quote:
There was much rejoicing when Iron Parcelan said this:
So what's your rebuttal to the rumors currently going about that you are, indeed, bratwurst?
Absolutely untrue
Kielbasa perhaps but the claims of bratwurst are completely unsubstatiated.
quote:
OtakuPenguin said this about your mom:
lol, Kermitov
Indeed.
The odd part is that everyone else seems to have understood the underlying argument, and understands the failure of your methods.
Finally, what, pray tell, makes you think I'm the least bit angry? I assure you, I post only in cold blood.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Kermitov had this to say about Cuba:
Oh is that what his point was?
snip
You still haven't argued his main point, I see.
quote:
And I still take issue with the fact that everyone is telling *me* to argue points when he sits around and argues methods and character all fucking day and might add a single point in there between all the nitpicking of my language, research, upbringing, etc.
The "nitpicking" is actually inside the points, not the other way around.
Even if it were the other way around, why does it matter? If you're arguing against someone, it's up to you to find the points they're trying to make and argue against those. What you're arguing against is inconsequential to this argument.
You know, I don't even remember if I agreed with Bloodsage or not. My complaint is against the fact that you're arguing minute details that have nothing to do with the real argument itself. Bloodsage, it seems to me, is simply trying to counter the arguments you're making against the minute details until you get around to the real point.
Bloodsage, you seem to get this a lot. Maybe you should try to take a little bit of the venom in your arguments so these points don't come up anymore. That way, you can actually argue your point for once.
quote:
Iron Parcelan's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Are my attacks not venemous enough to have the same effect as Bloodsage's? WELL, YOU SALAMI?!
quite frankly, it's hard to be put off by meat products.
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage had this to say about Knight Rider:
Indeed.The odd part is that everyone else seems to have understood the underlying argument, and understands the failure of your methods.
Finally, what, pray tell, makes you think I'm the least bit angry? I assure you, I post only in cold blood.
the fact that the minute anybody disagrees with you... wait... they don't even have to disagree with you, just post something that you disagree with... you rocket into the stratosphere on a stream of insults.
That's called anger and it has no place in civil debate.
I stated an opinion, you hadn't even made a post yet so instead of blasting me for not having my facts and then claiming that as an argument against them (a fallacy) why not actually present some facts in a calm non-abusive manner and then see what happens? Finally, when someone who your attacks weren't directed at posted your point, I recognized it but I don't see why you're so surprised that someone you just got finished berating isn't saying "Wow, you're so right."
quote:
From the book of Kermitov, chapter 3, verse 16:
the fact that the minute anybody disagrees with you... wait... they don't even have to disagree with you, just post something that you disagree with... you rocket into the stratosphere on a stream of insults.That's called anger and it has no place in civil debate.
I stated an opinion, you hadn't even made a post yet so instead of blasting me for not having my facts and then claiming that as an argument against them (a fallacy) why not actually present some facts in a calm non-abusive manner and then see what happens? Finally, when someone who your attacks weren't directed at posted your point, I recognized it but I don't see why you're so surprised that someone you just got finished berating isn't saying "Wow, you're so right."
This thread sjtu keeps gettng better and ebtter
quote:
Bloodsage, you seem to get this a lot. Maybe you should try to take a little bit of the venom in your arguments so these points don't come up anymore. That way, you can actually argue your point for once.
Others' inability to focus on what's important is not my problem.
You'll notice that, in nearly every case, I argue politely with those who make points politely, and am always willing to go back to topic.
But if someone wants to start with a completely ridiculous, inflammatory notion, backed by nothing more than bile, I play that game better than most, also. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Kermitov had this to say about Tron:
the fact that the minute anybody disagrees with you... wait... they don't even have to disagree with you, just post something that you disagree with... you rocket into the stratosphere on a stream of insults.That's called anger and it has no place in civil debate.
I stated an opinion, you hadn't even made a post yet so instead of blasting me for not having my facts and then claiming that as an argument against them (a fallacy) why not actually present some facts in a calm non-abusive manner and then see what happens? Finally, when someone who your attacks weren't directed at posted your point, I recognized it but I don't see why you're so surprised that someone you just got finished berating isn't saying "Wow, you're so right."
Here's an idea: find anyplace I've flamed someone in the manner you suggest, simply for disagreeing with me politely. Further, if you think you're being flamed, I suggest you do some actual research (aha--a trend!) and pull an example or two of me flaming someone.
Hell, I've barely pulled out the "Not Funny" tag in this thread.
Hyperbole doesn't help your case, dude, but rather makes you seem sillier and sillier.
You've had much prompting to get back on topic and answer any one of the points I've made. . .why not try it? Your failings in the "witty banter" department seem to rival those in the "political science" arena, so you've not much to lose.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Anger has no place in a civil debate? Bah! Then why bother?
Without anger, there'd be no debate!
quote:
This one time, at T. E. Bloodsage camp:
Here's an idea: find anyplace I've flamed someone in the manner you suggest, simply for disagreeing with me politely. Further, if you think you're being flamed, I suggest you do some actual research (aha--a trend!) and pull an example or two of me flaming someone.Hell, I've barely pulled out the "Not Funny" tag in this thread.
Hyperbole doesn't help your case, dude, but rather makes you seem sillier and sillier.
You've had much prompting to get back on topic and answer any one of the points I've made. . .why not try it? Your failings in the "witty banter" department seem to rival those in the "political science" arena, so you've not much to lose.
That right there was a flame. And you didn't even give me a chance to disagree with you before you began flaming me.
quote:
Iron Parcelan's account was hax0red to write:
Without anger, there'd be no debate!
Of course a stupid little asshead like you would say that. Man, are like one of those autistic people that can use a computer but has trouble not shitting their pants?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj probably says this to all the girls:
Of course a stupid little asshead like you would say that. Man, are like one of those autistic people that can use a computer but has trouble not shitting their pants?
*starts a petition to ban the use and sale of Karnaj*
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
But if someone wants to start with a completely ridiculous, inflammatory notion, backed by nothing more than bile, I play that game better than most, also.
As my fluff isn't fireproof, I don't want to get into this argument.
However, I am nonetheless obliged to say that the tag on this post gave me a chuckle for some odd abstract reason. Thankupo Bloodsage =P
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
quote:
^Moogle-plush-doll^ stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
As my fluff isn't fireproof, I don't want to get into this argument.However, I am nonetheless obliged to say that the tag on this post gave me a chuckle for some odd abstract reason. Thankupo Bloodsage =P
Takes a bow-upo(?)
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Kermitov wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
That right there was a flame. And you didn't even give me a chance to disagree with you before you began flaming me.
Since you're apparently big into flying, let me put it this way:
Your continued participation in this thread is the verbal equivalent of controlled flight into terrain.
You may not see it coming, and it's obvious you're ignoring Bitchin' Betty as she quietly tells you, "Pull up! Pull up!" but others see it, and are just shaking their heads.
I recommend you read this thread start to finish, mark the point where you started your ever-tightening spiral toward self-immolation, and start again with something other than whining about how your fragile ego can't handle a few salient observations regarding the propriety of having strong opinions on subjects you've obviously not looked into beyond believing random UN/Iraqi soundbites specifically designed to obscure the truth and undermine US policy.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
By the way, Bloodsage. Bitchin' Betty need a new job? I'm always on the look out.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Kermitov wrote:
That right there was a flame. And you didn't even give me a chance to disagree with you before you began flaming me.
rofl
edit: That is to say, I find your misperception of Bloodsage's attitude somewhat humorous. [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Kegwen ]
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
Since you're apparently big into flying, let me put it this way:Your continued participation in this thread is the verbal equivalent of controlled flight into terrain.
You may not see it coming, and it's obvious you're ignoring Bitchin' Betty as she quietly tells you, "Pull up! Pull up!" but others see it, and are just shaking their heads.
I recommend you read this thread start to finish, mark the point where you started your ever-tightening spiral toward self-immolation, and start again with something other than whining about how your fragile ego can't handle a few salient observations regarding the propriety of having strong opinions on subjects you've obviously not looked into beyond believing random UN/Iraqi soundbites specifically designed to obscure the truth and undermine US policy.
ok fine, I've realised that somewhere I crossed a line and this became a flame fest. That does not mean that I don't think you argue like a schoolyard bully, it just means I'm going to do my best to ignore it. But in return as a good faith measure I want you to actually explain your points without resorting to calling mine stupid. I am perfectly willing to concede to a point well made but I do not tolerate browbeating. That may work with your subordinates and it may have worked for your drill instructor but I don't answer to you so you're going to have to do better than that.
allow me to make a couple of recently observed points.
We're going into Iraq because they're ignoring the UN... and we're ignoring the UN to do it.
We're also expecting a nation that has a much larger nation preparing to go to war on them to disarm.
So, Bloodsage, in your opinion, what can Iraq do to avoid being trounced by uncle sam? Disarming is not enough it seems, and no right minded leader would dissolve his regime without a fight which precludes disarming anyway. What, then, is the core issue with Saddam? What has he done lately that deserves our attention in the first place? If it's harboring terrorists why are we not going after Northern Ireland among others? If it's human rights violations there are a host of other nations we should be preparing to attack as well...
enlighten me. [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Kermitov ]
He has had 12 years to disarm in accordance with the cease-fire agreement, and has not. 1441 gave him one more chance to do so, and he failed to do it, and lied in the process.
What, exactly, is your point?
Finally, I suggest you take a step back with respect to what you accuse me of. It's obvious you have put no thought or research into your argument, so whining when I point it out won't help. Accusing me of abusing my subordinates, or anything along those lines and utterly unrelated to this situation, simply because you want to lash out, is unwise, though you may yet get to see what it's like to be flamed in truth, so you can compare with the current discussion.
~~~
Dolemite,
I don't think you'd like Bitchin' Betty, unless you're into kinky sex with circuit boards. . .she's the automated cockpit warning system on combat aircraft. I think airliners have a version, too. Essentially, she tells you when you're about to die.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Why do you make the blanket statement that disarming is not enough?He has had 12 years to disarm in accordance with the cease-fire agreement, and has not. 1441 gave him one more chance to do so, and he failed to do it, and lied in the process.
What, exactly, is your point?
Finally, I suggest you take a step back with respect to what you accuse me of. It's obvious you have put no thought or research into your argument, so whining when I point it out won't help. Accusing me of abusing my subordinates, or anything along those lines and utterly unrelated to this situation, simply because you want to lash out, is unwise, though you may yet get to see what it's like to be flamed in truth, so you can compare with the current discussion.
~~~
Dolemite,
I don't think you'd like Bitchin' Betty, unless you're into kinky sex with circuit boards. . .she's the automated cockpit warning system on combat aircraft. I think airliners have a version, too. Essentially, she tells you when you're about to die.
I make the blanket statement that disarming is not enough because now he has 48 hours for him and his family to leave the country so disarming is not enough anymore. He's not going to leave so what do you think he could do, besides leaving, to make us decide that war is not justified?
Also you failed to even acknowledge my other point so allow me to post it again:
We're going in because Saddam is ignoring the UN, and we're ignoring the UN to do it.
If you want politeness you're going to have to give a little politeness in return. I'm trying here but you need to also.
And yes, airliners also have them but they don't always tell you when you're about to die. And sometimes they go off for no reason and you have to pull the circuit breaker. [ 03-18-2003: Message edited by: Kermitov ]
Point two: you've now switched gears--you make it sound like he never got the chance to do what he was told. He had months. He not only failed to comply, but lied about his attempts to conceal weapons.
What do you want, a signed confession?
Point three: the UN does not drive US foreign policy. This point, as well as the other, was addressed quite succinctly by the President. UNSCR 1441 spelled out the requirement, and the consequences of failure.
No further resolution is required. Another was offered up--almost--simply as a sop to public opinion.
Further, the French put out a blanket threat to veto any further resolution holding Iraq to the requirements of earlier resolutions. We tried in good faith to go that extra, unrequired mile, but the French have chosen to make a power play.
The real question here is why you think the US should cede our sovereign right to act in our interests simply because the French want to continue their illegal trade with Iraq? Why are you not castigating the UN for failing to enforce its resolutions?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Point one: only idiots pull circuit breakers on safety equipment.Point two: you've now switched gears--you make it sound like he never got the chance to do what he was told. He had months. He not only failed to comply, but lied about his attempts to conceal weapons.
What do you want, a signed confession?
Point three: the UN does not drive US foreign policy. This point, as well as the other, was addressed quite succinctly by the President. UNSCR 1441 spelled out the requirement, and the consequences of failure.
No further resolution is required. Another was offered up--almost--simply as a sop to public opinion.
Further, the French put out a blanket threat to veto any further resolution holding Iraq to the requirements of earlier resolutions. We tried in good faith to go that extra, unrequired mile, but the French have chosen to make a power play.
The real question here is why you think the US should cede our sovereign right to act in our interests simply because the French want to continue their illegal trade with Iraq? Why are you not castigating the UN for failing to enforce its resolutions?
Actually, he had 8 years.
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage impressed everyone with:
Point one: only idiots pull circuit breakers on safety equipment.Point two: you've now switched gears--you make it sound like he never got the chance to do what he was told. He had months. He not only failed to comply, but lied about his attempts to conceal weapons.
What do you want, a signed confession?
Point three: the UN does not drive US foreign policy. This point, as well as the other, was addressed quite succinctly by the President. UNSCR 1441 spelled out the requirement, and the consequences of failure.
No further resolution is required. Another was offered up--almost--simply as a sop to public opinion.
Further, the French put out a blanket threat to veto any further resolution holding Iraq to the requirements of earlier resolutions. We tried in good faith to go that extra, unrequired mile, but the French have chosen to make a power play.
The real question here is why you think the US should cede our sovereign right to act in our interests simply because the French want to continue their illegal trade with Iraq? Why are you not castigating the UN for failing to enforce its resolutions?
Point 1:
Ever try to fly with the stickshaker going the whole time? Or bitchin betty yelling about terrain at 36,000 feet? There are perfectly good reasons to pull circuit breakers on malfunctioning safety equipment.
Especially on Airbuses! Although I think you've been lucky enough to fly Boeing equipment almost exclusively.
Point 2:
I am not saying he didn't have a chance to do what he was told I am asking you what you think he could do to avoid being trounced at this point. It's two different questions.
Point 3: [ 03-18-2003: Message edited by: Kermitov ]
edit: nevermind on this one, I've read some other opinions and I no longer think it's valid... I'll have to think about it.
As far as what Saddam can do now to avoid war, that's pretty clear: get out of Dodge, and take his family and evil generals with him. He's had his chance, and blown it.
Why on earth would we, or anyone else, continue to give him chances, when he's lied, obfuscated, and failed to comply with all the others over the last 12 years?
Yes, Blindy, it's actually 12.
It's partly the UN's and our fault, though, since we've trained him to believe he'll always get another chance, and that we've no stomach to enforce the 1990 cease-fire and the following resolutions. That, however, was a different administration--this one isn't as spineless, or as driven by opinion polls.
Like it or not, we finally have a President who stands for something. You might not agree with what that something is (I don't, all the time), but at least he's trying to make the world a better place rather than getting BJs in the Oval Office and plotting for his own glory.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage impressed everyone with:
On the safety equipment, you made it sound as if one should routinely pull the breaker, because they sometimes malfunction. If you meant something different, then you should have said so.
I thought I had when I said "And sometimes it goes off for no reason and you have to pull the breaker"
quote:
As far as what Saddam can do now to avoid war, that's pretty clear: get out of Dodge, and take his family and evil generals with him. He's had his chance, and blown it.Why on earth would we, or anyone else, continue to give him chances, when he's lied, obfuscated, and failed to comply with all the others over the last 12 years?
Yes, Blindy, it's actually 12.
As I said in the other thread. I don't think we or the UN tried very hard to enforce it for the first 11 1/2. Now that we're serious about it we've seen some decent results over the last few months so I still think we're jumping the gun on this war thing by a few months but who's to say.
Unfortunately I think we might also be opening a can of worms in the middle east that we're not prepared to handle... we can handle anything militarily speaking but is this going to end up the same 10 to 20 years down the line as Afghanistan did?
quote:
It's partly the UN's and our fault, though, since we've trained him to believe he'll always get another chance, and that we've no stomach to enforce the 1990 cease-fire and the following resolutions. That, however, was a different administration--this one isn't as spineless, or as driven by opinion polls.Like it or not, we finally have a President who stands for something. You might not agree with what that something is (I don't, all the time), but at least he's trying to make the world a better place rather than getting BJs in the Oval Office and plotting for his own glory.
Completely agree with you. Although I fear we wont follow through with this and finish it this time I really can't attribute that to anything concrete because the examples we've had in the past few years have been exclusive to one administration. The main thing that disillusioned me with Clinton wasn't the BJ in the oval office... to each his own it was that his best term was his first term. When he could have pulled all the stops and made some sweeping changes because he didn't have to worry about getting reelected he basically sat on his ass.
He was still a much better public speaker than GW though. Although GW's getting better there is still the occasional point where I can't stand to listen to him.
There have been many inspection teams, and they got the same runaround this one got, except worse, because it lacked--because the UN has no spine--the explicit threat of iminent force. You'll notice that we made progress in the past whenever we rattled our sabres loudly enough.
But the UN, and the French and Russians especially, always blocked such moves.
Besides, you are still placing the onus on the wrong side. It's not that we didn't do enough to make Saddam comply, it's that he has done everything in his power to lie, cheat, and obfuscate his way out of compliance.
We should have done this long ago, in other words, so it's silly to say we didn't try hard enough. It's just that our patience has finally run out, given the recent security environment.
Read The Gathering Storm, by Ken Pollack. He was a CIA analyst during Desert Storm, and later served on Clinton's NSC. You've probably seen him on TV lately. I've spoken with him on this subject, and his book is an easy read, as well. It'll enlighten you on many things, and is probably the best thing out right now on this issue.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage had this to say about John Romero:
Didn't try very hard for the last 11 1/2 years? This is another of those questions that makes me wonder if you've actually looked into the issue.There have been many inspection teams, and they got the same runaround this one got, except worse, because it lacked--because the UN has no spine--the explicit threat of iminent force. You'll notice that we made progress in the past whenever we rattled our sabres loudly enough.
But the UN, and the French and Russians especially, always blocked such moves.
Besides, you are still placing the onus on the wrong side. It's not that we didn't do enough to make Saddam comply, it's that he has done everything in his power to lie, cheat, and obfuscate his way out of compliance.
We should have done this long ago, in other words, so it's silly to say we didn't try hard enough. It's just that our patience has finally run out, given the recent security environment.
Read The Gathering Storm, by Ken Pollack. He was a CIA analyst during Desert Storm, and later served on Clinton's NSC. You've probably seen him on TV lately. I've spoken with him on this subject, and his book is an easy read, as well. It'll enlighten you on many things, and is probably the best thing out right now on this issue.
If he didn't do enough it's exactly what he should be doing as the leader of a nation, whether you agree with his tyrannical ways or not. We would do the same thing if told to disarm by some organization that doesn't have any real power. Although we would probably just say "no" and prepare for war, exactly what we should be doing.
He didn't try very hard because there hasn't been enough incentive to try very hard on both our part and the UN's part. As I said, I think we've seen decent results in the past few months because we're being more forceful about it. If we were even more forceful we might see even better results. Trusting him to destroy weapons just because we told him to is not smart.
Despite your protestations otherwise, you are, in fact, defending the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, and placing undue burden upon both the international community in general and the United States in particular with respect to his failure to comply with the 1990 cease-fire agreement that he entered into.
Further, you undermine your entire argument against the war, because you are saying we fucked up by not rolling into Baghdad years ago and forcing his compliance. In essence, you say we shouldn't go to war now, because we didn't before.
A silly concept, when you think about it.
The fact is, we've done all we can over the last decade-plus, and our patience has run out, which, combined with the post-2001 security environment, makes it imperitive to force this particular evil dictator from power.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage was naked while typing this:
Rather than just repeating what you said without gathering any additional facts, I recommend you take my earlier advice and look into the subject a little more.Despite your protestations otherwise, you are, in fact, defending the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, and placing undue burden upon both the international community in general and the United States in particular with respect to his failure to comply with the 1990 cease-fire agreement that he entered into.
Further, you undermine your entire argument against the war, because you are saying we fucked up by not rolling into Baghdad years ago and forcing his compliance. In essence, you say we shouldn't go to war now, because we didn't before.
A silly concept, when you think about it.
The fact is, we've done all we can over the last decade-plus, and our patience has run out, which, combined with the post-2001 security environment, makes it imperitive to force this particular evil dictator from power.
We did fuck up by not rolling into Baghdad years ago. We agreed on a different path, weapons inspections, and when the weapons inspectors were kicked out we didn't take enough action then to have them allowed back in thus not giving them the support to prove their effectiveness. Now that they are back in and actually seem to be getting results, however few, we're not giving them the time to prove their effectiveness. I have not said at any point that a war will never be justifiable, what I'm saying is that now is too soon.
And I am not, never have, and never will defend the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and I really wish you would stop accusing me of that.
quote:
Kermitov had this to say about Robocop:
We did fuck up by not rolling into Baghdad years ago. We agreed on a different path, weapons inspections, and when the weapons inspectors were kicked out we didn't take enough action then to have them allowed back in thus not giving them the support to prove their effectiveness. Now that they are back in and actually seem to be getting results, however few, we're not giving them the time to prove their effectiveness. I have not said at any point that a war will never be justifiable, what I'm saying is that now is too soon.
As I recall, the weapon inspectors were getting some good results right after the first gulf war too. Saddam was afraid that we were about to come in and kick his ass. When we didn't, he slowly started to make things harder for the inspectors, untill they finally had no hope in hell of doing their jobs.
Now, things are back to that level with the weapons inspectors. But, we have to wonder what he's been doing during all those years that we weren't getting the inspections done. We also know that, if we back off, he'll just start backsliding again.
We know that he's still trying to hide stuff. We told him that he would get his ass kicked if he did that, but he's doing it anyway. So, now he needs to get his ass kicked. If he doesn't, then he'll just continue to do what he's doing now, and sooner or later it will be too late.
quote:
Palador ChibiDragon had this to say about dark elf butts:
As I recall, the weapon inspectors were getting some good results right after the first gulf war too. Saddam was afraid that we were about to come in and kick his ass. When we didn't, he slowly started to make things harder for the inspectors, untill they finally had no hope in hell of doing their jobs.Now, things are back to that level with the weapons inspectors. But, we have to wonder what he's been doing during all those years that we weren't getting the inspections done. We also know that, if we back off, he'll just start backsliding again.
We know that he's still trying to hide stuff. We told him that he would get his ass kicked if he did that, but he's doing it anyway. So, now he needs to get his ass kicked. If he doesn't, then he'll just continue to do what he's doing now, and sooner or later it will be too late.
It got worse and worse then because we started making concessions almost immediately... okay we wont look here or there to protect your privacy, which is bullshit.
It's too soon to go to war now, because we didn't do it years ago!
Inspections are working no better than they ever have, if you'd pay attention to more than the deliberate deceptions within the public statements of Blix and company, you'd realize that. It's exactly the same game as it was years ago.
And, sorry, but keeping hundreds of thousands of troops away from their families stationed on the border simply to maintain the necessary pressure to get those half-assed concessions from Saddam is neither reasonable nor feasible. There are a lot of things military people need to do to keep their skills up, and they can't be done while sitting in the desert waiting to go to war.
Finally, I will not cease to point out how you are defending a murderous evil dictator, because that is what you continue to do. How dare you insinuate that the US is the one screwing this up, because Saddam is only doing what any national leader should? Last I checked, national leaders aren't supposed to launch wars of conquest these days, as Saddam has done twice. Last I checked, national leaders aren't supposed to use chemical weapons, as Saddam did in the Iran-Iraq war. Last I checked, national leaders aren't supposed to use chemical weapons on their own populace simply to clean out an unpopular ethnic element, as Saddam has done. Last I checked, national leaders aren't supposed to dam rivers simply to deprive yet a different ethnic group of their ability to survive in the southern marshes, as Saddam has done. Last I checked, national leaders aren't supposed to divert international aid programs designed to help feed his people into military programs specifically proscribed by an agreement he's entered into, as Saddam has done.
So, I suggest you refrain from telling us how Saddam is simply doing what any national leader is supposed to, if you don't like defending evil dictators. If he were doing what national leaders are supposed to do, we wouldn't be having these problems.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
My rebuttal--Say we decide not to go to war. The pressure on Saddam is relaxed and he does the exact same thing he did after Desert Storm: Slowly block the weapons inspectors out of places and build up his arsenal again. We go through the exact same thing.
Now over time, the amount of unfound weapons is going to accumulate. He's going to have more and more as time goes on. Say the same thing happens again in another ten years and we decide not to go to war--He now has all the weapons that haven't been found over the last 20 years.
I see your point with the "We should have gone in before, but not now." However, I'm thinking we're going to be saying the same thing in ten years in reference to 2003.
quote:
Taeldian thought about the meaning of life:
He's not defending Saddam, Sage. He's talking about how we've screwed up by letting Saddam slowly block the weapon's inspectors out. He's not saying Saddam was a good guy for doing this. He's not saying that it was what Saddam should have done. All he's saying is that, if we had taken him out when we had the chance, we wouldn't be having these problems. We don't have the same opportuniy to do take him out as we had before, and our weapons inspectors are getting results, so why go to war?My rebuttal--Say we decide not to go to war. The pressure on Saddam is relaxed and he does the exact same thing he did after Desert Storm: Slowly block the weapons inspectors out of places and build up his arsenal again. We go through the exact same thing.
Now over time, the amount of unfound weapons is going to accumulate. He's going to have more and more as time goes on. Say the same thing happens again in another ten years and we decide not to go to war--He now has all the weapons that haven't been found over the last 20 years.
I see your point with the "We should have gone in before, but not now." However, I'm thinking we're going to be saying the same thing in ten years in reference to 2003.
It's alright, I saw a few things on the news today that calmed me a bit but I will say this. You assume that by not going to war that pressure will relax again... you're probably right but it doesn't have to be that way.
And not that I think this will happen but:
I will laugh if we flatten the place and find no evidence of any weapons that were a threat to anyone.
quote:
Taeldian Model 2000 was programmed to say:
He's not defending Saddam, Sage. He's talking about how we've screwed up by letting Saddam slowly block the weapon's inspectors out. He's not saying Saddam was a good guy for doing this. He's not saying that it was what Saddam should have done. All he's saying is that, if we had taken him out when we had the chance, we wouldn't be having these problems. We don't have the same opportuniy to do take him out as we had before, and our weapons inspectors are getting results, so why go to war?My rebuttal--Say we decide not to go to war. The pressure on Saddam is relaxed and he does the exact same thing he did after Desert Storm: Slowly block the weapons inspectors out of places and build up his arsenal again. We go through the exact same thing.
Now over time, the amount of unfound weapons is going to accumulate. He's going to have more and more as time goes on. Say the same thing happens again in another ten years and we decide not to go to war--He now has all the weapons that haven't been found over the last 20 years.
I see your point with the "We should have gone in before, but not now." However, I'm thinking we're going to be saying the same thing in ten years in reference to 2003.
Actually, saying that Saddam is only doing the things national leaders are supposed to be doing, is defending Saddam.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Actually, saying that Saddam is only doing the things national leaders are supposed to be doing, is defending Saddam.
It's not.
It's saying that I'm not surprised he's doing what he's doing because it's exactly what he should be doing considering the fact that there is another nation preparing to go to war on him. Do you seriously expect him to destroy all his weapons and let the US roll over him? That's not what a good leader, murderous tyrant or not, does.
