existed in a country with an interest in keeping things hidden, one may safely presume there are dozens of such hidden sites.

"Verified by a non-aligned 3rd Party such as the U.N." You have GOT to be kidding. The UN had a huge interest in keeping Saddam in power. They were raking off massive amounts of cash to administer the oil-for-food program, and now they're dragging their feet on lifting the sanctions, so the cash river can keep flowing. The UN is hardly non-aligned. Pick somebody else.

KPC: "You fuckin' idiot, you can't prove a negative. You must prove they exist, it is not up to us to prove their non-exisitance. "
I didn't ask you to prove they don't exist. I'm saying the concrete, irrefutable, put-your-hand-on-it proof is not there YET to prove they do. Not that you'll believe it; you've already made up your mind.
"I just got finished pointing out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something DOES NOT EXIST..."
Tell that to Diogenes...he thinks he's done it.

What is so hard here? My statement is true. Lack of proof something exists is not proof it doesn't exist. Do you believe in a higher power? Got any proof it exists? No? Guess it doesn't exist, then, according to what you're using instead of logic.

systemfailure: Yawn. BTW: I am not NEO. You hacked the wrong guy. Turn in you M@zter H@kkerz Nose Ring (tm).

the Bush administration said they know Saddam has WMD. They did NOT say they know where they had them?
What does that mean?
How did they know they still had WMD after the First Gulf War?
Please define "WMD" also.....
does this include nuclear weapons
or
Biological weapons
or
Chemical weapons?
It seems that a president might want to follow the same protocol that
the police department uses when they recieve a search warrant for
raiding a house.
the search warrant always specifies
What you are looking for
and what places within the house are subject to search
and
what evidence you have to determine "probable cause"
this is why the
un security council
vetoed the "war" effort
because
they werent sure either.........

" think your car keys analogy needs to be revamped to accurately describe the
situation......
I know my neighboor has WMD
I know because i sold the WMD to him.
(Even though he gassed his family and half the neighboorhood)
Ive seen the WMD because i have the reports to prove it
and i carry out high tech surveillance of his house.
My neighboor and I are in a fight now because he
invaded one of my buisiness partners house.
About 12 years ago
I blew up my neighboors house.
Since that time I have conducted no-flyzones and
not let any supplies enter his house.
(im pretty sure he doesent like me anymore)
But then again I dont like him either......
I claimed to the local police that he was a threat to the city
and was hiding WMD under his bed.
The police knocked but he wouldnt let them in
I said hes hiding them, i KNOW he is
The police said "we have no evidence to kick in his door"
I said "i dont need you, ill do it myself, because I KNOW he has WMD"
i burned down his house
I still havent found the WMD
BUT I KNOW THAT THEY ARE THERE!!
I KNOW
I KNOW
I KNOW "


THANK YOU so much for so eloquently illustrating my infallible point. Nowhere within your example is there any report or even the slightest hint that these WMD (which we all agree the neighbor has) have ever been destroyed. Nowhere. Furthermore, if your neighbor is so angry with you he has even less motivation to destroy them on his own.
So, let's just call a spade a spade. Of course he still has them. And if your local cops had any balls they would support you in annihilating your neighbor since they have empirical evidence that he has WMD as well.
Seems like you ARE the hero in all of this. The only guy in the neighborhood with the balls to kill a monster.
THANK YOU.

We'll find those WMD's in Syria. Or in Iran. Or in whatever country I invade next. That's where we'll find those mysterious WMD's.

Fresca we need to send you back to Phl 101 - your faulty analogy does not hold water or much of anything else ( I thought about revamping this a bit in light of your latest absurdity as you had not yet posted it, but given it’s weakness I will leave it crumble on it’s own.):

“"The Bush Junta claimed to KNOW. Not supposition, not speculation, THEY KNEW. However, they seem to be suffering from an evidence deficit. "

This means nothing. They KNEW that Sadam existed as well, but we haven't found him either. Are you suggesting that this proves he never existed either?”

Weapons Sites do not move around people do. They are not mobile they stay in one place and once pinpointed by Intelligence they are not going to move without leaving at least evidence of their existence. Or are you maintaining that all of Saddam's Weapons and Weapons development programs (which no longer existed, I believe, to any significant degree prior to the invasion) were kept in the back of Semi-Trucks and were spirited around Iraq. I know it’s all a plot to make Duhbya look bad and the people who supported him look like idiots.


“The best analogy so far was brought up by someone earlier last week.
I know my neighbor has car keys. I know for certain he has them because I've seen him use them every day. I've seen him walking to and from his house with them. Furthermore, I sold him the keys with the car. He still has the car. It's safe to say he still has the keys. Because I don't know exactly where they are does not mean he doesn't have them.”

So do you have plans to invade your neighbors house to steal his Car Keys?

The Car IS evidence for the existence of the Keys. Pretty big evidence. Beyond that the analogy again fails because we are not talking about Car Keys nor Petty Theft. We are talking about LARGE. Let me repeat that LARGE. Large development facilities and LARGE weapons systems. We are not looking for a set of Car Keys in a Haystack. Again you avoid the issue and attempt to circumvent the existence of all the Bush Junta’s Statements that they knew he had them and HAD THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT. Where’s the evidence.

Once again we return to the Empty Set ø. No evidence = no proof = no credibility.

So did the Bush Junta just go KILL a bunch of people because of nonexistent evidence which they knew was nonexistent?

As for davie’s Apologia ad absurdum:

“Diogenes, the Bush administration said they know Saddam has WMD. They did NOT say they know where they had them. The Saddam regime had a vested interest in keeping the things hidden; they're not lying around on the street, waiting to be stumbled over. The radioactives that were found? The UN inspectors did not know the underground complex even existed, even though they had been to the site. Now, do the math...if there was one site the inspectors did not know existed in a country with an interest in keeping things hidden, one may safely presume there are dozens of such hidden sites.”

Again you try sidestep and obfuscate the obvious, this is not Rocket Science, there is no evidence to support the existence of large stocks of WMDs®, their delivery systems, nor development facilities.

You are making a positive assertion that they exist. You have no evidence to support that assertion. At the minimum we can conclude that it is not proven.

However, when you are dealing with issue of invading, conquering, and killing the standard of proof demanded by a sane mind is incontrovertible proof. A sane person does not walk across the street and blow somebody’s brains out because he thinks they MAY be committing a crime. A Sane leader does not invade another country, put it to ruin, and kill a lot of people because he “thinks” thinks they may have something he does not want them to have. The Bush Junta asserted publicly and repeatedly that they knew he had such Sites and that they KNEW where they were. Now you are saying essentially: “Why gee Mr. Wilson it’s a big country so they could be anywhere.” That doesn’t cut it, doesn’t pass the sniff test. If you are going to invade another country and kill a lot of people you better Damned Well know what you doing. And you better damned well be able to prove it. There is no evidence and no proof. Any Court would laugh your case out the door and leave it stumbling down the steps.

This invasion was an unprovoked invasion and conquest. It is a War Crime.

Based on the near total absence of evidence to support the Bush Junta’s publicly stated rationale we can minimally conclude that the reason for the invasion, and conquest of the Oil Wells oops I mean Iraq, was not that which was rendered up for public consumption.

So we are left with either you are:

A. Self deluded and unwilling to let go of those delusions.

Or

B. A Shill whose job it is to forward the disinformation line.

...Diogenes. Wrong again.

Car keys aren't WMD? Wow. Amazing. But neither is a house a country. The analogy holds.

"Weapons Sites do not move around people do." Not unless they're built into shipping containers. Remember we found some of those? Buried? Hidden on purpose? Not accidentally? Try again.

As for the rest, you're just mouthing off and calling it rational. You bore me. You have made up your mind, and you are Right with a Capital R, and anyone who disagrees is
"A. Self deluded and unwilling to let go of those delusions.

Or

B. A Shill whose job it is to forward the disinformation line."

You have repeatedly shown you're not interested in debate. So to heck with you; I'm going to go back to making fun of you.

Pompous windbag.

...he can't refute the case so he again resorts to obfuscation and name calling.

Pompous Windbag.

Do we have on this board with the express purpose of
disrupting or pushing spin?
A new MOS or an old one?
With all these 'I've got so much free time', who's minding the store?

You blather on until your opponents get bored.

It worked.

Mind you, I still disagree with you. Probably always will. And that's okay; America in action. But the thing is, you can't stand having anyone disagree with you. You get all pouty and start calling names, just like a child. "Hey, guys! C'mon, you jerks, I'm right, and you know it! Guys...guys?" That's what makes it fun; the fact that you're wrong too is just gravy.

So, fire up the ol' 450 stroked and bored Ego, and let 'er rip!

And once again, I'm not here as a representative of the government to discredit you (you do a fine job of that all by yourself). But if you have to believe that to make yourself feel all important, you go right ahead. I don't mind.

Now, come on! Fire away that big ol' .357 Magnum Pomposity, the most powerful pomposity in the world! It can shoot bluster clean through an engine block!

about a .357
Now a .50, there's some penatration.

...trusted technique of when you have no case to call your opponent names and egage in schoolyard taunts.

The objective not so much to piss me off as he knows by now that it does not work.

The purpose is to obscure, and bury under SPAM, the ongoing debate earlier in this Thread.

He cannot refute my arguments so like the good little Troll he is he digs back into his manual for what to do when you have just had your ass kicked in a debate.

...Twin Fifty Manned and read SIR!

I beg to differ.

You see, we may as well have been debating totally different topics, we see thing so differently.

And once again, we see the famous Diogones tactic of personall attacks on those who (gasp!) DARE to disagree with His Wisdom.

But anyway these bobos know that the entire premiss upon
which the 2nd gulf slaughter was carried out, was a criminal
act to acquire bases and resources to further the DANGEROUS
imperial adventurism that we will have to deal with as we the people pay, with our and our children's' future.
Into the vortex, full throttle, screw the consequences and
suffering with all the ruin attendant to a nation gone insane.
We will have to pay the piper, even if we didn't call the tune.

...proof of this conspiracy, Sheepdog?

...proof that you're NOT an idiot, daveman?

...in other words you still cannot refute my earlier arguments.

Like I said before this is not Rocket Science.

Either the alleged WMDs® exist or they do not.

The Bush Junta claimed to KNOW exactly where they are.

They were so certain they invaded another country and killed a lot of people.

No evidence has been provided in any credible format to support the pretext for this illegal invasion, A War Crime, in any reasonable way.

Either you can produce definitive evidence or you cannot.

This is not two different worlds. It is True or False.

I would again ask people to review the arguments presented in more detail on both sides earlier in the debate on this Thread.

I think they are telling.

...refute your arguments, because we're speaking two different languages. I'm speaking English; you're speaking Wacko Conspiricy Theorist.

Like I said; you don't want to debate. You want to win. And you have to win, so you can't lose. You twist whatever needs twisting until you point to a pretzel and shout victory.

You believe what you want. You've made it abundantly clear that you will not change your mind, no matter what is presented to you.

And now you will call me a shill, and say I'm soaking up bandwidth, and claim this thread in the Name of Diogones, the Wise.

"You believe what you want. You've made it abundantly clear that you will not change your mind, no matter what is presented to you."
Wow. One could say the same about you!

So... where ARE they, daveman? Hmmmmmm?

Caducado: "If I claim that a covered box does not contain an apple, lifting the lid to reveal an empty box is proof of the apple in the boxs' non-existence. "

Nope. Wrong. Arbitrary reference frame. You are proving a positive, that the box is empty. It has nothing to do with the existance of apples.

Fuckin idiot. Try again.

... of the Jury. The arguments for both side of the case have been presented.

It is your charge to decide upon the facts of the case.

The Charge again is that the Government of the United States, with malice aforethought, did without sufficient provacation, Invade, commit mayhem, and conquer another country.

How say you?

Guilty as charged!

This is my country, right or wrong. If you don't like it, you can lump it. Take it down the road and dump it.

ow: "Wow. One could say the same about you! "

Fair enough. Yet I've tried to engage in debate, and get compared to the SS. Therefore, no one here want to debate, so I'll just have a few chuckles at your expense, if it''s all the same to you. Even if it isn't.

"Have you any concrete proof that you're NOT an idiot, daveman?" You wouldn't believe it anyway, would you?

Sheepdog: "So... where ARE they, daveman? Hmmmmmm?", he said, smugly assured he had gotten the upper hand.

Uh, I don't know. But then again, it's not my job to know, is it? Talk to Hans Blix. He should know, you all seem to think, yet he couldn't find asphalt in a parking lot.

KPC: You must be going out of your way to misunderstand all this.
Try this, in little words: I can't prove the center of the universe exists. But because I CAN'T prove it, does not mean it DOES NOT EXIST. Got that?

Now you all stand around in a congratulatory group hug and kid yourselves that you're not deluded beyond words.

So now you're Judge, Jury and (presumably) Executioner?

Could you get any MORE full of yourself?

Did you claim your ego as a dependent on your taxes?

Oh, yeah...Goodyear called. Their blimp has a leak; they'd like to know if they could borrow your stuffed shirt.

The village called. They'd like their IDIOT back.

"The village called. They'd like their IDIOT back."

Ha ha! Did you really think that up all by your lonesome? Wow...look out, Jerry Seinfeld, you got some competition here on la-imc!

"Ha ha! Did you really think that up all by your lonesome? Wow...look out, Jerry Seinfeld, you got some competition here on la-imc!"
Competition? You would not even be able to give the likes of Dan Quayle any "competition."

...it's not like YOU'RE in the running for a Nobel Prize, Skippy.

Unless they give them out for "Best 'Village Idiot' Phone Call Gags".

You can have the thread now that you have proven nothing.
Babble on mon.

"...it's not like YOU'RE in the running for a Nobel Prize, Skippy."
Well, I heard that the people who give out Darwin awards are following you. They can't wait until you take yourself out of the gene pool. When it happens, it's bound to be hilarious.

Caveman: "Try this, in little words: I can't prove the center of the universe exists. But because I CAN'T prove it, does not mean it DOES NOT EXIST. Got that?"

Does not mean that it exists either....

Your spending an awful lot of time trying to explain your own stupidity. Forget it, we understand...you're a moron....you've proved that....

HEHEHE.

"...in other words you still cannot refute my earlier arguments."

You're like the limbless knight in the Holy Grail.
You have been so thoroughly and absolutely refuted for WEEKS that you've retreated to the territory of sheer denial.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

So tell me, Caducado, do you bozos masterbate before or after the self-congratulatory ranting?

To masturbate and drink while typing and still find the right thread.

"It's difficult to masturbate and drink while typing and still find the right thread."

Not for me!

"So tell me, Caducado, do you bozos masterbate (sp) before or after the self-congratulatory ranting?"

Hard to say. I suspect that Dio wouldn't much want to jack off after you've blown him all day. But hey, who knows with you nuts. The meds may keep you guys up all night.

...likes whistling in the dark and peeing into the wind.

So speaketh the man who would rather not think and pass judgment nor be responsible for wrongs committed in his name Daveman says:

“This is my country, right or wrong. If you don't like it, you can lump it. Take it down the road and dump it.”

It may be that what follows will fall on deaf ears but yet I feel obligated to my own conscience to give it a whirl.

The people who happen to be holding high office are not the country. In a republic “of the people, by the people, and for the people” the government is in, and holds, a position of delegated power - not the absolute suzerainty of a Satrap. They are not owed Divine allegiance. Blind subservience and credulosity is the philosopy of a slave not a free man.
You have chastened me for not credulously accepting unquestioningly the pronouncements from “on high”. Such is not my way as I would remain a free man anwering to my conscience and I view it as the words of one who will not long be free. I will never accept blindly and without scrutiny the statements of a person in authority merely because they are in authority. Nor will I explain away obvious contradictions merely because it would be more comfortable.
The government is not the country. The Constitution of the United States begins with a phrase that has echoed down the corridors of time and through the awareness of those who love liberty:

“We The People of the United States...”

It does not say “We the rulers of the United States”.

It does not say “We the Servants of the Rulers of The United States”.

It says “We The People”.

“My country right or wrong is about as unthinking and irresponsible statement a presumed adult in this great land could make.”

“A true patriot hates injustice in his own land more than in any other.” - Clarence Darrow

Taken literally “my country right or wrong” says I will accept any evil as long as it is committed by some functionary who says it is an American action committed in the name of the American Government. Evil is not an American Ideal. At least it did not used to be. It is litterally a statement that says I choose not to think by instead rest my case on the power of ignorance. “My country right or wrong” is the utterance of someone without the moral fortitude to look beyond what men in office utter in their own self interest and what the founders of this country bequeathed to us. You are a free Citizen in a land of ever diminishing freedom. You have rights by the burden they carry with them is responsibility.
You are RESPONSIBLE for the actions taken in your country’s name. It is really a rather awesome responsibility taken at it’s full value. It means that whenever this nation acts, whether rightly or wrongly, you are responsible for the good and for the ill. However, it need not be a staggering weight. That is why it is “We The People”. Together we are all equally and severally responsible. Together we go forward in righteousness or disjoint and dissolute we dissolve into chaos and despotism. Only the highest standards are good enough for my country and I will not accept less.

I would suggest you need to spend more time in the Company of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry and the other truly great men who founded this noble experiment. Upon having taken these men’s measure compare the current occupant of the White House to the men who made it a symbol of Just Governance.

May I commend to your Reading List:

“On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill
The Mecklenburg Resolves
Patrick Henry’s Speech at Falls Church Virginia March 23, 1775
Commonsense by Thomas Paine
The Declaration of Independence
Benjamin Franklin “Address to the Federal Convention of 1787”
The Constitution of the United States
The Bill of Rights
The Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalist Papers
George Washington “First Inaugural Address”
George Washington “Farewell Address”
John Adams “What Do We Mean by the American Revolution”

These are but the bare essentials. There is much more which a truly informed Patriot should have read and known. They are however a start. They do not require any specific reading order, nor are they the work of one evening, but I would suggest Patrick Henry’s Speech first. It is one of the most powerful and moving in American History. Next would be The Declaration of Independence. The others may be read as you see appropriate, but I would commend all them to you not in insolence but as one American to another. They are our heritage as Free Men.

Thomas Jefferson is perhaps my personal favorite. I like the compliment paid his memory by JFK who while entertaining a room full of 50 Nobel Prize Winners for dinner commented: “This is perhaps the greatest assemblage of brain power ever assembled in this room; except when Thomas Jefferson dined here alone.”

Jefferson once commented that to the effect that to wish to be free and ignorant was to wish for that which never was and never will be.

The Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson are available for free download from the Gutenbergproject.org.

When you utter that rank obscenity “my country right or wrong” you betray your country and your responsibilities as a Citizen. As a Citizen in a Constitutional Republic you are responsible for insuring that the Government does act rightly. When you accept a foul action by the Government of The United States and gloss it over with that obscenely unthinking “my country right or wrong” you say “I am no different than any acquiescing moral coward in the Third Reich”. You may think that an insult but it is not intended as insult or inflammatory comment. It is merely a statement of what is.

Does that mean that you accept unquestioningly the actions of the governmental agents who committed that foul atrocity known as the Tuskegee Experiment?

The jingoists who began the Spanish American War because it would sell Newspapers?

How about Project MK Ultra which experimented on men and women without their knowledge or consent?

The use of our Soldiers and Sailors as experimental animals without their knowledge or consent?

There is much more I could say and perhaps another time I will.

On second thought - Count on it.

Fuck all that. Read "A Confederacy of Dunces".

Oops, blush. I missed a few things in making revisions and then not proofing it again.

“It is litterally a statement that says I choose not to think by instead rest my case on the power of ignorance.”

Should read:

It is litterally a statement that says I choose not to think but instead rest my case on the power of ignorance.



“You have rights by the burden they carry with them is responsibility.

Should read:

You have rights but the burden they carry with them is responsibility.