Topic awaiting preservation: "U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq" (Page 1 of 2)

really? how shocking...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html

I'd rather say : how surprising.

No sarcasm in here...

I could go into the Syria connection. The massive terror attempt in Jordan which included 20 tons of chemicals in a tanker truck. An attempt plotted by Zarqawi, which emanated from Syria, using chemicals which nobody in Syria had capabilities of creating. Zarqawi, who was wounded in Afghanistan and took refuge in Iraq, was welcomed by Saddam before the invasion. Connect that with reports of Russian special forces convoys travelling between Iraq and Syria before the invasion began. I still am open to this argument because it has not been disproven, and I unlike many here am quicker to condemn a dictator who had proven himself to be a danger to his neighbors, the world, and his own people countless times than the US, which for decades was a beacon of good will to the world. Not that you guys would consider any of those anomalies, you made up your minds long ago.

As far as I am concerned the biggest WMD was pulled from a hole over a year ago. The biggest mistake made was not stating that there were WMDs, but rather not articulating the threat posed and the reasons needed for a preventive strike in a manner to get the world behind us. But then the question arises if that was even possibile considering the charges being raised by the oil-for-food scandal...accusations of diplomats on the security council from certain countries taking bribes. I could go into the benefits of the Iraq invasion, not that that matters either, I know, all rehash from previous debates.

The fact remains that there are still many anamolies and possibilities which have yet to be answered for to draw conclusions one way or the other.

Articulation is Bush's failing. Clinton did this well enough in '98 when he decided on a preventive strike. To me though, and as Clinton said himself many times, it would only delay the inevitable. I am trying to understand the whole "Bush is incompetent, Bush lied" argument, but I just don't see it. Misjudgement due to being misinformed, perhaps, but not lies. I think Bush is a lot more intelligent than you guys give him credit for. Put aside his religion which you seem to detest, his domestic positions which you also seem to detest, his southern accent which you attribute as stupidity, and his failings to articulate in a diplomatic manner and you have very much the same type of policies that anyone in his position after 9/11 might have taken. The policy of preventive strikes in order to preserve order at home.

Time to start looking forward folks. Afghanistan, however troubled it is right now, has had their first vote ever and have made massive progress. The Palestineans have held their elections and restarting the peace process is a very likely scenario. Iraq will hold elections shortly. Iranian youth are rebelling against their leaders in what is sure to change the tide in that country in the coming years. Notice a pattern here? Time are a changin' in the Middle East. People hated Reagan back in the 80s as well because he shook things up, but it also became an integral part of the puzzle in the ending of the Cold War, and communist Russia, not to mention influencing the crumbling of the wall. While things might be portrayed as grim at times, which is understandabe when you rattle the status quo, I think the outcome in the end will be positive. Our progessions as a species depends on turmoil as a catalyst to change. If we do not change, we repeat the past.

Things would move much more smoothly if people would start working together for the future and quit bickering about diagreements of the past.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 01-12-2005 20:48)

quote:

---

Not that you guys would consider any of those anomalies, you made up your minds long ago.

---

yep, I would certainly consider those things, and wieght their relevence to the situation as a whole. But they are just what you say - anomalies.

quote:

---

s far as I am concerned the biggest WMD was pulled from a hole over a year ago.

---

That's a great piece of rhetoric, but that's not the basis on which we went to war.

The bottom line is, we went to war entirely on false pretenses - on top of the bin laden bait-n-switch, we had the 'wmd' horseshit.

If you're ok with that, you're ok with that. But let's at least face the fact that the public was lied to on a *major* scale...beyond the scope of the 'normal' political misleading...

As usual, DL has the best "light" on the subject at hand - and Ram is off spouting gibberish.

quote:

---

as far as I am concerned the biggest WMD was pulled from a hole over a year ago.

---

Where is your proof?

No wait! I think it was hidden on the Moon! Yes! That's it! That's the ticket! Now, we just have to get our investigator's to the Moon, you see. That's where the secret WMD stockpile is!

What's the matter Ram? Can't face reality?

Oh, this little gem is just grand

quote:

---

The fact remains that there are still many anamolies and possibilities which have yet to be answered for to draw conclusions one way or the other.

---

Uhhh...read the article. U.S. Wraps Up Search for Banned Weapons in Iraq - especially this part -

quote:

---

McClellan said Duelfer was wrapping up an addendum to his September report, which will be issued next month and will not "fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report."

The Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear program had decayed before last year's U.S.-led invasion.

---

It has been ended, the official search. It doesn't matter what your opinion is. Officially, it is over, and no weapons of mass destruction were found.

Now, let us take on your other gibberish. Things are better in Afghanistan, and Iraq? Are you on crack? You have been living on Right Wing blogs too long (because much of the dogma that you spout out can be found there). Things are NOT going well in the Middle East, contrary to what you may think. You really paint a nice pretty picture on the horrible reality.

Comparing Iraq with the Cold War? You are not even close. The Cold War involved a HELL of a lot of conflicts, and facings with an enemey we knew, and had a name, and a place. Eventually, the system of Communism fell apart - we just helped it along. In fact, everywhere one looks, that system is proving to be unviable.

You also seem to have forgotten history (but that shouldn't be surprising, I guess). In Vietnam, there were also elections. Didn't stop it from falling. In fact, in a lot of cold war hot-spots, there were "bunk" elections (elections where the entire populance did not participate) - and allowing the American "pick" to come to power.

In Afgahnistan, there were regions that didn't vote (and were not even allowed to vote - they were cut out of the election process, because they were to "hot" to deal with - mostly the western-southern parts, which are incredibly dangerous areas for our forces, and known friendly regions of the Taliban, which is making is way back into Afghanistan again).

Iraq? You don't seriously think that is going to be anything near to a real, representative election, do you? Scratch that - you probably do believe that.

*shurg*

I'm probably just wasting my breath here. Blind is blind. I don't think there is anything that can change your mind - because you have already made it up - like those idiots that are STILL saying that the Vietnam War was a good thing. One can dance facts, official decisions, etc before you, and you will still deny it. Apparently, you need to believe that we are in the right, that we are not wrong, and will stop at nothing to make sure that in your head this is true.

You should really read the article. Apparently, one of the main reasons it is being officially closed, is that they need the resources to deal with the guerillas! That should tell you something. The FACT that England is sending in 400 more troops should tell you something. It tells us, that things there are escalating, not the contrary, you moron!

And the FACT that when this is over, we will have over 900,000 veterans back in the US is not a thought that makes me happy. And they are almost without exception from the lower classes, and minorities. They will be returning to their old neighborhoods, to their old lives - but changed. Full of PTS syndrome, handicaps, both physical and mental, a whole lot of anger, and trauma. The crime rate, suicide rate, and the jobless rate will soar. A whole hell of a lot of them will be returning after YEARS of duty, to find a life in shambles (that happens when you are away for years).

And that with the Palastinians? Arafat is dead, you know - that has nothing to do with us in Iraq. And I would not say that things look rosy there. I feverently hope that both sides can make some headway in finding a road to peace. But let us be honest here. Those two peoples have hated, killed, warred with, and just plain not gotten along with one another since time immortal. Putting them together is just asking for problems. They need to be seperated from one another, with a globe between them.

Added to that is the nuclear program in Iran (oh yeah, those pesky students have put a stop to that...yep) and nuclear tests in Egypt! The region is becoming more dangerous (remember, Egypt attacked Israel), not less.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-12-2005 22:54)

quote:

---

DL-44: yep, I would certainly consider those things, and wieght their relevence to the situation as a whole. But they are just what you say - anomalies.

---

Be that as it may, they still remain and have yet to be explained. They are some pretty hefty anamolies. Twenty tons of chemicals found in a tanker truck originating from Syria is not something you just disregard, especially considering that Saddam was the only one in the region who had the ability of manufacturing said chemicals on such a scale. Perhaps if the plot had suceeded in Jordan and the projected thenty-thousand people had been killed you would see this in a different light. The reports of convoys going between Iraq and Syria during the build-up to the war also have quite wide implications. Until these are proven otherwise and I am given credible refutations, the doubt remains in my mind.

quote:

---

DL-44:That's a great piece of rhetoric, but that's not the basis on which we went to war.

---

Rhetoric or not, overused or not, it is true, and to me is the only real basis on why we went to war. I don't care what Bush or any other politicians said, never did, to me it is simply a matter of doing what is right for the future of people in the region, the safety of us here at home, and ultimately the world.

It's the 21st century, and we have progessed faster than anyone could have possibly imagined. The time has come to help bring the rest of the world up to speed. They deserve better, and are capable of so much more if the restraintful shadow of authoritarian government is lifted.

Just to clarify, when I say bring them up to speed, I am not referring to Americanizing them, that would be a tragedy if we all ended up as one big homogenous culture as I am sure you would agree. American pop culture stinks as far as I am concerned. All I am saying is that we, as civilized nations, ensure that others have that same chances we have had.

quote:

---

DL-44: If you're ok with that, you're ok with that. But let's at least face the fact that the public was lied to on a *major* scale...beyond the scope of the 'normal' political misleading...

---

Fact? I still do not call a misjudgement or supposed faulty intelligence from multiple sources (US, British, Russian come to mind) a lie. You don't appear to be being objective. If you think the WMD argument was laid out as a deliberate means of deception in order to implement the devious plan of empire building or resource collection, that is your opinion, but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an established fact.

What I AM ok with is overthrowing a repressive regime which had slaughtered over 300,000 of its own citizens (that we know of thus far), giving millions the chance for a prosperous and free future. And don't think the poor souls in other countries in similar situations are not paying attention, they are watching. They will see the Iraqis go to the polls and vote for their leader in a representative government, later this year they will see the Iraqi government draw up its constitution, and they will long for the same.

Whatever other rhetoric I have spewed in the past debates, and whatever changes you may have noticed in my positions, I have always been consistent on this point. That is the only point to me that is important. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few IMO. Perhaps the world does not understand or have the stomach for sacrifice anymore, but irregardless of feelings the fact remains that sacrifices must be made if we are to ever progress toward a peaceful world.

In any case, like I said above, isn't it time to start looking forward? Doesn't the US deserve a second chance after all the good things it has done in the world? Does not the US president, however disdainful your feelings toward him or many of his policies are, deserve a second chance? Believe it or not, he is reaching out in this regard. He will remain loyal to his Republican ideals, that is to be expected, but he has made perfectly clear that he is willing to work with other nations in the future.

I sometimes wonder in reading some of the posts here and elsewhere if some of you want this to fail? To see the US fail, or perhaps just to see Bush fail so that the inevatable "I told you so" can be said? To see us pull out and have a possible civil war in Iraq, or worse, have the insurgents take over? The time has come to let the wounds heal, on both sides or the argument, and move on together in making the best of the situation.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 01-12-2005 23:56)

quote:

---

but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an established fact.

---

ok...

quote:

---

Does not the US president, however disdainful your feelings toward him or many of his policies are, deserve a second chance?

---

Unfortunately a little over half the country felt that way...

No, IMO, you don't get a second chance after leading the country on this type of bait & switch mission with lies all over and large death tolls that are unjustifiable, and a monetary cost that is just plain staggering. And that's only one small part of the big problems he has caused - domestically his policies are far more frightening.

quote:

---

I sometimes wonder in reading some of the posts here and elsewhere if some of you want this to fail? To see the US fail, or perhaps just to see Bush fail so that the inevatable "I told you so" can be said? To see us pull out and have a possible civil war in Iraq, or worse, have the insurgents take over? The time has come to let the wounds heal, on both sides or the argument, and move on together in making the best of the situation.

---

Then you drastically miss the point.

The course of action we took failed long ago. We started off with 2 objectives - we accomplished neither.

Many other things *did* happen, some of them positive.

But the objectives that were layed on the table were abandoned without so much as batting an eyelash.

(Edited by DL-44 on 01-13-2005 00:13)

quote:

---

Does not the US president, however disdainful your feelings toward him or many of his policies are, deserve a second chance? Believe it or not, he is reaching out in this regard. He will remain loyal to his Republican ideals, that is to be expected, but he has made perfectly clear that he is willing to work with other nations in the future.

---

No, he will remain faithful to the EXTREME RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN ideals. And a lot of us Republicans have come to realize this. Many voted for Bush, because there was no alternative. As for reaching out? Bullsh*t! He has yet to reach out, and being that it is his last term (thank god) he won't be. Just look at his new cabinet.

As usual, DL reasonably shows the errors in your posts. I just don't have the patience for it anymore.

[edit by Skaarjj] fixing up your UBB Codes mate[/edit]

(Edited by Skaarjj on 01-13-2005 05:00)

Indeed, major kudos to DL-44. I neither have the patience anymore.

quote:

---

As usual, DL has the best "light" on the subject at hand - and Ram is off spouting gibberish.

---

And as usual WebShaman feels compelled to jump on the offensive with insults right from the get go .

quote:

---

Where is your proof?

---

You want proof that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer? You are quite capable of using Google are you not?

Here, let me get you started:
http://images.google.com/images?q=halabja&num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/14/sprj.irq.main/
http://massgraves.info/

If that isn't enough, what about him taking oil-for-food money and bulding palaces throughout Iraq while Iraqi children starved?

Do you believe the holocaust was a fabrication as well?

quote:

---

No wait! I think it was hidden on the Moon! Yes! That's it! That's the ticket! Now, we just have to get our investigator's to the Moon, you see. That's where the secret WMD stockpile is!

---

*sigh*

quote:

---

What's the matter Ram? Can't face reality?

---

What's the matter WebShaman, too blinded by your vitriolic hatred of the "incompetent, lying Mr. Bush" to even have an adult conversations without ranting and raving?

quote:

---

It has been ended, the official search. It doesn't matter what your opinion is. Officially, it is over, and no weapons of mass destruction were found.

---

Just tell me one thing. After all this time of questioning what the US government says and does, why are you so quick to agree with them now? Seems like you are being quite selective in what you believe and what you don't based on your own personal feelings.

quote:

---

You also seem to have forgotten history (but that shouldn't be surprising, I guess). In Vietnam, there were also elections. Didn't stop it from falling. In fact, in a lot of cold war hot-spots, there were "bunk" elections (elections where the entire populance did not participate) - and allowing the American "pick" to come to power.

---

The insurgents in Iraq receive far less aid than the Soviet Union and China provided to the North Vietnamese. You are making inaccurate comparisons. History also shows that during the last days of Vietnam, we were making progress. Support at home is what had crumbled. People like you spouting off is inevetably what ended that war the way it did, and most likely dragged it out longer than would have been necessary. Dissent is one thing, but when in wartime one must do so responsibly for the sake of the soldiers who fight.

As far as Afghanistan goes. I never said the election was perfect, but it was a start, and the first ever in the entire history of that country. Not a small accomplishment. Your doom and gloom outlook is getting old.

quote:

---

Iraq? You don't seriously think that is going to be anything near to a real, representative election, do you? Scratch that - you probably do believe that.

---

Once again, it will be a start and a far cry better than what they had. Perhaps belief is half the battle. People like you spewing crap about how much of a failure this whole thing is does not help matters in the least. You think you are dissenting from US government, but in essence you are also dissenting about the wonderful possibilities a free Iraq hold.

quote:

---

I'm probably just wasting my breath here. Blind is blind.

---

Funny you feel that way, I also have that feeling when speaking to you.

quote:

---

I don't think there is anything that can change your mind - because you have already made it up - like those idiots that are STILL saying that the Vietnam War was a good thing.

---

Nothing will change my mind, just as nothing will change yours. And for the record, I see Vietnam as a tragic and unnecessary war, far more tragic than anything we have dealt with in Iraq.

quote:

---

You should really read the article. Apparently, one of the main reasons it is being officially closed, is that they need the resources to deal with the guerillas! That should tell you something. The FACT that England is sending in 400 more troops should tell you something. It tells us, that things there are escalating, not the contrary, you moron!

---

Wow, your debating technique has taken a downward spiral WebShaman. First, your opinion that I am a moron is of no consequence to this discussion but if it makes you feel better then by all means... Second, I read the article. Finally, troop levels have been increased in anticipation of pre-election attacks, a wise move in my opinion.

quote:

---

And the FACT that when this is over, we will have over 900,000 veterans back in the US is not a thought that makes me happy. And they are almost without exception from the lower classes, and minorities.

---

Sacrafices have been made, great and small, in all struggles in the human experience. When our troops return home, we will have a country of twenty-six-million free people who were not free before. Perhaps you should try and contstrain your emotions and think about where we would be if sacrafices were never made.

[quote]And that with the Palastinians? Arafat is dead, you know - that has nothing to do with us in Iraq.
And I would not say that things look rosy there. I feverently hope that both sides can make some headway in finding a road to peace. But let us be honest here. Those two peoples have hated, killed, warred with, and just plain not gotten along with one another since time immortal. Putting them together is just asking for problems. [quote]

I never said things were rosy, but I think the majority of people on both sides long for peace. It won't be easy, but with a fresh face on the Palistinean side anything is possible. I too, wish both the Israelis and Palestineans the best.

quote:

---

They need to be seperated from one another, with a globe between them.

---

That is obviously not an option considering the looong history of the conflict.

quote:

---

Added to that is the nuclear program in Iran (oh yeah, those pesky students have put a stop to that...yep) and nuclear tests in Egypt! The region is becoming more dangerous (remember, Egypt attacked Israel), not less.

---

Those pesky students are fighting their hearts out and it is also a start. Everything has a beginning. It may take years, but those pesky students will one day grow up and take some of the reighns of that nation. With as much a pessimistic view of the world, and humanity in general, that you have it is no surprise you are so emotional in these discussions.

/ignore WebShaman

Ramasax

quote:

---

Ramasax: but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an established fact.
DL-44:
ok...

---

Well? Wait, let me guess, you can prove it but I am a waste of your time and not worth the effort? Give me links, give me credible sources, anything.

quote:

---

DL-44: Unfortunately a little over half the country felt that way...

---

And the other half didn't. So, what you do now is accept the will of the American people just as I would have done had Kerry won. You accept it, get over it, and you move on.

quote:

---

DL-44: No, IMO, you don't get a second chance after leading the country on this type of bait & switch mission with lies all over and large death tolls that are unjustifiable, and a monetary cost that is just plain staggering. And that's only one small part of the big problems he has caused - domestically his policies are far more frightening.

---

Lies again, eh? Damn DL, I have always loved debating you because out of all the people here, you were always objective, logical, and didn't spew the "lies" line every post. Out of everyone I have debated, you were always the one able to influence me, to make me think. Not enough to change every one of my views, but the small things. I'm sorry to see that time is gone.

quote:

---

DL-44: But the objectives that were layed on the table were abandoned without so much as batting an eyelash.

---

Objectives are not abandoned, they change where needed. Let's talk again in twenty years after the geopolitical dust settles and we will settle who was right and wrong. Until then, opinion rules and nobody is right.

quote:

---

WebShaman: No, he will remain faithful to the EXTREME RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN ideals. And a lot of us Republicans have come to realize this. Many voted for Bush, because there was no alternative. As for reaching out? Bullsh*t! He has yet to reach out, and being that it is his last term (thank god) he won't be. Just look at his new cabinet.

---

/unignore WebShaman

While we disagree on just about everything I have made many attempts to shore up our differences and have a decent discussion here. I know this is not possibile now after reading your last series of insults, and if the people Bush has to reach out to are anything like you, I do not envy him in the least. How do you reach out to people who will say anything, do anything to take back power from the Republicans?

As far as his cabinet goes, well what did you expect? John Kerry and Ted Kennedy by his side? Which of the people who called him everything in the book, and continue to do so on a daily basis should he have chosen? Who would have accepted?

quote:

---

Indeed, major kudos to DL-44. I neither have the patience anymore.

---

Nor I. This is pointless. Funny how this part of the Asylum only comes to life when the opposition arrives and you all have someone to gang up on. Enjoy yourselves.

Your friend,

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 01-13-2005 01:45)

(Edited by Ramasax on 01-13-2005 01:46)

quote:

---

As usual, DL has the best "light" on the subject at hand - and Ram is off spouting gibberish.


And as usual WebShaman feels compelled to jump on the offensive with insults right from the get go .

---

Well, the next bit is a good example of you gibbering away - might as well call it as I see it.
If I had wanted to insult you, I certainly wouldn't have used such a tame label.

quote:

---

You want proof that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer? You are quite capable of using Google are you not?

Here, let me get you started:
http://images.google.com/images?q=halabja&num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/14/sprj.irq.main/
http://massgraves.info/

If that isn't enough, what about him taking oil-for-food money and bulding palaces throughout Iraq while Iraqi children starved?

Do you believe the holocaust was a fabrication as well?

---

??

I think I quoted you on the WMD buried in a hole in Syria, or somesuch that you gibbered about. I beleive that I was asking proof of this. *looks* Yup, sure was. WTF are you talking about? I don't beleive I ever questioned the Holocaust - and what does that have to do with this thread? Are you even lucid? Get a grip, man! Next time, take three deep breaths before posting - it will keep that taste of shoe leather out of your mouth.

quote:

---

What's the matter WebShaman, too blinded by your vitriolic hatred of the "incompetent, lying Mr. Bush" to even have an adult conversations without ranting and raving?

---

I have never stated that I hate Bush. Where did you get that idea? And what does that have to do with you facing reality??!! Your grip on reality is...rather frightening. I disagree with his policies and his incompetence at a time, when we really need a real leader and a uniter of cause and people. You seem to forget, we ALL (including much of the world) gave Bush a chance - in fact, we placed something in his hands that was much more precious than that - we gave him our trust and our hope, and he abused it badly. For that, he doesn't deserve a second chance to abuse it again.

quote:

---

ust tell me one thing. After all this time of questioning what the US government says and does, why are you so quick to agree with them now? Seems like you are being quite selective in what you believe and what you don't based on your own personal feelings.

---

You forget - I used to work for it, in the intelligence gathering part of it. I have learned to question it, for good reason. Now, I have ALWAYS disagreed with the "evidence" purporting to show WMD in Iraq to be found that was of any danger to the US. My own personal feelings? Nope. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings. It has to do with an examination of the evidence (well, the total LACK thereof). I think you are being steered by your feelings - you certainly have showed that in this post. Where is your evidence? I think I asked that before - and you gibbered about the Holocaust??

quote:

---

The insurgents in Iraq receive far less aid than the Soviet Union and China provided to the North Vietnamese. You are making inaccurate comparisons. History also shows that during the last days of Vietnam, we were making progress. Support at home is what had crumbled. People like you spouting off is inevetably what ended that war the way it did, and most likely dragged it out longer than would have been necessary. Dissent is one thing, but when in wartime one must do so responsibly for the sake of the soldiers who fight.

---

First of all, I mentioned clearly elections, and nothing else. And yes, comparing elections in Vietnam with those in Iraq and other lands that we influenced in the Cold War is very appropriate. People like me spouting off? Heh. Funny stuff. You apparently know nothing about what I have been saying. You are also forgetting why those soldiers are having to fight (and die) - because of the incompetence of a president and his administration. That same administration is not doing much for the troops either. From protecting them (armor, anyone?), to forced longer terms of duty, and very shoddy support for those who are wounded, etc coming home. It is one thing to support the troops, and the country, when things are being done competently, and there is a grave reason to do so. It is another, when an administration is fucking up, and treating the lives of our men and women in uniform with disdain, and not caring less, what happens to the families and lives that depend on them. Not to mention those who served honorably and in good faith getting the shaft when they get back home.

quote:

---

Your doom and gloom outlook is getting old.

---

Well, you may have to eat those words. The drug trade has exploded again in Afghanistan and that money is going somewhere - I wonder where? Do you know? I don't - and I find that very unsettling.

quote:

---

You think you are dissenting from US government, but in essence you are also dissenting about the wonderful possibilities a free Iraq hold.

---

Wrong. I am pointing out the facts of the matter. You may wish to see it with rosy glasses, but I don't. The possibilites of a free Iraq are slipping away faster than they are approaching, you know. All I am doing, is pointing out where the Bush Administration has screwed up and continues to do so. Instead of regurgitating soundbites from Right Wing spigots, why don't you examine the real picture?

*sigh*

quote:

---

Wow, your debating technique has taken a downward spiral WebShaman. First, your opinion that I am a moron is of no consequence to this discussion but if it makes you feel better then by all means... Second, I read the article. Finally, troop levels have been increased in anticipation of pre-election attacks, a wise move in my opinion.

---

That is escalation (an increase in violence and troop levels). You just prove that you are a moron...so I call you what you are. Nothing to do with spiraling down. Like all the gibbering you have done in your posts.

[qutoe]Sacrafices have been made, great and small, in all struggles in the human experience. When our troops return home, we will have a country of twenty-six-million free people who were not free before. Perhaps you should try and contstrain your emotions and think about where we would be if sacrafices were never made.[/quote] You are assuming that Iraq will be successful - that is not a given. Will it still have been worth it, if it fails?

quote:

---

That is obviously not an option considering the looong history of the conflict.

---

It may not be a viable option now, but if the conflict continutes as it has for thousands of years now, maybe it will become one. It is certainly one of the most dangerous flashpoints on the globe. It is here that I suspect that a WMD could be used in the future, especially considering that both Iran and Egypt apparently have Nuclear intentions.

quote:

---

Those pesky students are fighting their hearts out and it is also a start. Everything has a beginning. It may take years, but those pesky students will one day grow up and take some of the reighns of that nation. With as much a pessimistic view of the world, and humanity in general, that you have it is no surprise you are so emotional in these discussions.

/ignore WebShaman

---

Wow, your grip on reality has reached an all-time low. It might happen - and it might not. Many movements of that sort have failed in history. To state flat-out that it will succeed is just - well, I think we have already demonstrated that you are a moron. Whatever I personally may (or may not) believe is irrelevant - for someone running a country, the interests of the many must be put before the interests of the few (I think that is along the lines of what you said). Are you then suggesting, that we should pin our policies on the slight hope that these students will succeed? That is not a secure, rational method, and it doesn't jive with what you say you believe in. So go back to ignoring things. Very good.

quote:

---

Lies again, eh? Damn DL, I have always loved debating you because out of all the people here, you were always objective, logical, and didn't spew the "lies" line every post. Out of everyone I have debated, you were always the one able to influence me, to make me think. Not enough to change every one of my views, but the small things. I'm sorry to see that time is gone.

---

Oh really. Maybe because DL is still being objective, logical, and says it like it is? Now that time is gone because he has posted something that gets your goat? Puh-lease. That you find that DL is now the "enemy"? Maybe you should re-examine your stance, hmm? AFAIK, he hasn't changed what he has been saying all along. That means that you have changed how you perceive what he has been saying.

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-13-2005 02:02)

errr, was the WMD in the hole Saddam himself? I think it was a metaphor you lampooned there WS....

either way this thread is going no where quick.

Lighten up guys.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

Ramasax: as far as I am concerned the biggest WMD was pulled from a hole over a year ago.

---

quote:

---

WebShaman: Where is your proof?

---

quote:

---

Ramasax: (list of links proving that Saddam was a WMD)

---

quote:

---

I think I quoted you on the WMD buried in a hole in Syria, or somesuch that you gibbered about.

---

No, you quoted me on saying that we pulled Saddam out of a hole in Tikrit.

It is you who misunderstood. You can't quote me and then change context. As far as proving to you that there were WMDs, I cannot. But from what I have seen, there is nothing to prove the opposite. There remains doubt, which was my original point. And rather than condemn a US president, I happen to be more prone to condemn a man who had repeatedly been condemned by the entire world.

My grip on reality is quite firm WebShaman. You use this tactic in every debate we have, trying to put me on the defensive, trying to incite me. Really quite annoying and transparent.

Have a nice day.

edit: One last thing:

quote:

---

Oh really. Maybe because DL is still being objective, logical, and says it like it is?

---

Or says it like you want to hear it? I guess everyone in my position is simply a moron, best way to generalize and put me in your little box of "Evil right-wing idiots."

You might be an intelligent person and believe you are right about everything, but you have a lot to learn about having a discourse without resorting to insults. Gideon might shrug it off and continue as you batter him for believing in something, but I see no point, I don't have the patience and in the interest of not dropping to your level I will simply call it a day.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 01-13-2005 02:12)

Ramasax - whether what has been done is Iraq is right or wrong in hindsight is still irrelevant to the issue at hand.
What is at stake is the fact that the president used a very sensitive issue to draw support for one issue, then turned that into something totally different - largely due to an ignorant and xenophobic public.

As to your comment requesting "proof" of Bush's lies, I'll borrow my response from your own words: you are capabale of using Google, are you not?

To say that what happened here was anything short of intentional lying on the part of teh Bush administration is just plain silly.

You approve of the ends, so you justify the means.

Again - if you're ok with it, so be it.
It's the outright denial that I can't accept.

As for accepting the will of america in their choice for president - I have done that.

I don't comprehend your call to "move on" in this case. I have moved on, from the beginning, in terms of accepting the choice, in terms of accepting that what's done is done.

But to suggest that because these deceptions happened "in the past" (as in....like continuously over the past several years....) we should jsut forget about it and "move on" in that we "let him get away with it" is as ridiculous as suggesting the same leniency for Saddam Hussein (yes, I acknowledge that his actions have been more dire by far - principle is the same).

Every wrong that Saddam Hussein comitted was "in the past". So why don't we all just "move forward" and forget about it?

Now, to step back for a moment - if you feel so strongly that the Bush administration has not lied, then what is it exactly that keep saying we need to "move on" from? What has he done that we need to "give him a second chance"??

It seems kind of odd to on the one hand insist that no wrong has been done, and on the other make a case for giving a second chance...does it not?



* for those of you too dim to realize, no - I am not advocating the forgiveness of saddam hussein. I am drawing a paralell.

quote:

---

No, you quoted me on saying that we pulled Saddam out of a hole in Tikrit.

It is you who misunderstood.

---

Not at all. I understood very well what you meant by this - but then you go on to use WMD and a connection between Syria and Iraq. You mention "anomalies". Clearly a reference to something that has absolutely no proof., And despite MASSIVE efforts to the contrary, none were found. You often do this (and so do the Right Wing blogs that you obviously read) - confusing opinion and supposition for fact. It makes for rather bad debating techniques. Tit for tat. So I asked "where is your proof". And you finally readily admit, there is none. Which basically means, you were spouting gibberish.

But your reference to the Holocaust was...I'm still trying to puzzle it out. It certainly is not rational. And it certainly has nothing to do with the thread. Why you stuck that in there, is beyond me.

quote:

---

Or says it like you want to hear it? I guess everyone in my position is simply a moron, best way to generalize and put me in your little box of "Evil right-wing idiots."

---

Heh. DL and I disagree on things, as well. I have tangled with him on these boards in the past - and he certainly has no objection with "straightening" my position when I go astray. I lay weight on his objective way of reasoning, and his patience.

At least you are coming to grips with being a moron - the first steps to correcting something is to first identify it and acknowledge it. There is hope for you yet! I however don't put "everyone" in your position. You put yourself in your position. I had nothing to do with it. And I don't put anyone else in your position, either. And by now, you should realize that I don't believe in "Evil", so I wouldn't use that to describe you, or put you into any such "box".

That is another problem with your debating technique, if one can call it that. You attribute things to me that I would never say, suggest, or use. That is dis-information. Untruth. Thus, your view of me is skewed. I, on the otherhand, have waited before drawing up conclusions based on what you have posted here on these boards. You will notice, that when you posted something that was not gibberish (a rare thing, but there has been occasion), I have taken note of this.

Seriously, you guys will need to calm down eventually and get over this little insult war y'all have going on here. Not really knowing or caring who started what, it simply doesn't look good as far as the public is concerned. There are ways to express your differing opinions peacefully and without resorting to bickering


Justice 4 Pat Richard

^ must be careful with blanket statements like that too

Heh, true, true...

I do try to keep my generalisations to a minimum, but... well... an example:

I know a few people in my area that surf this site, and they've all mentioned to me about the bickering that constantly seems to go on between some of the members in this area. We can only work with the statistical set we have in front of us, even though three people is not much of a sampling. Fighting's no fun though. A good argument can feel good sometimes, sure, but once it dissolves into name calling we're well beyond that point. *shrug* I just worry about the image it presents. I always do, it's part of who I am.


Justice 4 Pat Richard

My point being that not all of those 3 people are "bickering".

what's going on between 2 of them can be construed that way. The rest is called "debate".

Without that, there's not much point to this portion of the forum, is there?

There are actually 6 people in the thread.

And yes, I am one of the guilty two. I freely admit it.

Skaarj: I get your point. On the other hand you should remind your mates that by essence this area of the Asylum, Philosophy and other Silliness What is reality? What are morals and ethics? Is there a Dog? Who really *is* on first? We're deep. You be deep too., tackles with touchy topics thus the birds names and rethoric we see at times. The many other areas of the Asylum are rather calm, peaceful and helpful.

And yet another interesting bit of news - Coble: Iraq Pullout Should Be Considered

quote:

---

POSTED: 9:23 am EST January 10, 2005
UPDATED: 9:30 am EST January 10, 2005

GREENSBORO -- U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, a close ally of President George W. Bush, said the United States should consider pulling out of Iraq.

Coble is one of the first members of Congress to publicly suggest a withdrawal.

In an interview with the News and Record of Greensboro, Coble said he's "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or 10 of our young men and women in Iraq."

Coble said he arrived at his position only after many months of searching in vain for evidence that the Bush administration had a post-invasion strategy to deal with the transition to Iraqi self-government.

He said he thinks Bush was correct in attacking Iraq and that many of his constituents still believe it was a good decision.

But, Coble said, a troop withdrawal should be an option if the Iraqi government is unable or unwilling to handle the bulk of its own security. He said the Iraqis haven't shown that they can do it.

---

One will note that Coble is a Republican.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

It's the outright denial that I can't accept.

---

It's the outright denial that I can't begin to understand.

This has been a monumental lie that began long before Pres. Bush even started talking about WMD in Iraq. We have several reports that Rumsfeld & Bush were obsessed w/ Iraq from the moment they took office. We've had numerous cabinet level members tell the world that Bush wanted to know immediately how they could connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. We've had both the US & British intelligence tell the world that Bush was fibbing when he told the nation in his 2003 State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein was attempting to obtain uranium from Africa. Now, after months of talk about WMD, the investigation has officially ended turning up a handful of weapons left over from WWII, an election victory largely about the war, and billions of dollars in contracts that went to friends of the Bush Administration.

Yet all we here from Republicans is none of it happened.

Numerous reports of the Administration being obessed w/ Iraq? Lies!
Bush attempting to repeatedly link 9/11 to Iraq? The media is liberal!
Both the British & US intelligence confirm Bush lied about uranium in Africa? Bush was simply mistaken!
Still no WMD found in Iraq after 2 years? Saddam Hussein moved them!!

Riiiiight ...

SHUT UP! JESTAH!

We Republicans don't want to read your so called truths!

LONG LIVE THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!

*sticks erasers in ears, puts on blinders, wraps american flag around head, ties in strong knot...
*Wonders if knot should be so tight on trachea, has difficulty breathing, frantically claws at american flag knot
*waves hands and points to flag knot on head
*feels woozy ... hopes Jestah doesn't hold grudges ... recants evil ways ... and passes out

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

My point being that not all of those 3 people are "bickering".

---

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant the people who mentioned the bickering in this section (not this thread specifically) numbered in the threes, and that although that 3 is not much of a statistical sampling it's the only one I can really work with for my area. But yes, I do realise that alot of what we get here is healthy and heated debate, it's jsut that in the eyes of the public the bickering stands out more strongly than the debating. I do indeed point out the debates to them and show how such things are Good Things, but still one sees the bickering easier than anything else.


Justice 4 Pat Richard

Skarjj, your concerns are noted. I'm gladly bowing out of any future conversations in the Asylum. It is obviously my presence and my opinions, which are in the extreme minority here, that cause the arguments. I have wasted far too much of my time in this area as it is, only to be insulted and/or ridiculed at nearly every turn. Not to say I have not been guilty of taking part in shouting matches in the past, far from it, but in my own defense I can only say to look at the bulk of the replies I recieve from some of the more outspoken inmates.

WebShaman, one less detractor to your ideas of the world. Revel in your own arrogance. Just remember, it is morons like me that make this forum what it is, a place to debate. Without those whom share different view to yourself, whether it be politics, religion, or whatever, you and the others would only prattle back and forth amongst yourselves in an endless diatribe of self-aggrandization.

To be quite honest, it is not the political debates which bother me, but the religious debates which I hardly take part in. In those I see the intolerance of certain inmates in full display. There is a thread in the main OZONE forum right now that displays this intolerance in its fullest. This is also something that should be worried about with regard to image, as well as the arrogant nature that many newbies are accosted with, but since those certain members are Mad Scientists themselves I doubt anything will be done about it as has been displayed in the past quite well.

It has been a fun three years, but the time has for me to move on. This place has gone way downhill.

Adios,

Ramasax

*sighs*

You do what you feel you need to do Ramasax. As humans we always do.

But, and please understand this; I wasn't targetting you specifically. I purposefully refrained from mentioning names or, for that matter, targetting this thread specifically (at least, I think I did. If I didn't, please tell me, as it was not my intention). I hope that everyone here who has, starts, continues or otherwise contributes to any kind of back-biting argument will one day develop the skills to be able to leave such things alone. Really, think about it. That's the best way to stop an argument cold in its tracks: refuse to take part in it. Be calm, polite, and considered in your statements, and if someone tries to start something with you, refuse to rise to it. An argument with only one side is no argument at all, merely one person bitching, and that then detracts from the image of the bitching person, and adds to your image becuase you appear to be the more mature one in the situation, the one who won't rise to the bait.

And I will admit that, at times, I have risen to the bait myself. That's why I don't take part in the debates here, mostly (that and becuase alot of the concepts go right over my head and I have little desire to appear stupid by asking the obvious questions, but that desire is a failing of mine that I try, day by day, to overcome). So, please, don't feel you need to leave over it. Take time out to cool down if you wish, this is a good thing and the right step to take when things get too heated for you, but don't simply leave. Everyone here, from the least little troll to the loftiest philosopher, has some contribution to make, in one form or another.


Justice 4 Pat Richard

Hey Skaarjj, it was a good intention that you had, trying to stop people from arguments and get them back to debates (difference in argument and debate is that debate has no mud slinging). The only problem is that when you get between two fighting dogs, you are bound to get hurt yourself. It takes couratge to do what you did, and I respect that.

Webshaman, I want to tell you something, and I hope you listen. I know that you have been on here for a long time, and that you have much experience in the matters of discussion and debate on the Asylum. One thing, though, that I have seen is that you need to take a look at yourself and figure out why Ramasax is having troubles. There is always some basis to arguements and insults that are tossed at you, you just need to look and figure it out. I know I am sounding "psycological," but there are reasons to why Ramasax wants to leave. I just hope you discover them before you hurt anyone else.

Now to get back to the disscussion at hand...

Jestah, you have some good points there. The only problem is that it is hard to find out what the President really intended when he went to Iraq unless you are one of his close confidants: it could have been the tyrant, possibly the oil, possibly to finish his father's work, I don't know. I would like to think it was to take out a very harmful tyrant who slaughtered hundreds of thousands, and probably would have continued if he had not been stopped.

As for what this thread started on, what was that now? Oh yeah, the WMD search stopping. Had to look a ways back for that.

As far as I know then that really isn't too shocking to me. I didn't really excpect them to find anything in Iraq anyway. If you are a smart leader, you don't just stash away WMDs in your own boundaries when they are constantly being watched. If Hussien is really connected with them he would most likely, if he were smart, put them in a different country, so that they won't be found by America.

I really think that if Bush had decided to use some other excuse to go to war I doubt he would be met with much better support from the public. We would probably still be divided no matter what he did. Same with Kerry and Gore from the last election. I do agree that it was the wrong pretense to go by, but why would he willingly lie to the public, and how could something like that go on for so long? For him and his administration and the British to go along with it, it either had to be real, or at least looked real enough for them to scramble troops.

About pulling out now, that is impossible. It would be worse to pull out now and leave the Iraqis with no government than it would have been to take Sadam out at first. The Iraqis see us in there now and there is hope for a better future. It will not be easy, and may take many years to happen, but just look how long it took America to get off the ground. It could take just as long, and considering the circumstances, perhaps longer for Iraq.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Skaarjj said: But, and please understand this; I wasn't targetting you specifically. I purposefully refrained from mentioning names or, for that matter, targetting this thread specifically (at least, I think I did. If I didn't, please tell me, as it was not my intention).

---

No worries, I know you weren't targeting me or anyone else in particular. If I led you to believe that, I apologize.

quote:

---

Skaarjj said: And I will admit that, at times, I have risen to the bait myself. That's why I don't take part in the debates here

---

Which is akin to the main reason for my decision. There is too much bait anymore, and too little discussion. Too many old wounds and too many preconceptions. It detracts from the conversations and turns a fun and enlightening past-time into a frustrating experience which serves no purpose. When you feel you can no longer grow and everything you have to say is simply and generally classified as "regurgutated right-wing propaganda" there is no point in continuing.

Again, I wrote my previous reply rather hastily, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. Perhaps I will take your advice to a point and partake in some of the other areas of the Asylum, as it has been and continues to be a valuable resource full of many talented minds, but as far as the particular area, I am done.

Ramasax

I am glad to hear that Ramasax. I know there would be at least one person disappointed if you left.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

There is too much bait anymore, and too little discussion. Too many old
wounds and too many preconceptions. It detracts from the conversations and turns
a fun and enlightening past-time into a frustrating experience which serves no
purpose. When you feel you can no longer grow and everything you have to say is
simply and generally classified as "regurgutated right-wing propaganda" there is
no point in continuing.

---

You know Ramasax, I have seen this too. I know I haven't been on long, but I took a look at some archived threads, and those seemed to have a much more light and discussive feel to them than is happening much more. That actually is one reason why you haven't heard from Sangreal much anymore. But it only gets worse if the people who want to have a good discussion leave. Besides, I think that beside the insults, many on here have taught me more than I thought I could learn from a message board. And I get a good laugh now and then.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

(Edited by Gideon on 01-14-2005 00:00)

Gideon -

I don't pretend to know what Pres. Bush's official motivation for going to war but I can look at his actions and draw a rational conclusion. I just don't see how anyone can argue with him blatantly being deceptive about his actions. While a US investigation concluded there was no evidence to support Saddam Hussein's attempts to obtain uranium from Iraq he choose to tell the nation otherwise. When David Kay came back to the country and was questioned even while Kay said there was no evidence of WMD, both he and Vice-President Cheney campaigned otherwise. Even up till the election Cheney was talking about the mobile labs that Kay couldn't find evidence to exist.

That's lying. You can skirt the issue and suggest that we didn't really know what they meant, but we know they were telling us things they knew to be untrue. That's lying.

*UC twitches in corner, with flag STILL tied around head, while everyone makes nice*

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

There is a distinct difference between personally attacking someone, and constantly having to point out huge flaws in their way of presenting information.

Some people get the point immediately, some people it takes awhile (I was one of the latter as I first came here - I got taken down a few notches back then - but I listened and learned).

Other people don't ever seem to learn. They just keep on going and going - irregardless of the feedback that they are getting. At some point, they throw in the towel, blame everyone and everything else for their going, and leave.

The Asylum is NOT intolerant. In fact, it is quite the opposite (otherwise, we would be banning members right and left, closing threads down at the slightest hint of anything other than what we decide is correct), and deleting them.

This forum was created for the purpose of having an area to debate, express opinions, and explore ideas and thoughts. Religion has always been a heated subject - not just here, but EVERYWHERE! And I must say, that the members here at the Asylum are most tolerant, and mostly level-headed, with rare outbursts of emotion. Just take a look at most of the Boards out there. That many here have differening opinions is to be expected.

To Ram and Gideon - you both need to learn the difference between opinion and fact. Most of the reaction that you two are getting, are to how you present your information, not necessarily the information itself. If I say"There is a God, and everyone knows it!" that is my opinion, it is not a fact, irregardless of how I see it, or believe in it. The same goes with "Bush never lied to the public." Instead, I would post "I believe that..." or "My opinion is..." and now comes the important part -

IF I am going to express my belief or opinion, I should expect reaction to it. The reason is, I am posting it in a public forum, for others to see. Because I realize that others may have differing opinions or beliefs than I do, I should expect that they will react. By posting, I am in a sense asking for reaction. Therefore, I should also have thought this out, and be able to rationally support my opinion or belief, and be open to such in return.

I should not expect anyone to believe in my crack-brained beliefs ("The Overlords from planet X are here! It is true! And they plan on mating with our women!!!!!!"). On the contrary, I will probably either be ignored, or someone may take the time to point out my illogic. I may attempt to post my "rational" evidence, and in turn, someone may poke gaping holes in what I thought was sound thinking. One would expect me to see this, and learn from it.

But let us say, that I do not. Let us say, that irregardless of the facts, rational thoughts, etc paraded before my eyes, I am firm in my belief and conviction, and I keep posting about the Overlords, how they are taking over, how our women are not safe, and that we need to do something NOW! And I do this over and over, at every chance I get, like a broken record.

On most boards, after a few warnings, etc from the those responsible for the forums, they would most probably start deleting threads and/or ban me. Well, we don't like to do that here (and it has been a long-standing policy of the Doc not to). So, either the person ends up getting ignored, or one or more of the inmates hijacks the thread in question, or in rare occasions, the person in question gets a sound ass-whooping. Why? Because nothing else has worked.

Thus, in the case that has cropped up here, it is not a case of intolerance, and it is not a case of personal attacking. The people in question have refused to learn to adapt to the environment that they are in. It is not expected that one give up their beliefs - far from it. One is expected to present their beliefs in a manner that makes sense.

Let us take the example of Buigimus (a firm believer in the Christian faith). Let us examine his posting techniques. He posts his thoughts, ideas, opinions, beliefs in a well-thought out manner, and though I may disagree with his conclusions, the manner and form of the presentation is mostly without fault. It is well reasoned out. One will not see a lot of flaming between me, DL, or others and Bugs., even though he is a firm beleiver in his God, and represents that belief. Why is that?

Because of the manner in which he presents his beliefs are sound. They are also not meant to offend, or provoke.

Now, let us examine the harsh and cruel words of WebShaman (that, in examination of past threads by long-standing members, are relatively mild in comparison!). Do I go out of my way to attack Ram and Gideon? No, I don't follow them around from thread to thread, forum to forum, make cross-posts, bombard their E-Mail accounts, etc. I respond to the way they choose to present their information, to their inability to answer points raised ("I'll answer that at a later date" - and never does) and inability to rationally present evidence for their belief, opinion, or stance.

In every case, it was always this. And I am not alone, in pointing this out. Others have, as well, time and time again. I think Ram has proved my point in this thread soundly - first he posts "Well! That is it! I'm leaving! WebShaman is too mean!". Then, awhile later, he posts again "Ok, that was posted TOO HASTILY! I am not leaving totally, I am just staying away from this forum". If one is going to post, one should at least take the time to really examine the issue and reason that one is posting. Are you posting due to an emotional response, or due to a rational one? If emotional, do you have your emotions in check, so that you can still reason? Strong emotion blocks the reasoning process. If so, resist the urge to post immediately, and go blow off the excess steam, until you can think. Then respond. Three deep breaths often work wonders.

I am NOT the only one, who has "tangled" with Gideon and Ram. In fact, both of them have been the main instigators of threads that have exploded into such "mudslingers", if you will. Why is that? It's not happening with alot of the other members, just mainly these two. I quite clearly remember the days of InSiDeR - and how long it took to "bring him around". The amount of heated threads, etc were huge. He eventually learned, but everyone who remembers those days know what the boards went through.

Why do Ram and Gideon get such responses now? Well, it was a looooong process. It normally takes that to get to where it is now. Gentle admonishment, a kind reminder of the illogic or irrationality of a point or stance - and an asking for a point to be better explained, or supported. When that gets ignored, or stomped on, then comes the next reaction. From that, it goes on, until it comes to the place where it is now. Many members just give up, and ignore them. Thus, it comes down to a few that still respond.

One will make good note of Gideon's post here, in this thread - of which he was not part of before. I would suggest the following to you, Gideon : You have a problem with me? Take it to e-mail.

To Ram - if you are going to leave, then leave. If you are going to post that you are leaving, then do it. But don't post that you are leaving, then do the opposite. I don't particularly care under what circumstances you posted it (unless someone was hlding a gun to your head). Either do what you say you will, or don't post it.

Personally, I never held much from good-bye posts. Why anyone should "announce" that they are leaving, is beyond me. Just do it.

quote:

---

Jestah said:

him blatantly being deceptive

---

Yeah, he is pretty shady some times. I follow my captian, but that doesn't mean I like it. I think I said this earlier, but to me he was the lesser of two evils, which makes him an evil as well.

quote:

---

Jestah said:

we know they were telling us things they knew to be untrue

---

That is true. But maybe it was wishful thinking? Maybe Cheney was just hoping that there were some there to prove his point. I don't really know what was going on in his head, but I personally think they should have chosen a different reason for war.

You know what, I hear Korea is next on the Bush Plan...

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

By posting, I am in a sense asking for reaction.

---

But not necessarily insults and scorn. I understand that others do not share my beliefs (quite a few of my closest friends are Atheists). I will be hard pressed to find someone who does share them. The thing is that I excpect a reaction, but I just hope the one reacting does not appear as hostile as sometimes they have before.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

One is expected to present their beliefs in a manner that makes sense.

---

Sense is a realative thought process, though, Webshaman. Say something that makes sense to a brocoli lover: like eating a peanut butter and brocoli sandwich, may make absolutely no sense to someone who hates brocoli. Can you see the paralells in religion? Sense is a bad thing, because explaining why you like/dislike brocoli to the other person is very difficult, especially if they hurl insults in the midst. It can be done, don't get me wrong, but if sarcasm and insults are used it just slows down the exchange of information.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

One will make good note of Gideon's post here, in this thread - of which
he was
not part of before.

---

Well, the thread only took what, two days to get to where it was? I posted after I had read all the first posts. If you think that is wrong, well, I'll try my best to not do that again.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You have a problem with me?

---

No, I hold no grudges toward you. I don't have any problems with you. I just think that when some one is bickering with someone else, then there are things that need to be worked out on both sides first before a discussion can follow. I could have told Ramasax about the same thing, since it takes two to argue, but I thought he was leaving. I would have e-mailed you, but I really doubt 1.) that you would read it 2.) that you would respond in a civilized manner. That is not to say that you can't, but that is what I got from how you have treated me in the past. I am sorry if these are the wrong conclusions that I got to, but they did come through experience.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Personally, I never held much from good-bye posts. Why anyone should "announce"
that they are leaving, is beyond me. Just do it.

---

I don't like loooong good-byes, but the reason I do like them is because then you know that you shouldn't address that person anymore and make a fool of yourself.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Why is that? It's not happening with alot of the other members, just mainly
these two.

---

Yes, why is that? I would really like to know. (this is not sarcasm, I really would like to know.)

*Gideon walks over to UC and pokes him with the side of his jacket*
*UC issues a few short loud shrieks and Gideon runs the opposite way and smacks into the wall*

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Here is how i see it:
Bush supporters have this to say:
1.)Bush was misinformed
2.)He's a good leader
3.)He deserved a second chance
4.)He can be trusted
Well this is what I have to say:
1.) Bush wasn't MISINFORMED, the United Nations and several others told him there wasn't any WMD's in Iraq and the former investigation told him the same thing but he ignored them both. NEWSFLASH: Thats not misinformed that's IGNORANCE!.
2.)Bush is probably a good person outside of office but niether Bush nor Kerry are good leaders.
3.)Kerry didn't deserve a first chance, Bush shouldn't have gotten a second chance since he pretty much bought his office anyway, and if it weren't for the fact the Gore was a complete dumb@$$ he wouldn't have gotten a first chance.
4.)He can't be trusted. Here is an indescrepancy for you: Approximately $3 billion was donated to the relief fund for 9/11. A couple million is went to the survivors and a couple million is going into rebuilding the towers (theres a dumb move). Question: where's the other $2 billion? I have a theory. THE WAR ON IRAQ WAS PLANNED!

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

quote:

---

WebShaman said:
There is a distinct difference between personally attacking someone, and constantly having to point out huge flaws in their way of presenting information.

---

Ok. Quoting you now:

Ram is off spouting gibberish.
Now, let us take on your other gibberish.
Are you on crack?
You also seem to have forgotten history (but that shouldn't be surprising, I guess).
It tells us, that things there are escalating, not the contrary, you moron!
Are you even lucid?
You just prove that you are a moron...
Like all the gibbering you have done in your posts.
Wow, your grip on reality has reached an all-time low.
I think we have already demonstrated that you are a moron.

And that is from this thread alone. You want to talk about huge flaws in the way of presenting information? WebShaman, perhaps you need to do a little reconsideration of your own debating technique. Attacks of any sort are not going to make anyone of an opposing view even think about considering your opinions.

Sure, I may not be the best at getting my point across to those of opposing views, but as far as your posts are concerned you use the lines cited above and similar attacks rather than presenting your own information. For example, it has been said that Bush lied, yet there is no proof of that. If the man had been devious enough to lie, and intelligent enough to concoct this broad reaching conspiracy which you and others claim he has done, then what was stopping him from simply planting these weapons to avoid the predictable backlash? Nothing obviously, if he were as morally bankrupt as you suggest. One who was not looking at such an issue through the biased eyeglass of the media would use some common sense and realize this, if anything, was an honest mistake. I never understood the view that the only reason for going to war with Saddam was WMDs anyway. Oh well.

quote:

---

The Asylum is NOT intolerant. In fact, it is quite the opposite (otherwise, we would be banning members right and left, closing threads down at the slightest hint of anything other than what we decide is correct), and deleting them.

---

No, the Asylum as a whole is not intolerant. Being intolerant has nothing to do with banning members, it has to do with agressively and impolitely attacking, not debating, certain outlooks with no intention of ever considering their words honestly simply because you do not see things that way. Religion is attacked, simply because you do not believe. Take for instance the thread in the main OZONE forum right now. Your words in there were intolerant. If you were tolerant, you simply would have skipped over it, and kept you sarcastic comments to yourself. The purpose of that thread was not to start an argument, but somebody wanting to share something that was important in some way to them, and has proven to be appreciated by others. Why must you try and pollute that experience? Does it help make you feel superior or are you showing off?

quote:

---

To Ram and Gideon - you both need to learn the difference between opinion and fact.

---

I suggest you buy a mirror.

quote:

---

I respond to the way they choose to present their information, to their inability to answer points raised ("I'll answer that at a later date" - and never does) and inability to rationally present evidence for their belief, opinion, or stance.

---

I believe I answer all the points you raise. Do you do the same, do you counter every line of my posts or do you simply pick out the weakest part and mount your offensive from there? I go into great length in my posts simply to try and answer everyone who responds, the problem is that you do not like the responses you get. You expect me to change my position and I don't, so I guess in this sense I am guilty of instigating. Forgive me.

You talk about facts presented. But I need more than you to just tell me something is a fact to consider it. Your words are not fact. I need more than one article from the AP, Reuters, or what was it, Alternet, before I consider anything to be fact, especially if there is information out there to counter that argument or supposed piece of objective journalism. I am very honest with myself and everyday try to challenge myself and my opinions, and your assumption that I have been hanging around right-wing blogs for too long is flat out wrong and quite insulting. I view both sides of the argument and make a choice based on the information presented. I will jump from FoxNews to CBS to Al-Jazeera to Iraqi blogs if that is where my quest for the answers take me. Not the answers that I want to hear, but the answers as they are. Can you say the same? Do you strive for the truth, or search for answers which support your already established opinions?

quote:

---

I think Ram has proved my point in this thread soundly - first he posts "Well! That is it! I'm leaving! WebShaman is too mean!". Then, awhile later, he posts again "Ok, that was posted TOO HASTILY! I am not leaving totally, I am just staying away from this forum". If one is going to post, one should at least take the time to really examine the issue and reason that one is posting. Are you posting due to an emotional response, or due to a rational one? If emotional, do you have your emotions in check, so that you can still reason? Strong emotion blocks the reasoning process. If so, resist the urge to post immediately, and go blow off the excess steam, until you can think. Then respond. Three deep breaths often work wonders.

---

Actually I was apologizing to Skarjj for any misunderstaning I had caused. He thought he may have something to do with my departure and I wanted to assure him that was not the case. He told me specifically what he misunderstood in my words and I was more than happy to apologize. His softly spoken words also made me realize that the Asylum as a whole was not my problem, so leaving totally was not the answer, I just had to seek another outlet of voicing my opinion in matters of politics and/or religion. A more balanced forum, if you will.

quote:

---

I am NOT the only one, who has "tangled" with Gideon and Ram. In fact, both of them have been the main instigators of threads that have exploded into such "mudslingers", if you will.

---

Perhaps because our opinions are that of the minority and they are the only thing to tangle with? As far as being the main instigators in threads. Tell me how I instigated you in this particular discussion. I instigated nothing, I simply voiced my remaining doubts regarding the issue, and you, whether or not you are able to see it, jumped on me for it. In doing so you not only showed me that you can do nothing to disprove my doubts, except for classifying them as "right-wing," a cheap and easy way out. That is all the explanation you seem to be able to give for a lot of my posts, and that is why, my friend, you have been unable to "bring me around."

Regarding the mudslinging comments. Perhaps in the past I have slung some mud, but it has always been after being provoked, a lot of the time by you. I admit to this guilt. Gideon on the other hand has never slung one bit of mud. He is one of the most patient people I have ever encountered in this area and I respect that, as you should try to do.

quote:

---

Personally, I never held much from good-bye posts. Why anyone should "announce" that they are leaving, is beyond me. Just do it.

---

Rest assured, this will be the last thread in this area I participate in. I will, however, continue to defend the reasons for my decision and answer to any more accusation or false assumptions you make of me. The sooner this thread dies or gets back on topic, the sooner you can once again continue your one-sided Bush bashing and anti-religious discussions. Just do me a favor, in the future don't let your opinion of me pollute any other threads in which I may take part in other areas. I will be more than happy to give you the same courtesy.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 01-14-2005 23:39)

(Edited by Ramasax on 01-14-2005 23:48)

quote:

---

Ramasax said:
For example, it has been said that Bush lied, yet there is no proof of that.

---

You forgot the epidsode where Bush claimed Saddam intended to buy some uranium in africa while he already knew this information was bogus.

quote:

---

If the man had been devious enough to lie, and intelligent enough to concoct this broad reaching conspiracy which you and others claim he has done, then what was stopping him from simply planting these weapons to avoid the predictable backlash?

---

[pushing_the_conspiracy_reasoning_further] Why risking to hide some WMD to backup his lies when the US people let him go through peacefuly though the inspections of UN had found no WMD, and 2 post war US led investigations of ~2 years also concluded that there was no WMD stockpile nor will to build some ? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all their mates are not that stupid to compromise the PNAC in a huge operation to hide some WMD when they obviously don't need to. [/pushing_the_conspiracy_reasoning_further]



(Edited by poi on 01-15-2005 00:12)

quote:

---

then what was stopping him from simply planting these weapons to avoid the predictable backlash?

---

Perhaps the faith that there would *be* no such backlash...which is what we seem to be seeing, as frightening as that is...