Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 18, 2003 Report Posted March 18, 2003 According to MANY reports, Iraqi soldiers are being armed with chemical weaponry. Iraq didn't HAVE any WMD, right? What, was Hans *gasp* WRONG? -=Mike --- Shocked --- SHOCKED I tell you --- by this
Guest Vern Gagne Posted March 18, 2003 Report Posted March 18, 2003 Hussein doesn't have chemical weapons, but he'll use them against U.S. and allied forces.
Guest Kotzenjunge Posted March 18, 2003 Report Posted March 18, 2003 If you knew that your country was going to be invaded, would you get rid of what could help protect you when the tanks and men showed up? At this point, we should be more concerned with how to combat these possibilities rather than continue the Blix-bashing.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted March 18, 2003 Report Posted March 18, 2003 None of us can really do anything about it. Everyone can Bash Blix.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 18, 2003 Report Posted March 18, 2003 If you knew that your country was going to be invaded, would you get rid of what could help protect you when the tanks and men showed up? At this point, we should be more concerned with how to combat these possibilities rather than continue the Blix-bashing. So, in other words, we are 100% correct. We are 100% accurate to go after Saddam. Blix was completely inept and a useless investigator. France, Germany, and Russia are completely wrong to oppose us. Nice to see that we are as correct as we assumed we are. -=Mike
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted March 18, 2003 Report Posted March 18, 2003 According to MANY reports, Iraqi soldiers are being armed with chemical weaponry. Source? I mean just saying "MANY reports" doesn't cut it.
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted March 18, 2003 Report Posted March 18, 2003 Blix was completely inept and a useless investigator. Thanks for supporting the arguement to beef up inspections.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 18, 2003 Report Posted March 18, 2003 Blix was completely inept and a useless investigator. Thanks for supporting the arguement to beef up inspections. Blix's utter ineptitude (and, of course, the total fallacy of what the inspectors were SUPPOSED to be doing -- namely, NOT searching for weaponry, but simply verifying the destruction of them) is a reason to continue inspections? Wow, interesting logical leap ya made there. -=Mike
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Case in point from the newsweek article thread. Jobber, Blix and the others are there to oversee disarmament and not to search for anything. Have you read 1441?
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Wow, interesting logical leap ya made there. -=Mike No. You argued that a group of guys in a truck can't cover a country the size of California. And I say, here here. What an arguement for beefing up the number of inspectors and inspections.
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Jobber, Blix and the others are there to oversee disarmament and not to search for anything. Have you read 1441? Have you? 1441 also requires a reconvening of the security council to authorize force, and a report from Hans Blix stating that Saddam refuses to disarm. Neither have happened, and Saddam has been disarming (however slowly and however much against his will.) Furthermore, the weapons inspectors themselves stated they could have this finished within months without resorting to a war, the singlemost destructive act humanity has learnt to perform, if they were given more power and were allowed to continue their jobs. So which would you have preferred? Shouldn't we at least have tried to resolve this diplomatically instead of rushing in like fools to spur on more terrorist attacks? And don't try the 'Saddam's had 12 years to disarm' shit. In those twelve years he's had his weapons programs dismantled or made entirely untenable and he's had to give up tons of weaponry. He has been entirely contained, and now we're about to unleash him and his weapons so that we can do what, make him disarm faster?
Guest JMA Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Mike, Aren't you just using this thread as a way to bash Bliz? What purpose does that serve (other than self-gratification, of course)?
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Further proving he's a party shill. *BURN*
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Further proving he's a party shill. *BURN* THAT was a burn? *giggle* OK. -=Mike --- who likes bashing Blix, but it is so easy
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 You admit it? Admit what? That I enjoy bashing inept buffoons who are puppets for morons? That bashing a guy who couldn't order a Big Mac properly, much less hope to verify the destruction of complicated weaponry, is an amusing diversion? Yup. Guilty as charged. -=Mike --- didn't think I was being THAT subtle
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Nope, I called you a party shill.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Nope, I called you a party shill. Oh, I admit it freely. You called me that. Now, if I actually had any concern about your opinion of me, I might wish to argue --- but it would be such an epic waste of time. Think whatever you wish and when you're disproven --- as usual --- wrap yourself up all snug in your assumptions about people you've never met. -=Mike --- What are you, 12?
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 This is about to get ugly... Why is it about to get ugly? I'm supposed to get all pissy because some kid I've never met thinks badly of me? Does anybody here have a healthy bit of self-esteem? -=Mike
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Name one liberal/progressive stance you have, then.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Kid? Hardly. Nice ad hominem, though.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Name one liberal/progressive stance you have, then. I'm for marijuana legalization and the legalization of prostitution. Let idiots waste their money if they wish and just tax the living crap out of them. Not that it, you know, MATTERS. -=Mike
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Kid? Hardly. Nice ad hominem, though. Pot, meet kettle. -=Mike
Guest Bosstones Fan Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 This is about to get ugly... Why is it about to get ugly? I'm supposed to get all pissy because some kid I've never met thinks badly of me? Does anybody here have a healthy bit of self-esteem? -=Mike Mike, just ignore JMA. He either says something useless (see: "This is about to get ugly...") or shills hard for the left, attacking any somewhat conservative viewpoint as if the right is ALWAYS wrong. Last I checked, he's not even old enough to vote.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Actually, I was attacking your beliefs. An ad hominem is towards the person, not the beliefs. Thanks, though.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 What conservative stances do you have Tyler?
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Actually, I was attacking your beliefs. An ad hominem is towards the person, not the beliefs. Thanks, though. Hmm, so, "schill" was an attack on my viewpoints? Suuuure. And, Vern did ask a good question --- what conservative views do you hold? Any? -=Mike
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Going on Mike's standard, I'll name two. Considering it is an original conservative theory (even though Clinton used it), I am big on fiscal responsibility in that I prefer to have a low spending government. I also have a liking for welfare and tort reform, both are conservative ideas. I'm sure if I thought about it more, I could think of more, but I don't really care to do so right now.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 19, 2003 Report Posted March 19, 2003 Going on Mike's standard, I'll name two. Considering it is an original conservative theory (even though Clinton used it), I am big on fiscal responsibility in that I prefer to have a low spending government. I also have a liking for welfare and tort reform, both are conservative ideas. I'm sure if I thought about it more, I could think of more, but I don't really care to do so right now. Ah, going for nebulous ideas. Gold. You support a "fiscally responsible", Low-spending" gov't. How do you propose we DO that? What do we cut? Let me guess --- the military, right? And welfare and tort reform --- easy to be for them without mentioning exactly what you support. Do you support putting caps on pain-and-suffering rewards from juries? How about eliminating class-action suits (which do very little good for the plaintiffs, but makes the lawyers tons of money)? How about a loser pays system? You support concepts WITHOUT anything resembling a specific. Heck, I LOVE equality --- but I know that affirmative action doesn't lead to it. -=Mike
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now