How exactly do you find something that you already know of, and its whereabouts?

If you tell a lie long enough and its big enough people will start to believe it.

At 2/2/04 04:56 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: If you tell a lie long enough and its big enough people will start to believe it.

and if you told it, you will start to believe it, too

At 2/2/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Who said anything about finding anything?

You did.

At 2/2/04 04:38 PM, Jimsween wrote: You claimed that it was all a lie, but it wasn't, they found WMD.

>:\

At 2/2/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Who said anything about finding anything?

That's a brilliant quote from someone pro-war...

At 2/3/04 11:26 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/2/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Who said anything about finding anything?

That's a brilliant quote from someone pro-war...

I have to agree, that was a really bad reply there Jim. You should have thought it out for a moment. This is a forum, not Crossfire. You don't have to respond right away. Take some time to formulate your response and don't always say the first thing that comes to mind.

Ok, here's a pretty simple scenario set apart from all the other eveidence:

A man is standing on the street with what appears to be a gun held under his jacket. He claims that it is not a gun, but people do not believe him because he will not show them. The police show up, and they tell him that if it is a gun, he needs to hand it over, and if it's not a gun and he shows the police that, they will let him be. Why in the world would he do neither of these?

Saddam had an entire country under his thumb, and because he neither reliquished or proved false these claims, I am convinced that we had weapons of Mass Destruction.

BTW, doesn't that have a nice ring to it. "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Not quite as good as the BFG in Doom, but still nice.

At 2/3/04 05:28 PM, Jimsween wrote: You have to look at the context, what I was replying to wasn't really the best post to begin with. The bet response to petty nitpicking is more petty nitpicking.

My point is merely that your quote wan't the best thing for me to wander onto this thread and see.

Most of all though, what does me being pro-war have anything to do with that?

As a pro-war person, i'm assuming you'd be trying pretty hard to tell us lefties that Iraq had oodles of WMD, all primed and ready to go in 45 minuites.

At 2/3/04 05:41 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: As a pro-war person, i'm assuming you'd be trying pretty hard to tell us lefties that Iraq had oodles of WMD, all primed and ready to go in 45 minuites.

Well DUH! Do you think America would make such a preemptive decision WITHOUT that threat of the WMD stock pile? I think NOT =P

At 2/3/04 07:38 PM, Gooie wrote: Well DUH! Do you think America would make such a preemptive decision WITHOUT that threat of the WMD stock pile? I think NOT =P

Well, I wont deny that we had some major suspicions going into that war, but we’ve been in Iraq for almost a year and all we have to show for ourselves are a few shells of mustard gas.

At 2/3/04 09:25 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/3/04 05:41 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: My point is merely that your quote wan't the best thing for me to wander onto this thread and see.

You do realize thats a pretty crappy point, sure you don't want to change it?

I'll add to it. It kinda pulls weight from your argument, and makes you look like you're changed position and are arguing from the left. I almost hoped you had, but then i skipped up and read a few earlier posts.

As a pro-war person, i'm assuming you'd be trying pretty hard to tell us lefties that Iraq had oodles of WMD, all primed and ready to go in 45 minuites.

Umm, no. You of all people should know I was never for the war because of WMD, I don't give a damn about WMD.

Actually, I can't remember your arguments from months ago, so i'll let this one drop. My point is the Government lied to us! Both US and UK. Either their intelligence lied to them, or not, but the fact remains is we were being told woppers.

If huge bundles of Nukes are found tomorrow i'll step up and admit I was wrong. The WMD is a bigger thing shere than it is for you. Bush changed his stance when it looked like there weren't any, and Tony kept plugging the "Yes, he had then, we know he has them, but we're a little bit unsure where they are, so give us time, and forget it." Stance.

At 2/4/04 05:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: Since when has this been new? They lie to us all the time.

WHAT? And you accept this? For me, this is a big thing. They might speak shit, and use spin, but our government almost never lied to us, before Iraq.

They are politicians, thats what they do, you need to be spineless to be able to be elected to office.

God, I'd love to have seen Dean elected. He'd have kicked America back into shape.

A man is standing on the street with what appears to be a gun
Saddam had an entire country under his thumb, and because he neither reliquished or proved false these claims, I am convinced that we had weapons of Mass Destruction.

Well he did reliquish, do you not know what the Weapons Inspectors were doing? He handed over a dossier of what he had (said he had) and let the inspectors go about their business. How is he going to prove that something doesn't exist? Point to a dune and say "look, they're not there!"

At 2/4/04 05:51 PM, Jimsween wrote: Wow, you're pretty gullible if you think they never lied to us. I admit parliament is fairly different from congress but I'd be amazed if you don't have lying in it.

Bullshit, face-saving, spin and half-truths, but ALWAYS truths, even if they're mis-representational. The British Government are much more trustworthy than Congress, by the sounds of it.

Not really, he was ok but no less spineless than the rest. He rarely talked about the issues, did alot of attacking other candidates, and did alot of flipflopping. You can't know if a canidate is good until they are in office, Ex;

Mind you, you can't deny that the man had a lot of energy, and he had the "X-Factor" that other politicians are missing.

At 2/4/04 05:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: They are politicians, thats what they do, you need to be spineless to be able to be elected to office.

At which point I'll paraphrase singer/songwriter Justin Sane.

Protect their conscience, by saying that it's only business
Protect their conscience, by saying that is just the way it is
Because it's not the way it has to fuckin' be!

Would you be so apathetic if your family was killed in a useless war based on lies and greed?

At 2/4/04 07:05 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Mind you, you can't deny that the man had a lot of energy, and he had the "X-Factor" that other politicians are missing.

So do crack addicts...

Yeeeeeees... But crack addicts aren't intelligent. And they dont' have the X-Factor. Oh yeah, and they dont hav emuch energy.

At 2/5/04 02:25 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: they dont have much energy.

WHAT!? Foolish bum, dare you speak untruths of the power of crack?

THIS is how a typical crack-addict might act:

*read ten to twenty times faster than you normally do*

"Hey, how's it goin'!? How's the weather!? *@ their own hand* What's this!? *WARNING! High speed gibberish ahead!* DAFEKLFNAEKG DG ADGFGKANGKEGIEGNKNR !E$$@RDF SFKFEIFEFIN!!!

At 2/5/04 05:46 AM, True-Lies wrote: THIS is how a typical crack-addict might act:...

Yes, and when they're coming down from the crack, they behave very much differently...

At 2/4/04 07:00 PM, Jimsween wrote: Your argument must be pretty crappy if your basing it on the blind hatred of a victim.

Thanks for avoiding my question.

At 2/5/04 05:46 AM, True-Lies wrote: DAFEKLFNAEKG DG ADGFGKANGKEGIEGNKNR !E$$@RDF SFKFEIFEFIN!!!

Holy crap on a crap-flavored cracker! Crack addicts are sooooo l33t!

At 1/31/04 03:36 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Purely out of interest, WHO convinced you [if you have been convinced] that Saddam had WMD?

Who cares about WMD???? BUSH, after 9/11 waged WAR on Terror... mainly Iraq, Iran and North Korea. So? He went after Afghanistan to fight the Talibanese... who are radical muslims who may have harbored Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden, but they are NOT Al Queda.

Then he waged war on Iraq to further his war on Terror.

The things with people with power... or even nation with power, is that they are so potent of firepower that they become dumb and arrogant.

Like dummy dad... like dummy son... why didn't Bush Senior capture Saddam in the Gulf War? Americans are idiots when it comes to War. It's like the bully at school who punches out half his size, in front of everybody, because he wants so show off what he can... because he's a bully. And it's like the wimp waiting and getting revenge by putting pee in the bully's orange juice.

First of all, US should stop trying to interfere with other cultures, and force them to start adopting women and homosexual rights on Conservative and fundamentalist MUSLIMS!!!!! It's the whole reason why Al Queda exists... like dummy hilary, shut up, you're trying to teach Chinese, Indian and muslim women that they shouldn't be housewives no more... they should start being politicians, doctors and lawyers and become super sluts like American girls...

look... China, India, Persia... has been around for millenias before the US and women and homosexual rights... they can change but it can't be force by mcdonalds and MTV over 20 years period. Eventually, women and fast food will come around.... but you can't force it on people...

Anyhow, instead of rambling on... they didn't say anything about WMD... it's about terrorism... and you bridge the link from 9/11 to Iraq because 9 of like 16 terrorists are from Saudi Arabia? And Osama bin Lauden is a Saudi? And you probably have 2000 other saudi arab in US ... who are sleeper agents for Al Queda??

Yeah, that's about dumb as W can get... that only makes sense to me... y'know...

I'd be bombing the hell out of ALL of Middle EAST AND N. KOREA... but instead, GW is going to go after Iraq because his daddy couldn't keep it up... (ahem... Relection anyone?) Well, his dad lost even when he pulled out too soon in the Gulf... so will GW if he pulls out now...

Destroy Saudi Arabia... and N Korea, because THAT will make the world safe.

And to make World Peace... destroy all of Israel and Palestines...

That would make Americans more like Nazi's wouldn't it...

Well, hell, destroy all Jew and Muslims...

The thousands of innocent civilians who choked to death on chlorine gas, as well as blood and nerve agents.

At 2/5/04 08:53 PM, Jimsween wrote: I answered your question perfectly, by proveing it irrelevent.

Saying "your argument must be pretty crappy" does not constitute anything other than childish name-calling.

At 2/5/04 10:39 PM, Jimsween wrote: First of all, thats not name-calling, you dumbass.

The above is, however :D

Second, you missed the, WHEN IT'S BASED ON THE BLIND HATRED OF VICTIMS part.

Your argument was based on apathy. Mine was based on "the blind hatred of victims". I guess we both win then?

At 2/5/04 05:27 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The thousands of innocent civilians who choked to death on chlorine gas, as well as blood and nerve agents.

And the millions that starved to death because of the sanctions come where in your argument?