Bush?

Do you like Bush

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 48.2%

  • No

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • I wish Al Gore were in office

    Votes: 16 28.6%
  • Total voters
    56
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Napoleon
Quarto: Ive decided it is pointless to argue with the people like aries, they are as bad as YECs, you can show them any amount of evidence and logic to show that their possition is full of holes, immoral, wrong, and plain silly, but they will keep on thinking what they did, and then they will call you a traitor, or some such, and they will feel so superior for insulting the evil people trying to change their minds with evidence and logic rather than "i believe" and "i think" and "i feel" statements. Which are about all that kind of person understands.
Click to expand...

well napoleon, i would LOVE to see all the evidence that says my position is full of holes (which any theory is when you don't have all the evidence, which is the case in this chat zone), immoral (which is a relitive term), wrong (ain't nobody proved that my position is wrong), and plain silly (no proof of that either). you sure haven't tried to change anybody's mind with evidence and logic, cause all i've seen from you are the 'i believe' 'i think' 'i feel' statements, even when i've specifically asked where you get your info from. you seem to get off by insulting everyone, cause damn near every post you do insult someone; does it make you feel superior? and the next time you want to insult me, why don't you say it to my face instead of writing to someone else. i sure as hell understand more than the 'i believe' 'i think' 'i feel' statements that you seem so fond of giving us, and which, by the way, you seem to think are fact just cause you believe them.

and by the way, what the fuck is your problem with the military?
 
I tend to agree with Aries, I haven't seen anything that gives this "magical proof" that he doesn't have, that you apparently do.
 
Napoleon didn't insult you, Aries... he commented on your views, not on you personally.

Junior: yes, those weapons existed. There's no doubt of that. And it does seem quite likely that they do still exist. But that's beside the point - the lack of proof, by definition, does not prove anything.
 
hmmmmmm, saying i am as bad as YECs (WTF is that BTW) and saying i only understand 'i believe' 'i think' ' i feel' statements. i'd say that was commenting on me personally, but i'll let it slide :)
 
What?

Blair is so far up Bush's Butt that he's follow him to the ends of the Earth.

Plus, Blair seems to hate Students, since he want to raise Fees for University, from £1000 a year to £3000
 
It's just that Blair said in 97 when Labour came into Office that he wanted everyone to go to University, and no he does this, meaning that poorer people are going to have trouble getting in.

It's all creating a Rift in his party anyway, he may even get kicked out. We Hope
 
Originally posted by Demon
Oh no, the horror! I'm paying, well my parent are paying, aroun $13,000
Click to expand...
What's your point? The fact that you're paying $13,000 doesn't mean that everybody else can (or should) too.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Junior: yes, those weapons existed. There's no doubt of that. And it does seem quite likely that they do still exist. But that's beside the point - the lack of proof, by definition, does not prove anything.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for Iraq, the inspectors don't need to prove everything. The inspectors need to prove the existence of weapons which no one knew anything about, and the Iraqis need to prove the destruction of weapons that everyone did know about.
In addition, given the date that Powell provides for the Anthrax admission (1995), I would hazard a guess that inspectors did indeed prove that Iraq had the material and forced an admission out of the government.
The ultimate purpose of the inspections is to verify that Iraq has complied with its agreement to destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction. Ideally, Iraq is to demonstrate that it actually has done this, and the inspectors are there to verify that there isn't anything additional hidden away.

Let me put my thinking this way, and you can argue with me whether or not its correct.
If the inspectors turn up concrete information that Iraq actually possessed a working nuclear device (this is hypothetical, so bear with me), it would then be up to the Iraqis to furnish information regarding the ultimate disposition of this weapon. If not, then it would be grounds for a new attack.
Another hypothetical example might work this way. The Iraqi government contacts the inspectors, informs that that yes, they have had a working nuclear weapons program, and, in fact, they have a working nuclear device. However, they're going to destroy it tomorrow, and would Blix and company like to attend this event? Furthermore, they'll be more than willing to provide documentation regarding the development program of the weapon, along with a sizeable quantity of verifiable information which suggests that the one nuclear device was the only one created by the Iraqi program. The program used a list of components, and the following components from the list were obtained in defiance of the peace agreement, and will be turned over to the UN inspectors. In this case, there would be no grounds for war.

The Anthrax is basically similar to the first case. Yes, it would be nice if the inspectors were able to prove that it had definitely been destroyed, and no further batches had been produced, but ultimately, it shouldn't be up to the inspectors to have to prove this stuff. They should be out looking for hidden stuff, not attempting to discover the fate of material that everyone already knew about. The Iraqi government should be providing the information that demonstrates that the stuff was destroyed. That is, the last time I checked, how "cooperating" is supposed to work.
 
5 pages behind but...

I wanted to add this to Tanaka's post a while back:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pygmypiranha
By attacking other coutries we are creating more enemies and doing more harm than good. Does anyone else see this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, I do see this, and I don't want war. If it was just about taking out Saddam, then I would be screaming why the hell we can't use SEALS or Delta Force or someone to do it. But it looks to be about more than that. It looks to be about retalliation, and maybe even, if they can come clean and tell us straight out, about breaking UN resolutions and having World Massecring Devices
Click to expand...

It's not so much retalliation, its that there's a bill or law or rule someplace stating the US cannot plot or carry out assassinations. On a lower level event or figure, this might be accomplished, but on a high-profile target such as Saddam or bin Laden, this would be a major stick in the US's ass, one that all the politicians are afraid to touch. Plus it's my belief and evidently that if enough people get their heads out of their ass, this war could help kickstart the economy as conflicts tended to do in the past.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pygmypiranha
How long must we shield our eyes from the truth that a peaceful resolution is the best.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do you honestly think they haven't tried a peaceful resolution?
Click to expand...

I love it when they say this. They've been neogiation with Iraq for over a decade now, more heatly recently, trying to get him to fully open his country to us for inspection and dismantlement, but you can't convice most people that we're not just rushing into this headlong.

You also can't convice people that hte US spends BILLIONS every year on spying and intelligence gathering. They might fool the masses, but the US having an eye and and ear on everything doesn't surprise me one bit. Most of the advanced technology came from US patents and/or US factories. The US owns the patent office, so i'd say they got the technical schemas for everything, including the loopholes and back doors. the NSA's got some of the most brilliant mathmatecians and code crackers in teh world. yeah, my belief is we KNOW that bad shit's goin down over there, that's why there's a fire under our asses to stop it.

What gives us the right to be the power to decide things for people in this world?
Click to expand...
We dont' have that power, we dotn' claim to have that power. WE do things for AMERICA's interests, and since AMERICA has interests in almost every part of the world, from research stations to trading partners to allies, most of teh world falls under our jurisdiction. If you want to bitch about us being the police force, at least bitch a the UN for not doing it's job in the first god damned place.

Each day his actions are creating future Osama Bin Ladens.
Click to expand...

the saddest part of that statement is that most of the new OBLs he's making are american born and bred.

As far as the rest of my readings, Junior made some very strong points, Quarto, as usual gives us an education...;)

Aries is my hero...simply for his "and that's bad because..."

Lynx, i must say, watches too much CNN, and is brainwashed not by the government, but by the media, who's biased opinions are driving the skewed views of america.

anywho, this debate is going on at anotehr board i post at regularly, http://forum.sounddomain.com (the off topic if anyboyd wants to look), my posting ID is CutSup91.
 
i applaud u knight.
though there is no law say the US government can't kill foriegn heads of state. that is an executive order signed by, i believe, the chicken-shit former President Carter. and if i remember this correctly, this was signed after the failed attemp to rescue the US citizens from Iran.
 
Originally posted by Happy
i believe, the chicken-shit former President Carter
Click to expand...

Nice name calling there dude. You really got him there. Ya know the one problem with people not having an open mind is no matter how much they don't want to admit it, the truth always comes out when they lash out with words that aren't needed. Certainly shows.
 
Now hang on a minute. What makes you say that? I think Cunt Colson is a cocksucking motherfucking shit eating pus nuts no load limp dicked spincter lipped asshole. What does that mean? Means I hate his guts, that's what. You already know that, without me using that language. Does that mean now that I'm telling the truth, and I wasn't before?
 
Jimmy Carter wasn't that bad. He did a lot for the world. Hence his peace nobel price. This guy isn't chickenshit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top