VeeshanVault

Posted: **December 10, 2002, 6:08 pm**

lol

I won't even waste my time "battling wits" with the likes you, child. I learned that lesson a long time ago. It is enough to remind you how stupid you are.

Posted: **December 10, 2002, 6:12 pm**

Okedokee, old wise Kyocunt.

Posted: **December 10, 2002, 6:20 pm**

The money is not nearly as big of an issue to me compared to the lives of our soldiers. I would never send of a soldier to die for a cause that I do not believe in. As it stands, I do not believe in Bush's cause for war. He needs to not only convince myself and other Americans, but the world at large. That requires evidence, and lots of it. I am oppossed to bombing an entire country because they found a factory that makes aresol cans which can also, in theory, be made into bombs. If they happen to find factories or areas that have suppossed duel purpose items, destroy that factory, and only that factory. Better yet, don't destroy anything at all. Have the site taken apart by the UN in broad daylight.

As an American, we have the right to certian fundamental information. When our country does something as serious as wage war on another nation, you goddamn better believe we have a right to know every bit of knowledge the government can share without offsetting national security. Furthermore, that information would be better recieved if other UN nations reached the same conclusions, possessed some form of the same information, and agreed that all other areas of diplomacy had been exhausted.

As it stands now, the USA seems to have already made it's decision to wage war in Iraq for reasons unknown to it's own citizens, as well as the UN. There is an extreme burden of proof at this time and America better provide something before the bombs start falling.

Posted: **December 10, 2002, 6:30 pm**

we have a right to know every bit of knowledge the government can share without offsetting national security

Agreed.

Now, do you draw the line on what constitutes national security (i.e. those lives you mentioned) on the conservative side or release information and hope for the best?

I'm sure you can see where this is leading. You job as an American is to vote for those you believe can most accurately 'draw lines'. If you don't like the way it's being done, you have every right to vote the politician out of office.

You have no right to stand around and scream because you don't know all the details of what's going on. Nowhere are you given the right to "know".

I challenge you to produce a document that gives you this right.

Posted: **December 10, 2002, 6:36 pm**

Fallanthas, don't argue sematics with me, because that's all you're doing.

If the USA decided to invade France and nuke China, are the citizens of America suppossed to throw our hands up and say "Well, we voted for them! We'll have to wait and fix this in another 4 years!"

Hell no. That's idiodic, and so is your argument.

Posted: **December 10, 2002, 6:41 pm**

Its called the freedom of information act.

Here's a link to it and related information.
http://www.epic.org/open_gov/

Yes, there are exceptions, but it is at the foundation of every American's right to know about what their government is doing.

Animale

Posted: **December 10, 2002, 7:02 pm**

Fallanthas wrote:You have no right to stand around and scream because you don't know all the details of what's going on. Nowhere are you given the right to "know".

I have a right to know all government proceedings unless they are deemed specifically by executive order (with other exceptions listed below) in the interest of national security to not disclose them to me.

i bolded text i thought was relevant to this conversation.

The Freedom of Information Act
5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended By
Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048
Below is the full text of the Freedom of Information Act in a form showing all amendments to the statute made by the "Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996." All newly enacted provisions are in boldface type.
§ 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:

(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public--
(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;

(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;

(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and

(E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.

Freedom of Information act is not valid in the following cases:

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

5-9 are worthless for the sake of our conversation.

so that, in concert with the fact that the proceedings of Congress are public record suggest i have a right to inquire into such things. Oh yeah and Amendment One to the Consititution suggests i can scream all i want...

Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution wrote:Clause 3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

So in summary, basically I am right, you are wrong.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 11:45 am**

No Voronwe.

Bub, you better read that quote from the Freedom of Information Act again. The section you posted says that government entities have to tell you where there public offices are and how they work, in general. In other words, you can have a copy of the annual report from each agency, should you so desire.

How you get intelligence information out of that........

Fairweather;

I am not arguing semantics. You are trying to manufacture a right where none exists. A right is a very specific legal instrument. 40 years of press hounds yelling "the people have a right to know" doesn't qualify.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 11:57 am**

I think Jack said it best, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth"!

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 12:15 pm**

fallanthas:

for the 3rd time and in large print: NOBODY IS SAYING THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO DISCLOSE ANY INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION

you keep qualifying your argument with that statement because it puts you in a favorable position; however, it is not part of the argument here. As such, it is irrelevant.

nobody is a fucking moron and thinks that military intelligence should be public record.

we are talking about a military conflict that the US deliberately leaks 'secret' info about in order to prep the public and the international community for the impending demise of Iraq.

The argument that this thread is about, is does the US public have the right to know why that we are going to war with Iraq?

and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and

that is not about office location....

Moreover, billions of dollars in campaign contributions, millions of dollars in the pockets of government executives, and trillions of dollars buried in the sand in Iraq are not military intelligence either.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 12:18 pm**

Fairweather Pure wrote:The money is not nearly as big of an issue to me compared to the lives of our soldiers. I would never send of a soldier to die for a cause that I do not believe in. As it stands, I do not believe in Bush's cause for war. He needs to not only convince myself and other Americans, but the world at large. That requires evidence, and lots of it. I am oppossed to bombing an entire country because they found a factory that makes aresol cans which can also, in theory, be made into bombs. If they happen to find factories or areas that have suppossed duel purpose items, destroy that factory, and only that factory. Better yet, don't destroy anything at all. Have the site taken apart by the UN in broad daylight.

As an American, we have the right to certian fundamental information. When our country does something as serious as wage war on another nation, you goddamn better believe we have a right to know every bit of knowledge the government can share without offsetting national security. Furthermore, that information would be better recieved if other UN nations reached the same conclusions, possessed some form of the same information, and agreed that all other areas of diplomacy had been exhausted.

As it stands now, the USA seems to have already made it's decision to wage war in Iraq for reasons unknown to it's own citizens, as well as the UN. There is an extreme burden of proof at this time and America better provide something before the bombs start falling.

Now explain which thread you are reading to me, Vor? This is not a request for a plan of action, it's a demand for the information leading to that decision.

ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER..............

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 12:18 pm**

That is exactly correct Bubba.

The masses do not have the intelligence or background or time to be bale to deal with the information they all clammer for anyhow. Thus, the reason why we elect people to do this for us.

We should watch the news and self educate ourselves on what our politicians do so we know whether to re-elect them.

But, to demand that we know every thing so we can vote in polls and picket and rally, blah blah blah...is just stupid.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 12:30 pm**

Ever the good lemmings. Carry on!

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 12:33 pm**

i said this wrote:every bit of knowledge the government can share without offsetting national security

next time i'll put it in red letters to convince you i'm not asking for intelligence data.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 2:20 pm**

You're not the only poster here demanding information, Vor.

That requires evidence, and lots of it.

That's pretty plainly a demand for justification. Sorry, you aren't going to get it. Revealing such data either:

A. Means nothing because you have no information on the source to allow you to put the information in context, or

B. Gets the source killed because you let details slip that peg the source of the information.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 2:28 pm**

That's not the point that's being discussed here. Have you read any of Voronwe's posts at all?

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 2:45 pm**

No, of course not.

/sarcasm off

Fairweather posted that he has a right to the justifications for entering into war with Iraq. I told him he was full of it. Vor then posted excerpts from the Freedom of Information Act that state he is entitled to information on hwo goverment agencies operate.

Now, explain to me who is missing the point? The Freedom of Information Act has jack and shit to do with any potential war situation. It's a document that insures you can find out what government agencies exist and what their policies and procedures are, should you need to do so. It also insures that you can find out what said agencies know about YOU.

It has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Nothing.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 3:00 pm**

Fallanthas wrote:I seriously think you "right-to-know" folks need to go back to civics class.

You have a right to vote a political candidate in or out of office based on his or her actions and decisions during their previous term.

Nowhere, NOFUCKINGWHERE are you given the right to see every piece of intelligence material available to elected officials.

Initially, we were discussing the peoples right to have a say in how the country was run so that the country's ideals are upheld and they are not misrepresented by a power greedy war mongering government.

You took that to mean people have no right to view top secret information that could cause panic/chaos/fear etc as it is in the countries best interest to keep calm and rational.

No one was arguing that.

What was said meant that the people do have a right to know if their government is doing stupid things that could endanger many innocent peoples lives and show to the world that it is nothing more than the war mongering power greedy shithole that it's government is now turning it into.

Your outburst did nothing but make you look like a propagandised sheep.

Chill.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 3:13 pm**

What was said meant that the people do have a right to know if their government is doing stupid things that could endanger many innocent peoples lives and show to the world that it is nothing more than the war mongering power greedy shithole that it's government is now turning it into.

And his and my point is that normal everyday people can't make an intelligent conclusion that the government is doing something stupid. It may be a few poeple opinion that it is dumb, but they have neither the background or expertise to come to that conclusion. That is why we elect people to make those decisions for us, who are qualified to do so.

If you feel you can do better, then run for office and save us from these "war mongering idiots" mmmkay.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 3:19 pm**

Geez Fallanthas, you've been busy!

http://www.wslfweb.org/civlib.htm

You'll notice a large list of links to all sorts of whacky information that a US citizen has a right to know, but scroll to the bottom and you'll find this link a bit more relevant to this discussion:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/

Contained in that link is a nice little handbook with instructions on how to obtian information from a large list of government and military agencies in reguards to all sorts of war related materials.

It even contains this nice littel quote by James Madison right in the manuel:

“A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”

You're entire argument, that we as a country do not deserve an explaination for war, is absurd. It makes me sick to think there is that much blind faith in anyone, much less for our less than perfect government.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot this little gem:

The Freedom of Information Act has jack and shit to do with any potential war situation. It's a document that insures you can find out what government agencies exist and what their policies and procedures are, should you need to do so. It also insures that you can find out what said agencies know about YOU.

Read the above and you will reach the same conclusion that Voro had stated earlier, and I will reiterate here again. We are right, and you are wrong. Furthermore, I believe you have an abundance of feminine traits and are most probably attracted to members of your same sex. While the last statement was mere conjecture, I offer you this one simple truth: You sir, are definitely a sheep.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 3:25 pm**

to specifically address the Freedom of Information act. i will break down section a, point 1, item D,

it says that people can find out how money is spent, the reasoning behind these spending policies, and the intended effects of these policies.

it is not simply about personal information, office locations, as you have represented it Fallanthas.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 3:34 pm**

Well, I guess if I wanted a debate free of personal slander, I could go to another site.

Fairweather, would you explain to me what you would accept as justification? The President has clearly said that he believes Iraw posseses weapons of mass destruction and the will to use them. We also know from intelligence data that Iraq has in the past and most likely still does entertain and train terrorists, including but not limited to Al Quaeda. That is the presentation of justification.

The fact that you personally do not agree with it does not mean it wasn't given.

If you are asking (as I inferred from your posts) for the information that led to such a decision, see my above posts. You aren't going to get it. To releas such information to you would also mean making it available for the CNN masses.

Do you honestly believe Saddam doesn't get satellite TV? Or is the problem that you are not looking beyond your own selfish desire for information?

This isn't a matter of being a sheep people. It's a matter of practicality. Do I want to know how we know? Dang straight. Do I think I have some mythical 'right' to such information? No. Wanting something badly does not give you a right to it.

The moment you release such information you devalue it for any tactical use, endanger the specific source and insure that you will not receive such information in the future.

I won't even go into the problems of putting any such information into context. Midnyte did a fine job of that already.

it says that people can find out how money is spent, the reasoning behind these spending policies, and the intended effects of these policies.

And still says absolutely nothing about any situational information.

So, what is it you want, Vor? A budget? That is your right. Information on how and why a particular decision was made? Sorry. Put up with the bullshit that is public life if you want that kind of information.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 3:34 pm**

I am not going to be drawn into a political debate on the merits of Bush or any other president, but do have something to say about this supposed IQ score of President Bush.

These are not test scores, rather a group purporting to guess at the IQ of most of the presidents of the 20th/21st century. I am highly suspect of the motives on this site since they list ridiculously high scores of some Democrat Presisdents and ridiculously low scores of some Republican ones. The average IQ is 100, vast majority of the population falling between 95 and 120. Only 2% of the American population are elegible for MENSA, which requires 145. I believe, but am not sure, that this is taking a test as an adult, not relying on childhood scores.

Marilyn von Savant (or vos Savant, spelled different in many articles) is acknowledged by most as the person with highest childhood (228) and adult (190) IQ test score. The 2nd highest MENSA recognizes is a man from South Africa, who's name slips my mind, at 185 adult test score. The distinction between highly intelligent and genius is at 170, if I recall.

I highly doubt that President Clinton was an unrecognized genius with an IQ of 182; same for President Carter at 175 and President Kennedy at 174. Nor can I give credence to President Bush, Sr. being 98 and President Bush, Jr. being 91. I too could pull numbers out of thin air and assign them to people, based upon my likes and dislikes of them, completely disregarding the average. It may well be that those elected were all above average, but that chances of so many falling on either side of the middle, and into the range of genius or close to retarded (85 in some states) are quite slim.

As for the other thread with a link to an IQ test, the test is a joke as it scored me 20 points over what I know mine to be in childhood test scores, and people rarely go up in score. This seems to be more of a test of who will be foolish enough to pay to see the answers. The test also claimed I was good in math, an area I am not exceptional in at all.

Ceredwin Vanyar
Guardians of Veeshan

*if there is a spell-checker hiding here that I missed, further evidence of the failure of the online IQ test's accuracy, since I could not find it*

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 3:43 pm**

That is a valid point, most people aren't capable of coming to an intelligent conclusion as to how the world would best work.

I don't have years of political experience, however, that doesn't mean I can't voice opinions that assume that governments need to held accountable for its actions.

Thats not armchair politics, its common sense.

Why don't I run for office and fix America? Because I honestly don't give a fuck, I don't live there, it's not my countries reputation being shafted on an almost daily basis.

However, I can discuss all I want on how I think it could be fixed or point out errors in some of the countries foreign decisions that may effect the safety of thousands of people who live in some wee far away sandy country.

In conclusion, I think in general that the American public is retarded, 8th grade emotional Beverly Hills 90210 level. As with most western countries. Still, there are some of us who aren't retarded, or like to think so, and this is how we pass our time. Providing answers and criticising things. I'm fairly sure I could run the U.S without the amount of back-patting, power sharing machinery that Bush operates with.

Why? My convictions are at least noble.

Cheers

Edit: As Voronwe said, in this matter, he is right, you are wrong.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 4:01 pm**

Want to know why I want to see the data/information/other points relative to this "decision" to go to war? Its because I DON'T TRUST HIM or his administration. The carefully "leaked" information from the white house, the "strong" evidence he says he posseses, then doesn't produce, all in all it just sounds like a snow-job. I don't trust the President to make the decision that is in my idea of national interest, particularly when it comes to matters of war.

Whenever a politician says "trust me," alarm bells should be going off in your head. Good ol' Richard Nixon taught us this in war time ("We will not bomb Cambodia" while at the same time we were beginning to bomb Cambodia), good ol' Bill Clinton taught us this more recently ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman"). Still you believe George W. Bush when he tells us to go to war no questions asked? Especially when others who are in the know say there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE? (Former inspector Scott Ritter, who is a person both knowledgable and competent) Bush can say Saddam is a bad man all he wants, but not liking or trusting someone is no reason to kill them.

Secrecy and ignorance are the tools of tyranny. To believe anything else is naive, and dare I say it, unamerican in my eyes.

Animale

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 4:06 pm**

While we don't have actual IQ scores of Bush - his Yale transcript does show something about his intelligence ...

(don't know how to quote so the following is from The Straight Dope)

Is George W. Bush stupid? We have pretty good data here. In 1999 the NewYorker obtained a copy of the future president's Yale transcript and revealed that he'd had a C average in college and, more interestingly, scored 1206 on his Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)--566 on the verbal and 640 on the math.

I recall having seen a college guide circa 1970 that listed the average SAT for Yale freshmen as about 670 in verbal, 705 in math. So Bush was well below average for his class. He must have written a great essay.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 4:35 pm**

Fallanthas wrote:We also know from intelligence data that Iraq has in the past and most likely still does entertain and train terrorists, including but not limited to Al Quaeda. That is the presentation of justification.

You sir know sweet fuck all. Any representation by you otherwise is pure bullshit. You have absolutely zero knowledge of any of the "facts" you state. You even invent a relationship between Iraq and Al Quaeda. If you weren't such an ignorent redneck you would realize how dumb that was.

Fallanthas tries to slip and slide his way out of a failing argument. I'm still a bit curious how he supports a right to bear arms, a right given to protect the citizens from their government, and still believe that all citizens should blindly follow the government cause it knows best. Anyway...

A better question is what provoked all this attention on iraq? The war was a decade ago. There hasn't been a weapons inspector inside iraq in years. Dumbya was president for 9 months before 911, I don't recall ever hearing him speak on Iraq or the axis of evil then. After 911 there was no mention of Iraq, all the attention was on Osama\Al-Qeada. Then the Taliban.

Do you ever hear Dumbya address the current situation with Osama\Al-Qeada these days? Why not?

What exactly has Sadam\Iraq done recently (or even in the last decade) that has made him public enemy #1 over the person\organization that killed a few thousand people in New York City little more than a year ago.

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 4:41 pm**

Answer? We know where he is.

Animale

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 5:01 pm**

Smoke and mirrors, that's all this "war" is...

Posted: **December 11, 2002, 6:38 pm**

Forthe,

Fist off, fuck you for the redneck comment. Just because I can both discuss politics and gut a deer doesn't make me any less intelligent than stupidass city people who think meat grows in aisle 12 under clean cellophane leaves.

Second, does ANYONE on this site remember the discussions of terrorist training camps active in Iraq prior to Desert Storm? Shall we talk about the monies funneled to organizations supporting terrorist groups? Don't take the fact that you are too fucking lazy to pay attention or remember as a sign that others are.

Animale,

Great, you want to know. So do I, I think it would be one hell of an interesting read and make me a more informed voter.

Now, explain how that equates to a 'right'?

Former inspector Scott Ritter, who is a person both knowledgable and competent

Thanks for the late afternoon grin.

Answer the question, Fair. You brought up that there should be proof offered before the United States goes to war. Now, what sort of documentation would you accept as proof?

Posted: **December 12, 2002, 3:54 pm**

Can someone explain to me how someone can get a 566 in verbal? I always seemed to remember seeing all SAT scores in multiples of ten.

On the subject of SAT verbal scores, I think Duhbya must have cheated in order to get a 560. His command of the English language suggests that he can barely sign his own name, let alone score a 560.

There are tons of these everywhere you look. An occasional misuse or slipup is really not a big deal, but depriving him of a telepromter and forcing him to speak impromptu is a surefire way to see him butcher the English language.

Ran into this tidbit as well. Funny how little attention this received relative to Clinton's weed experimentation while he was running in 92. Gore really fucked up when he didn't hammer Bush in this area. How a coke snorting, drunk driving motherfucker gets into office is really beyond me.

Posted: **December 12, 2002, 4:02 pm**

Unfuckinbelievable

Posted: **November 6, 2008, 5:39 am**

Ever take a look back at our pre Iraqi War discussions?

Seriously, look back on this posting time frame if you are ever bored. This stuff is classic and a great read. We have dozens of threads and they're pretty much all awesome. Well, I guess that depends on what side of the debate you were on...

Posted: **November 6, 2008, 11:19 am**

Re: Yes, this is like beating a dead horse.....

VeeshanVault

Yes, this is like beating a dead horse.....

Ah yes...

hmmm

Re: Yes, this is like beating a dead horse.....

Re: Yes, this is like beating a dead horse.....