A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Alpine Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fallback Options



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old December 1st 05, 01:17 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



BrritSki wrote:

John Red-Horse wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

There's only been one quote provided so far. That was Blix' statement
of Feb 2003 to the Security Council. In it he did NOT say there were
no WMDs, only that he didn't find any which is an entirely different
thing.

I have not moved any goalposts or shifted my ground in any way. On
the contrary, I started out asking Ant to quote from her posts here
and I've now widened it. Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone,
anywhere and I'll be happy to be proved wrong.



Okay, Walt's given you Usenet posts, but there certainly were people
during the time of the debate who were arguing that Hussein wasn't, as
posed by our own government, an immediate threat to the US.

Robert Scheer, the progressive (former) LA Times columnist, apparently
wrote this in one of his own columns in August of 2002. Here's a quote
from an article on FAIR's website, which discusses his firing in mid-Nov:

Scheer's forceful and independent commentary has often placed him in
the middle of national debates. He has been one of the strongest
critics of the White House over the Iraq War. For instance, in a
pre-war column (8/6/02) that undercuts the current notion that
everyone got the WMD story wrong, Scheer wrote that "a consensus of
experts" told the Senate that Iraq's chemical and biological arsenals
were "almost totally destroyed during eight years of inspections."

And I distinctly remember some of Scheer's columns picking apart of the
Administrations claims for a then-current Iragi nuclear capability as
well
during the build up to the fiasco^wwar. I can try to look these up for
you if you'd like...

No, no need. Thanks for the quote above, that's the kind of intelligent
argument I was interesting in having before I got sidetracked by Ant an
Mary.

I never believed Iraq had a nuclear capability, or 45 minute claims and
so on, and I freely admit that I didn't hear any arguments that none
existed from any serious commentators pre-war, in particular Hans Blix
who seemed (to me) to blow with the wind.


Quote?

Now _this_ is gonna be good.


Ads
  #272  
Old December 1st 05, 05:36 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mary Malmros wrote:


BrritSki wrote:

John Red-Horse wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

There's only been one quote provided so far. That was Blix'
statement of Feb 2003 to the Security Council. In it he did NOT say
there were no WMDs, only that he didn't find any which is an
entirely different thing.

I have not moved any goalposts or shifted my ground in any way. On
the contrary, I started out asking Ant to quote from her posts here
and I've now widened it. Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from
anyone, anywhere and I'll be happy to be proved wrong.



Okay, Walt's given you Usenet posts, but there certainly were people
during the time of the debate who were arguing that Hussein wasn't, as
posed by our own government, an immediate threat to the US.

Robert Scheer, the progressive (former) LA Times columnist, apparently
wrote this in one of his own columns in August of 2002. Here's a quote
from an article on FAIR's website, which discusses his firing in
mid-Nov:

Scheer's forceful and independent commentary has often placed him in
the middle of national debates. He has been one of the strongest
critics of the White House over the Iraq War. For instance, in a
pre-war column (8/6/02) that undercuts the current notion that
everyone got the WMD story wrong, Scheer wrote that "a consensus of
experts" told the Senate that Iraq's chemical and biological arsenals
were "almost totally destroyed during eight years of inspections."

And I distinctly remember some of Scheer's columns picking apart of the
Administrations claims for a then-current Iragi nuclear capability as
well
during the build up to the fiasco^wwar. I can try to look these up for
you if you'd like...

No, no need. Thanks for the quote above, that's the kind of
intelligent argument I was interesting in having before I got
sidetracked by Ant an Mary.

I never believed Iraq had a nuclear capability, or 45 minute claims
and so on, and I freely admit that I didn't hear any arguments that
none existed from any serious commentators pre-war, in particular Hans
Blix who seemed (to me) to blow with the wind.



Quote?


Before the war his reports and actions indicated that he needed to keep
looking. See the url Walt posted dated Feb 23rd 2003 for evidence.

In May 2003 he was starting to have doubts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html
(for those who don't know, the Guardian is a serious left-wing newspaper
in GB that is seriously anti Bush & Blair.

Then almost a year later when he has a book to sell his story changes
again (interesting story, no idea of the political leanings and
credibnility of the website, but I remember the BBC interview:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200402180915.asp

What I meant by "blow with the wind" was that his views changed to suit
the prevailing situation.

It took me but a few minutes to back up my assertion, why was it so
difficult for you to do the same ? Was it easier to start bleating
about intellectual dishonesty and so on before you'd even seen an
answer? Or did you mix me up with some of the other people in this
discussion ?

If you look back up the thread you'll find that apart from being rude to
Astro (arse on a plate) and the cheap shot against you earlier
(apologies - my knee was hurting and I'd just learnt that the local hill
is not opening tomorrow) I've not been calling people names, just asking
questions, putting an opposing POV and asking for quotes politely.

SHeesh.
  #273  
Old December 1st 05, 06:02 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BrritSki wrote Hans Blix

Before the war his reports and actions indicated that he needed to keep
looking. See the url Walt posted dated Feb 23rd 2003 for evidence.

In May 2003 he was starting to have doubts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html
(for those who don't know, the Guardian is a serious left-wing newspaper
in GB that is seriously anti Bush & Blair.

Then almost a year later when he has a book to sell his story changes
again (interesting story, no idea of the political leanings and
credibnility of the website, but I remember the BBC interview:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200402180915.asp

What I meant by "blow with the wind" was that his views changed to suit
the prevailing situation.


Hmmm. You cite one article from "a serious left-wing newspaper" and
another from The National Review (Bill Buckley's ultra-right vanity
press) and complain that they present an inconsistent view of Blix's
position. Are you sure it's Blix that's the variable here, and not the
agendas of the Guardian and the NR?

'Cause you're going to find everthing and everybody in the world "blows
with the wind" using that methodology.

//Walt

  #274  
Old December 2nd 05, 08:46 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Walt wrote:
BrritSki wrote Hans Blix

Before the war his reports and actions indicated that he needed to
keep looking. See the url Walt posted dated Feb 23rd 2003 for evidence.

In May 2003 he was starting to have doubts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html
(for those who don't know, the Guardian is a serious left-wing
newspaper in GB that is seriously anti Bush & Blair.

Then almost a year later when he has a book to sell his story changes
again (interesting story, no idea of the political leanings and
credibnility of the website, but I remember the BBC interview:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200402180915.asp

What I meant by "blow with the wind" was that his views changed to
suit the prevailing situation.



Hmmm. You cite one article from "a serious left-wing newspaper" and
another from The National Review (Bill Buckley's ultra-right vanity
press) and complain that they present an inconsistent view of Blix's
position. Are you sure it's Blix that's the variable here, and not the
agendas of the Guardian and the NR?

'Cause you're going to find everthing and everybody in the world "blows
with the wind" using that methodology.

Yes you're right, but I did say that I didn't know what the National
Review was. I also said that I remembered the BBC interview - "are you
saying I'm a liar?"

Actually, here is the transcript of the BBC interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3470051.stm

Having read this interview and the NR article again, I found that I AM
guilty of misrepresenting St. Hans' position: in fact he is saying that
"we" now know that there were no WMDs, but they didn't know before the
war actually started, which is what I've been arguing all along. Sorry.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bern oberland r exit options Hookipa European Ski Resorts 2 April 18th 04 05:42 PM
Spring Break Options - Keystone Mar 6-13 David Leach North American Ski Resorts 3 January 5th 04 03:55 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.