McGentrix wrote:Keep making excuses for Saddam. Maybe you will a nice cozy place in the next life as a result.
What the hell does that mean? I'm going to hell if I speak the truth? Hey, Saddam was no angel, but Bush got us into this war, not him!
roverroad wrote:Ticomaya, those no fly zones were on their home soil by the way. They were defending themselves from us... As far as them trying to assassinate our president, well we tried to assassinate their president, so we still were never provoked.
The no fly zones were there for a reason, notwithstanding your quaint notion that they ought to have been able to fly in them because they were on their home soil.
candidone1 wrote:McGentrix wrote:
Created and propagandized by this administration? That's BS.
Then where did the mountain of evidence come from? If, as you say,
McGentrix wrote:The intelligence WAS legitimate. At the time.
then it never
was in fact legitimate.
You are in a clear contradiction.
That I once believed in Santa Claus and saw him in the malls, had my parents tell me about him, and saw telltale signs of cookie crumbs on the fireplace does not make the belief
true at the time.
It is a true belief, but empirically speaking, it was and always will be a false and invalid belief.
Saddam's WMD's and WMD programs are hardly equatible to Santa Claus. There is NO DOUBT he had them. The only doubt was what did he do with them. He failed to comply with UN resolutions, he failed to account for the WMD's, he failed to accomodate UN inspectors.
Accept that and move on.
That's right by gum, he failed to account for what no one has ever proven existed, so he deserved to be taken down, and goddamn the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were stupid enough to get in the way.
The lunacy grows apace . . .
McG, you have reached icon status, much like Gungasnake.
DrewDad wrote:McG, you have reached icon status, much like Gungasnake.
I'm sorry, did you have something to add to the topic of this thread, or are you just making your typical post that I ignore?
McGentrix wrote:DrewDad wrote:McG, you have reached icon status, much like Gungasnake.
I'm sorry, did you have something to add to the topic of this thread, or are you just making your typical post that I ignore?
The liberals on A2K, for the most part, have a strong aversion to posting simple, on point arguments. They much prefer, for instance, explaining why supporting their positions is beneath them or their opponent is undeserving of it.
It certainly cannot be denied that Brandon has a simple argument . . . simple, almost simple-minded . . .
Setanta wrote:It certainly cannot be denied that Brandon has a simple argument . . . simple, almost simple-minded . . .
I'm sure Brandon appreciates you demonstrating his point, Setanta.
You're welcome . . . i would certainly never wish to disabuse you and your crew of your delusions of adequacy . . .
Setanta wrote:You're welcome . . . i would certainly never wish to disabuse you and your crew of your delusions of adequacy . . .
Okay ... you've proven his point ... you can stop now.
Why, i'm having so much fun . . . you guys are more fun than a barrel of monkeys . . . and almost as well-informed . . .
What's left? I've stated that I find your positions baffling. When more evidence appears that the intelligence was manipulated and ya'll keep saying "at the time... at the time...."
Brandon, I find your continuous "probability/possibility" argument to be fataly flawed. We've debated the point in the past, yet you keep brining it up despite the fact that you're the only one that thinks it has any relevance. You're conducting a Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, but the whole point of Schrodinger's Cat is that the cat always dies in the real world. In Brandon's WMD experiment, Iraq never has WMD. And the other fatal flaw to your argument is that there were options other than invading. For God's sake, drop it.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, he's been peddling that tripe for years, literally . . .
I know. Then when you don't agree, he just claims one either doesn't understand or, alternately, is incapable of understanding.
McGentrix wrote:DrewDad wrote:I know. Then when you don't agree, he just claims one either doesn't understand or, alternately, is incapable of understanding.
You mean... like you do?
Not like I do. I do it supremely well, mocking ridiculous stances and statements. Brandon is just tedious.
DrewDad wrote:McGentrix wrote:DrewDad wrote:I know. Then when you don't agree, he just claims one either doesn't understand or, alternately, is incapable of understanding.
You mean... like you do?
Not like I do. I do it supremely well, mocking ridiculous stances and statements. Brandon is just tedious.
Yes, I agree that most of your posts are ridiculous stances and statements.
