[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 02:01:57 03/30/03 Sun
Author: "Vince From Villanova" (Maybe I missed something, but...)
Subject: Okay, I'm pro-war, but I'm also pro-facts. Where in tarnation did you read that Sadaam once had 22 nuclear bombs? Not even ultra-liberal Peter Jennings would bury THAT one...
In reply to:
SurveyGuy
's message, "I suppose the 22 nuclear bombs that we found Saddam with from a tip from his son-in-law were just to decorate the palaces, eh? Of course he had his son-in-law shot while welcoming back with "all is forgiven." ....(click to continue)" on 22:37:44 03/29/03 Sat
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [> [> [>
I forget who I heard discussing Saddam and his history a few weeks ago -- maybe it was Tim Russert -- maybe not. That was one of the items that flew by that caught my attention. Maybe I should search for the details. They might have "only" been warheads. I'll get back to you. -- SG, 17:53:01 03/30/03 Sun
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
OK -- that discussion went pretty fast. From what I can tell it was 122 nuclear-capable missles (which we had destroyed) and an active secret nuclear program running at full steam. The point is still the same. Some rumors of underwater uncoupled nuclear tests to hide seismo evidence. -- SurveyGuy (getting back as promised), 10:19:17 03/31/03 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Made-Up Stories -- Harry Kalish, 15:01:36 03/31/03 Mon
No, the point is that innacuracies were being spread, and, if you weren't called on them, they would have been taken as truth by someone, and spread somewhere else.
You don't see a difference between having 22 nuclear bombs and having 122 nuclear-capable missiles, which we destroyed no less.
And where did you find out that this (innacurate) information came from his son-in-law, who Saddam then executed - the National Enquirer?
Everybody is entitled to make mistakes, but, unfortunately, conservatives tend to brand their mistakes as truth ("This is what the liberals don't want you to know!!!" - Rush Limbaugh - three times a week - any week)
In this country, thank God, people are innocent until proven guilty. In the world of ideologues, the opposite is the case - the truth is what I say it is until you prove me wrong. And, if you do prove me wrong, I'll just say so what if I'm wrong, the point is still the same. In other words, facts will never get in the way of an ideologue's argument.
We're in Iraq - where innocent Americans, English, and Iraquis are being killed - to destroy the Saddam regime because he has built and bought WMD. You can agree or disagree with our rationale, and either viewpoint is valid and protected. But what if we accomplish our objectives, yet find no WMD. We will either have to plant them or use them ourselves just to justify our own rationale. How can you expect people to back their government, when their government has put them in this untenable position?
And, in order to continue to justify this rationale, in the place of hard facts, conservatives will convey these whisper-down-the-lane, heard it somewhere, stories that have no basis in fact. Why can't conservatives have enough belief in their opinions so that they don't have to manufacture and rationalize the reasons for those beliefs?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Real Stories -- Scott Tilde, 23:53:11 03/31/03 Mon
Nothing wrong with nailing inaccuracies to prevent their spread. But no one can deny that Saddam was going for nuclear capabilities. I'll use PBS as a source since they're not commonly known as a conservative bastion. This Nightline report talks about Saddam's weapons capabilities through the eyes of UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
And, hell, I can do ideological generalizations too...
"conservatives tend to brand their mistakes as truth"
Sh'yeah, and liberals tend to either ignore their mistakes or rebrand them as the "greater truth" and label the criticism as irrelevant. This is big reason why liberals don't work on talk radio. That stuff just don't flush...
"what if we accomplish our objectives, yet find no WMD?"
Then we didn't look hard enough. We've effectively verified their existence already, haven't we? What are the Iraqis doing with those chemical suits and gas masks? Did we plant them there?? Did they plant them there to confuse us??? C'mon... this ain't "Coast to Coast AM".
"We will either have to plant them or use them ourselves just to justify our own rationale"
Christ, I was joking. Had I seen this line ahead of time, I wouldn't have even wasted time responding. There's the 'hate America first' types and then there's the 'hate logic' types. Can't really converse with either camp. It's like they're on Mars...
Well, since I'm already mucked in here, one more...
"in order to continue to justify this rationale, in the place of hard facts, conservatives will convey these whisper-down-the-lane, heard it somewhere, stories that have no basis in fact."
The guy makes an easily identified mistake, and you're going to brand it as part of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'?
At least conservatives are, rightfully, held to a factual standard.
Would that liberals someday aspire to the same.
Everybody sing along now: "Feelings, whoa whoa whoa, feelings..." [fade]...
~
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
