Newsweek Lied, People Died

Because Saddam hasn't come trial yet (should I slip in a namecalling insult here like you usually do?).

You could slip an insult in there if you like, I guess, but since you aren't as good at it as I am, it probably won't have the effect you are looking for.

Cycloptichorn

I'm afraid you lack understanding if you genuinely believe the Bush administration has "generated" me. I like to think I first came around sometime mid-90's, during Slick Willy's tenure.

Quote:

I'm afraid you lack understanding if you genuinely believe the Bush administration has "generated" me. I like to think I first came around sometime mid-90's, during Slick Willy's tenure.

It begs the question. Is that why you have a Avatar with a cigar?

I'll answer if you'll explain whether you're talking about our hypothetical murderer, or Saddam. I'd like to compare apples with apples, if you don't mind.

I don't get that squinney.

For over over 10 years Saddam defies the U.S., the U.N., shoots at our planes patrolling the no fly zones, plays hide and seek with the so called "inspectors", and yet, you choose to defend him and criticize the effort because no WMD's have been found (a "fact" I'm not so sure I believe). The continued insurgency proves that Iraq is nothing more than a giant munitions dump in the middle of a huge sand pit. Stuff is hidden everywhere. How can you not see that?

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Let me give you another example. If the topic is "Should murderers be jailed for life or given the death penalty?" does that mean one side is on the side of murderers if they ask for evidence to support a claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrence for murder? I don't think so. Do you?

Bad analogy. It would be better if you were taking the side of a particular murderer, and maintained that he should not get the death penalty because he didn't commit the crime he was accused of.

Just of of curisoity, Tico........Which crime did I say he didn't commit?

I'll answer if you'll explain whether you're talking about our hypothetical murderer, or Saddam. I'd like to compare apples with apples, if you don't mind.

Let's start with the crime you think I denied of Saddam.

I don't get that squinney.

For over over 10 years Saddam defies the U.S., the U.N., shoots at our planes patrolling the no fly zones, plays hide and seek with the so called "inspectors", and yet, you choose to defend him and criticize the effort because no WMD's have been found (a "fact" I'm not so sure I believe). The continued insurgency proves that Iraq is nothing more than a giant munitions dump in the middle of a huge sand pit. Stuff is hidden everywhere. How can you not see that?

Parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Let me give you another example. If the topic is "Should murderers be jailed for life or given the death penalty?" does that mean one side is on the side of murderers if they ask for evidence to support a claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrence for murder? I don't think so. Do you?

Bad analogy. It would be better if you were taking the side of a particular murderer, and maintained that he should not get the death penalty because he didn't commit the crime he was accused of.

Just of of curisoity, Tico........Which crime did I say he didn't commit?

I'll answer if you'll explain whether you're talking about our hypothetical murderer, or Saddam. I'd like to compare apples with apples, if you don't mind.

Let's start with the crime you think I denied of Saddam.

I never said you said Saddam didn't commit a crime.

Most of those munitions were in large buildlings marked "munitions".

Ticomaya wrote:

Parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Let me give you another example. If the topic is "Should murderers be jailed for life or given the death penalty?" does that mean one side is on the side of murderers if they ask for evidence to support a claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrence for murder? I don't think so. Do you?

Bad analogy. It would be better if you were taking the side of a particular murderer, and maintained that he should not get the death penalty because he didn't commit the crime he was accused of.

Just of of curisoity, Tico........Which crime did I say he didn't commit?

I'll answer if you'll explain whether you're talking about our hypothetical murderer, or Saddam. I'd like to compare apples with apples, if you don't mind.

Let's start with the crime you think I denied of Saddam.

I never said you said Saddam didn't commit a crime.

Oh. so you just presented a bad analogy then. I get it.

You chaps are getting into a real frothy lather, all off-topic.

I just stopped by to say, Newsweek didn't lie, the report was quite accurate.

Is that well-accepted in the US now?

Good grief! Do I need to diagram this stuff out for you? You can't really be this slow.

You presented a bad analogy, which I tried to correct and make into a good analogy in the context of your defense of Saddam. After all, we weren't discussing the general notion of whether tyrannical dictators should be overthrown if they don't abide by the terms of their peace treaties ... we were specifically talking about Saddam, and his relative level of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Thus, if would be incorrect to correlate our argument to that of a general discussion re whether the death penalty is a good deterrent of crime, and would be much better equated with an argument that one particular murderer should not receive the death penalty because he didn't commit the crime with which he was charged. In the course of correcting your analogy, I never implied you were arguing one way or the other as to whether Saddam was guilty of a crime. Please keep up ... I grow weary of having to explain every little thing to you.

Ticomaya wrote:

Good grief! Do I need to diagram this stuff out for you? You can't really be this slow.

You presented a bad analogy, which I tried to correct and make into a good analogy in the context of your defense of Saddam. After all, we weren't discussing the general notion of whether tyrannical dictators should be overthrown if they don't abide by the terms of their peace treaties ... we were specifically talking about Saddam, and his relative level of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Thus, if would be incorrect to correlate our argument to that of a general discussion re whether the death penalty is a good deterrent of crime, and would be much better equated with an argument that one particular murderer should not receive the death penalty because he didn't commit the crime with which he was charged. In the course of correcting your analogy, I never implied you were arguing one way or the other as to whether Saddam was guilty of a crime. Please keep up ... I grow weary of having to explain every little thing to you.

Oh, your analogy was good because it accused me of defending a murderer by claiming he didn't commit the crime. Yet you can't point to a single crime Saddam committed that I argued he didn't commit. Makes perfect sense. Your only goal in your analogy was to paint me in the same light you continue to do with your unsubstantiated allegations.

You can ignore the topic you claimed to start this all you want Tico. Doesn't much matter when you get to change facts to be your "Invasion apologist."

McTag wrote:

You chaps are getting into a real frothy lather, all off-topic.

I just stopped by to say, Newsweek didn't lie, the report was quite accurate.

Is that well-accepted in the US now?

This is a joke question right?