Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted March 18, 2003 Hussein doesn't have chemical weapons, but he'll use them against U.S. and allied forces. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kotzenjunge Report post 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted March 18, 2003 None of us can really do anything about it. Everyone can Bash Blix. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post Posted March 18, 2003 Blix was completely inept and a useless investigator. Thanks for supporting the arguement to beef up inspections. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Spicy McHaggis Report post 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post 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)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Further proving he's a party shill. *BURN* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 19, 2003 You admit it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Nope, I called you a party shill. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted March 19, 2003 This is about to get ugly... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Name one liberal/progressive stance you have, then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Kid? Hardly. Nice ad hominem, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Kid? Hardly. Nice ad hominem, though. Pot, meet kettle. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bosstones Fan Report post 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post Posted March 19, 2003 Actually, I was attacking your beliefs. An ad hominem is towards the person, not the beliefs. Thanks, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted March 19, 2003 What conservative stances do you have Tyler? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tyler McClelland Report post 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
