Pages: 1 … 5 6 7

 

2008-10-20 05:08:24
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

That is just laughable.
Nope, Bush is as transparent as a window.
Your arrogance knows no bounds. You now claim to be telepathic. Incredible.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It's just as hard of evidence as what criminal investigators use when determining what happened at the scene of a crime.
Bollocks, hard evidence is a smoking gun matched to the bullet in a body, a bloody knife with fingerprints, an axe embedded in a head.
Not some stoner saying 'Yeah man, there was like this guy, he was errrr... big, uhhhh do I get my money now?'
There was no crime, there was no evidence.
Trying to call the pile of crap assembled for Powell 'evidence' is laughable.
For you to use the analogies that you do paints a much clearer picture of your willful ignorance than anything I could say.

Dilbert_X wrote:

They are two separate and distinct issues.
Duh, if there really WAS intel Saddam had WMD AND was supporting terrorists AND was planning to supply WMD to terrorists no doubt the world would have backed the US in the UN.
There wasn't, he didn't and he couldn't, and now you're in a shit-storm of your own making having blown $2Trillion and 5,000 troops on god knows what.
The intel presented had nothing to do with Saddam's support of terrorism. It had everything to do with indications he was not complying with UN resolutions regarding his WMD program.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Thanks for reinforcing my point. Pretty sure your current PM didn't do the analysis, nor was it presented to him by one of the low-level analysts who prepared their part.
Intel was shared with the UK and Aus, they would have been briefed. Since they have set in place systems to ensure the US doesn't dupe them again, and to ensure people like the meddlers surrounding Blair at the time don't get another opportunity.
"Dupe them again". That some rich drama. Those poor, poor, Brits and Aussies were fooled by dem bad ol' Mericans. Dey're meanies wif lots of guns and stuff...whaaaa.

Give me a friggin break. Every country felt Saddam's behavior was not in line with someone who was not hiding an active program. They just disagreed on how to go about bringing him into compliance with UN resolutions.

Keep your eyes closed, Dilbert. It's much more convenient for your conspiracy theories that way.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why not? You appear to.
Not really, I analyse whats put in front of me, you it seems accept anything signed by your precious POTUS who is regarded by most of the world as a brazen liar and will soon go down as Americas worst President ever.
"Analyze" implies some level of objectivity. Your "analysis" of anything involving Bush or Iraq is about as objective as a fundamentalist Christian archaeologist's "analysis" of dinosaur bones in order to find a way to prove that they are only 50,000 years old.

As a military member, I take the objectives of my superiors (to include the Commander In Chief) and plan/execute tasks to achieve those objectives. The objectives we were given do not line up with your conspiracy theories in any way. In order for them to, Bush would have to be the most intelligent, diabolical person to walk the earth in quite some time. That would seem to conflict with your assessment of his intelligence, now wouldn't it?

Which one are you wrong about?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-20 05:23:54
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
You now claim to be telepathic. Incredible.
Nope, just going on the available information, and certain mannerisms Duhbya expresses when lying.
The intel presented had nothing to do with Saddam's support of terrorism. It had everything to do with indications he was not complying with UN resolutions regarding his WMD program.
There was the claim Saddam was connected with terrorists, AQ specifically, based on 'intel' presented at the time.
Every country felt Saddam's behavior was not in line with someone who was not hiding an active program.
Based on the thoroughly bogus intel.
"Analyze" implies some level of objectivity. Your "analysis" of anything involving Bush or Iraq is about as objective as a fundamentalist Christian archaeologist's "analysis" of dinosaur bones in order to find a way to prove that they are only 50,000 years old.
No, you're the one trying to prove the intel was dandy and the govt had no agenda when there were no WMD.
The objectives we were given do not line up with your conspiracy theories in any way.
Well you woudn't have been given the real objectives now would you?

Duhbya wrote:

Wing Commander FEOS - Here are your objectives.
Kindly bomb the crap out of Iraq so I can look big on TV, Israel feels safe and our military contractors - who give so generously to the Republican party - can make a mint out of the taxpayer.
In order for them to, Bush would have to be the most intelligent, diabolical person to walk the earth in quite some time.
Cheney is the one holding the brain in this partnership.
Bush is evil though, and he does look like a monkey - try and deny it!

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-20 05:24:35)

Fuck Israel
2008-10-20 18:35:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

You now claim to be telepathic. Incredible.
Nope, just going on the available information, and certain mannerisms Duhbya expresses when lying.
And now you're an expert in reading individuals' mannerisms. You should work for CSI or something.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The intel presented had nothing to do with Saddam's support of terrorism. It had everything to do with indications he was not complying with UN resolutions regarding his WMD program.
There was the claim Saddam was connected with terrorists, AQ specifically, based on 'intel' presented at the time.
Pretty sure that the UN presentation didn't say anything more than a passing mention of Zarqawi being known to operate freely in Iraq. It was hardly as you have characterized it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Every country felt Saddam's behavior was not in line with someone who was not hiding an active program.
Based on the thoroughly bogus intel.
That those countries collected. You keep forgetting that part.

Dilbert_X wrote:

"Analyze" implies some level of objectivity. Your "analysis" of anything involving Bush or Iraq is about as objective as a fundamentalist Christian archaeologist's "analysis" of dinosaur bones in order to find a way to prove that they are only 50,000 years old.
No, you're the one trying to prove the intel was dandy and the govt had no agenda when there were no WMD.
I never said the intel was "dandy". Clearly it was not reflective of reality. It was, however, reflective of the signature that Saddam wanted observed...that of an active WMD program. I have said repeatedly that it was objective. There was no agenda in the collection or analysis of the intel. Pictures and signals intercepts don't have agendas--they just ARE.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The objectives we were given do not line up with your conspiracy theories in any way.
Well you woudn't have been given the real objectives now would you?

Duhbya wrote:

Wing Commander FEOS - Here are your objectives.
Kindly bomb the crap out of Iraq so I can look big on TV, Israel feels safe and our military contractors - who give so generously to the Republican party - can make a mint out of the taxpayer.
Unlike you, I don't claim prescience with regard to the inner thoughts of the leaders of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and others. I saw broad, strategic level objectives for the invasion of Iraq and planned my piece of it. Those strategic objectives had nothing to do with any of the bullshit conspiracies you dream up in your mom's basement.

Dilbert_X wrote:

In order for them to, Bush would have to be the most intelligent, diabolical person to walk the earth in quite some time.
Cheney is the one holding the brain in this partnership.
Bush is evil though, and he does look like a monkey - try and deny it!
Let's not talk about which Presidents (or pending Presidents) look like monkeys. Looks have nothing to do with job performance...outside of the porn industry, at least.

BL: You can't prove any of your conspiracies. Period.

You are thoroughly misguided as to how the intel systems of the world actually function. Period.

You claim to know the inner thoughts of world leaders when you clearly don't. Period.

Just stop the insanity...or at least educate yourself on what you are arguing about before bringing the nonsense next time.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-21 05:37:15
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

And now you're an expert in reading individuals' mannerisms. You should work for CSI or something.
Not particularly, its one of those life skill things.

FEOS wrote:

Pretty sure that the UN presentation didn't say anything more than a passing mention of Zarqawi being known to operate freely in Iraq.
I'm not talking about the UN presentation.

FEOS wrote:

Unlike you, I don't claim prescience with regard to the inner thoughts of the leaders of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and others.
ORLY? You claim to be able to see into Saddams mind.

FEOS wrote:

It was, however, reflective of the signature that Saddam wanted observed...that of an active WMD program.
Saddam really wanted the world to believe he had WMD when he didn't? So his country would collapse under sanctions, his military assets would face steady attrition from enforcement of the no-fly zone, he would be at constant risk of invasion by the US who weren't scared of his WMDs the last time they came to blows and he would be under even greater threat of revolt and assassination than usual?
All that pain and he might as well have had them really, for all the good not having them did him.
Who is the tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist now?

FEOS wrote:

Pictures and signals intercepts don't have agendas--they just ARE.
Pictures and intercepts don't say anything by themselves, as you know it takes an analyst to interpret them.
But they ARE subject to accidental or wilful misinterpretation, which is what happened.
Unfortunately there was such pressure to come up with certain findings thats what happened.

FEOS wrote:

BL: You can't prove any of your conspiracies.
History will be the judge, and its not gone Duhbyas way so far, no WMDs, no links between Saddam and AQ, US troops not welcomed with garlands of flowers etc.
Seems Duhbyas conspiracy theory is the one disproven.

FEOS wrote:

You are thoroughly misguided as to how the intel systems of the world actually function.
Not so much.

FEOS wrote:

You claim to know the inner thoughts of world leaders when you clearly don't.
Its my opinion and analysis of the situation, if you don't like it you're free to disagree.
OTOH You believe anything they print out and sign is the gospel truth, no-one in govt could conceivably be deceitful or mendacious - politicians never lie.
What do you think, when Dubya became your 'Commander in Chief' he was sanctified by Almighty Gawd himself?
Some clues, Duhbya was a politician before that, a texan oilman before that, and a draft-dodging c-grade drunkard before that.

FEOS wrote:

Let's not talk about which Presidents (or pending Presidents) look like monkeys.
Geez I was trying to inject some humour, you get so uptight when you're defending the indefensible......

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-21 05:40:44)

Fuck Israel
2008-10-21 18:26:52
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pretty sure that the UN presentation didn't say anything more than a passing mention of Zarqawi being known to operate freely in Iraq.
I'm not talking about the UN presentation.
That was the only time intel was presented to the public, so it must be what you are talking about.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Unlike you, I don't claim prescience with regard to the inner thoughts of the leaders of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and others.
ORLY? You claim to be able to see into Saddams mind.
I claimed no such thing. I merely repeated what those who interrogated Saddam and others have reported.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It was, however, reflective of the signature that Saddam wanted observed...that of an active WMD program.
Saddam really wanted the world to believe he had WMD when he didn't? So his country would collapse under sanctions, his military assets would face steady attrition from enforcement of the no-fly zone, he would be at constant risk of invasion by the US who weren't scared of his WMDs the last time they came to blows and he would be under even greater threat of revolt and assassination than usual?
All that pain and he might as well have had them really, for all the good not having them did him.
Who is the tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist now?
So now you're expecting Saddam to act in a way that is considered rational by Western standards? What color is the sky on your world?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pictures and signals intercepts don't have agendas--they just ARE.
Pictures and intercepts don't say anything by themselves, as you know it takes an analyst to interpret them.
But they ARE subject to accidental or wilful misinterpretation, which is what happened.
Unfortunately there was such pressure to come up with certain findings thats what happened.
Actually, signal intercepts DO say things by themselves...that's the whole point. Imagery does take some interpretation, but those who interpret imagery are extremely skilled at what they do. You haven't the slightest clue what actually happened...you just keep beating your conspiracy drum with absolutely zero fact to back it up.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

BL: You can't prove any of your conspiracies.
History will be the judge, and its not gone Duhbyas way so far, no WMDs, no links between Saddam and AQ, US troops not welcomed with garlands of flowers etc.
Seems Duhbyas conspiracy theory is the one disproven.
Poor decision making does not a conspiracy prove.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You are thoroughly misguided as to how the intel systems of the world actually function.
Not so much.
And just how would you know? Yes. You are. So very, very much.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You claim to know the inner thoughts of world leaders when you clearly don't.
Its my opinion and analysis of the situation, if you don't like it you're free to disagree.
OTOH You believe anything they print out and sign is the gospel truth, no-one in govt could conceivably be deceitful or mendacious - politicians never lie.
What do you think, when Dubya became your 'Commander in Chief' he was sanctified by Almighty Gawd himself?
Some clues, Duhbya was a politician before that, a texan oilman before that, and a draft-dodging c-grade drunkard before that.
Who ever said politicians didn't lie? I never said that.

What I did say was that we were given specific objectives. Those objectives were achieved. None of them had anything to do with the bullshit you keep spouting.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Let's not talk about which Presidents (or pending Presidents) look like monkeys.
Geez I was trying to inject some humour, you get so uptight when you're defending the indefensible......
I'm not defending the indefensible (poor decision making by GWB's administration). What I am defending are those who performed the analysis that you know jackshit about yet feel qualified to critique. Critique GWB's decision all you want, but don't try to sell your crap about willful misrepresentation or manufacture of the intel by the analysts. There is nothing--NOTHING--to support that claim.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard