By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
whatever on 21 December 2010
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
whatever said:

A)  Really?  What your claiming (that WMD were found, even if not at the levels that would make it relevant to any substantive discussion about the war), makes it a non-starter.  If someone answers that no WMD were found in Iraq, then to say they are wrong because it is not "technically" correct, is missing the point.  There were no WMDs in Iraq as it was laid out in the justification for the war.  Bias is trying to pigeon hole finding mustard gas as relevant.

B) OK, your way off here.  By all reports, all Irag weapons programs were in decline since the end of desert storm.  To say he jumped the gun is just not accurate.

C) It's as valid a comparison as saying finding mustard gas is the same as finding the WMDs we where told existed prior to the war.

A) What the hell are you talking about here?  Do you even know what the "Were WMDs found in Iraq" question is related to?  It has ZERO to do with any justifacation for the war.  Which i've stated probably a dozen times already.

B)  So you didn't look at what I posted then?  Also your ignoring the fact they kept stuff that should of been destroyed, espiecally matieral that's basically only used for nuclear weapons or nuclear power. 
  
C)  That's not what i said.  The point was, which you keep missing due to your immense politcal bias is that people will answer that question no because it isn't the same weapons as WMDs that bush thought existed, even though the answer is YES.

Anyone including you who said NO.  Would infact be wrong and therefore would be rated as being misinformed due to the media, which is similar to things like "Has the stimulus saved jobs." 

You've proven my initial point in your complete inability to comprehend what the initial point was.  That people give stupid answers and stupid arguements that rate as wrong, because they feel so storngly about something they feel the wrong answer better represents the truth as they see it then the correct answer.  You keep argueing the answer is No, to a yes or no question I posed which was simply "Were WMD found in Iraq."  There was no mentioning of Anthrax or Nuclear Weapons in their, nor was their mentioning of "if it justifies the war" this is all stuff you've just infered into the question because of your deep intense political feelings on the matter cuasing you to err.

So now putting things in bold makes the points more valid?

My point was that you picked a bad question to demonstate bias.  I would guess that the answer to WMDs in Iraq would be similar no matter the bias of the respondent.  Plus, the questions in the study were much more specific.  It wasn't "Has the stimulus saved jobs", it was "most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation saved or created only a few jobs or caused job losses".  To be similar, you woudl have to ask "Were WMD found in Iraq in accordance with the international definition of WMDs" or "Were WMDs found in Iraq as defined by the Bush administration when justifying the war".  The point is that the answer to these two questions are drastically different.  Some would assume you meant the former, some the latter, regardless of bias.

There was also this from the same study, "On other issues most Democrats evidenced misinformation, while this was the case with less than half of Republicans. These were: the belief that it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); that Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%), and that Democrats in Congress did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%)."

Do you really see bias affecting your answer to: "Most scientists think climate change is not occurring views are divided evenly" or "The bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred under Pres. Obama only (not Bush as well)".

So the claim that this study are bias are coming from people that most likely didn't read the actual study.