Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Shit man, I'm sorry about your life Alakazam. Really, I am. I mean a 26 year-old, a whole ten years older than me and you look at the science behind DBZ? Fucking hell your life must be fruitless. And your love of Star Wars, Final Fantasy and LOTR(although LOTR is a good book.) Is that why you are so arrogant? As a defence against people?

---

At 2/8/03 08:43 AM, Slizor wrote:

Now all he has to do is tell us why the entire UN is wrong and he is right.

Yes, the entire UN is wrong, despite the fact they have not said he is in (futher) material breach of UN resolution 1441

But how do you think Bush will be able to attack without making a big part of the UN angry?

---

Yes, the entire UN is wrong, despite the fact they have not said he is in (futher) material breach of UN resolution 1441. :

Congratulations, you cannot read simple English! Let us see what UN Resolution 1441 actually says shall we Slizor?

“Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions…”

He is still in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 because there has been no full disclosure as the demands of resolution 1441:

“Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations …a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical,biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles…” [UN Resolution 1441]

and further says that:

“Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution …shall constitute a further material breach.” [UN Resolution 1441]

Hans Blix, the UN Chief Weapons inspector acknowledges that Iraq’s declaration fails to “answer a great many questions.” [1] World leaders, including France, Russia, Germany expressed concern over the haphazard document because it was old information and failed to account for all WoMD in Iraq, although they fall short of declaring this lack of information a material breach. According to the United States, the omissions from the 11,000 page “document” submitted by Iraq did not account for all his weapons past and present [2] and is in continual material breach and Britain agrees [3].

Because of you apparent lack to understand the English language, you continue to say that Iraq is not in material breach of UN Resolution 1441. It clearly states [as I have proven above] that any omission or lack of full disclosure on their part is a material breach. The United States knows it, Britain knows it, others realize Iraq is not in full compliance…why can’t you?

LOL :~D

Resolution 1441 does not say, at any point, that Saddam has to account for weapons he claims he has already destroyed. :

ROTFLMAO!!!1111

What in the hell is this Slizor? Saddam has not claimed that he has destroyed the unaccounted WoMD, they are missing, that is why they are UNACCOUNTED for. The UN Resolutions [1441 which infers previous resolutions] demand that Saddam disarm and provide proof that he has done so:

"Decides that shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision…"[UN Resolution 687]

Do you see that Slizor…”under international supervision.” This means that Iraq needs to show the international community that it is in compliance with the UN resolutions. You imply that we are simply going to take his word for it Slizor. If he makes a claim that he has destroyed WoMD since the Gulf War then he can provide the proof [FULL DISCLOSURE]. If he does not, or cannot provide the proof, then that is an omission and therefore he continues to remain in material breach.

Red Herring two. This still has nothing to do with the analysis of the evidence. :

It is not a red herring. It is a logical deduction based on your terrible “well thought out rebuttals, your ill use of logic, your sad attempts at “analyzing” evidence, and your lazy attempts at researching your position. The fact that you are a high school kid is icing on the cake…it is a viable explanation at why you are floundering in this debate. It would only be a red herring if I didn’t even bother debating you only because you are a punk high school kid.

:Shit man, I'm sorry about your life Alakazam. Really, I am. I mean a 26 year-old, a whole ten years older than me and you look at the science behind DBZ? Fucking hell your life must be fruitless. And your love of Star Wars, Final Fantasy and LOTR(although LOTR is a good book.) Is that why you are so arrogant? As a defence against people? :

Awww, an ad hominem personal attack. Methinks that you do not understand the physics involved in my Goku VS Superman analysis. You want to compare web pages now and debate if my life is “fruitless” so it will take attention away from the fact that you are so terribly losing in this debate?

LOL :~D

*1 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75063,00.html
*2 http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwh20021220a5.html
*3 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-19-blix-iraqreport_x.htm

And of course so you can READ the actual UN Resolutions yourself:

UN Resolution 687 http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/old_site/unres687.html
UN Resolution 1441 http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
[just make sure you know how to use a mouse and scroll down a bit…a direct link will not work..k? :~D]

---

I don't think age is that important (I'm 19, only three years older than Slizor), but I do think that Alakazam has a point about the Wall of Ignorance(tm). Slizor, if you still think war is unnecessary, I respect that opinion, but I would like to see you concede that Iraq may just still be in material breach of UN Resolution 1441.

---

At 2/8/03 07:05 AM, Boco_the_Choco wrote: You forget that the 'missing anthrax' is sent to Iraq by the USA in 1980-1988!
That also is the reason why Bush knows exactly how many Saddam has!!!

I'm not sure if that is true or not, but if it is, it is irrelevant. If we DID provide WMDs to Saddam in the '80s, then you'd think we could just say, "Hey, we gave you these weapons, you misused them, so now we're taking them away."

---

At 2/8/03 04:45 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: I don't think age is that important (I'm 19, only three years older than Slizor), but I do think that Alakazam has a point about the Wall of Ignorance(tm). Slizor, if you still think war is unnecessary, I respect that opinion, but I would like to see you concede that Iraq may just still be in material breach of UN Resolution 1441. :

He will not concede because he is trying to save face. He will only sing and dance when "rebutting" my points and refuse to concede to the opinions of the International Community and the specific language of the actual UN Resolutions.

BTW if you want to know how to do the [TM] simply do this:

hold down your ALT button and press 0153 on your keypad.

™

see?

---

Congratulations, you cannot read simple English! Let us see what UN Resolution 1441 actually says shall we Slizor?

“Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions…”

Past resolutions, the point is and remains is if he is in breach now(as to constitute a war.)

and further says that:

“Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution …shall constitute a further material breach.” [UN Resolution 1441]

And they haven't found omissions or flase statements, when they do your position will be jusitified.

Hans Blix, the UN Chief Weapons inspector acknowledges that Iraq’s declaration fails to “answer a great many questions.”

But is not in material breach. As the UN resolution doesn't state that he has to account for weapons he says he has destroyed. It's that easy!

[1] World leaders, including France, Russia, Germany expressed concern over the haphazard document because it was old information and failed to account for all WoMD in Iraq, although they fall short of declaring this lack of information a material breach. According to the United States, the omissions from the 11,000 page “document” submitted by Iraq did not account for all his weapons past and present [2] and is in continual material breach and Britain agrees [3].

Wow! I'm so surprised that Britain and America have said he is in material breach. He will be in material breach when he is declared to be in material breach by the UN.

Because of you apparent lack to understand the English language, you continue to say that Iraq is not in material breach of UN Resolution 1441. It clearly states [as I have proven above] that any omission or lack of full disclosure on their part is a material breach.

And you haven't proven that there has been a lack of "full disclosure".

The United States knows it, Britain knows it, others realize Iraq is not in full complianceÂ…why canÂ’t you?

They know it do they? why do they produce such flimsy evidence then? And why are they unable to convince their populuses.

Resolution 1441 does not say, at any point, that Saddam has to account for weapons he claims he has already destroyed. :

ROTFLMAO!!!1111

What in the hell is this Slizor? Saddam has not claimed that he has destroyed the unaccounted WoMD, they are missing, that is why they are UNACCOUNTED for.

Unaccounted because they can not prove he has destroyed them.

Do you see that Slizor…”under international supervision.” This means that Iraq needs to show the international community that it is in compliance with the UN resolutions.

Actually it means that the weapons they declare must be seen destroyed, or be destroyed by the weapons inspectors.

You imply that we are simply going to take his word for it Slizor. If he makes a claim that he has destroyed WoMD since the Gulf War then he can provide the proof [FULL DISCLOSURE].

That is not full disclosure. Full disclosure is him telling them about everything he currently has.

Awww, an ad hominem personal attack. Methinks that you do not understand the physics involved in my Goku VS Superman analysis. You want to compare web pages now and debate if my life is “fruitless” so it will take attention away from the fact that you are so terribly losing in this debate?

Hah, tell yourself that all you want, doesn't change reality.

---

At 2/8/03 08:46 PM, Slizor wrote:

Past resolutions, the point is and remains is if he is in breach now(as to constitute a war.) :

Which he is as I have explained in great detail that you choose to ignore. Concession accepted.

And they haven't found omissions or flase statements, when they do your position will be jusitified. :

World leaders, and Hans Blix say he did. You ignore this too. Concession accepted.

Hans Blix, the UN Chief Weapons inspector acknowledges that Iraq’s declaration fails to “answer a great many questions.”

But is not in material breach. As the UN resolution doesn't state that he has to account for weapons he says he has destroyed. It's that easy! :

He needs to destroy them "under international supervision" = provide proof. You ignored this. Concession accepted.

He will be in material breach when he is declared to be in material breach by the UN. :

He is in material breach according to the language of the resolutions. You ignore this as well. Concession accepted.

And you haven't proven that there has been a lack of "full disclosure". :

Provided links stating the feelings of the US, Britain, world leaders, and the inspectors and compared it to the language of the resolutions. You ignored them. Concession accepted.

why do they produce such flimsy evidence then? :

Your opinion nothing more. *Yawn*

Actually it means that the weapons they declare must be seen destroyed, or be destroyed by the weapons inspectors. :

Nitpick. He must have proof that he has disarmed. Concession accepted.

That is not full disclosure. Full disclosure is him telling them about everything he currently has. :

And disclose to the UN weapon inspectors proof of destruction for missing WoMD = proof of disarmament = Full Disclosure. You ignored this countless times. Concession accepted.

Hah, tell yourself that all you want, doesn't change reality. :

Reality that it is a ad hominem personal attack. Sounds like you are getting tired of being slapped around.

:~D

---

Christ, you have an uncanny power of sucking the fun out of this debate. I am about to pull the plug on this one as well and challenge you to a structured debate via email.

10 days, 5 responses a piece, and then it is settled.

---

Yikes! Better tiptoe carefully through this minefield...

Bush wants Iraq to be disarmed completely, right? If Iraq is disarmed, where does that leave Iraq in? Totally defenseless against any invaders (namely the US). Every nation should have the right to arm itself against any foreign attack (of course I think using chemical and biological warfare is barbaric). Bush has made it clear that he wants Saddam out of Iraq, one way or another. Saddam probably doesn't have any incentive to show any secret weapons he might have because one way or another, the US is going to kick him out. Saddam has nothing to gain out of all this except possibly a few more years to his life. If Saddam doesn't go in exile, the US WILL invade Iraq. It's a sure bet.

---

And this again comes down to one point. Is there sufficent evidence to say Iraq is in material breach?

Well the UN don't think so, but they must be wrong because of Alakazam's conclusive proof. Note the word conclusive, people's opinions are irrelevant.

World leaders, and Hans Blix say he did. You ignore this too.

They may say, they may suspect, but they can't prove. Surely you would want proof before deciding upon a war?

Hans Blix, the UN Chief Weapons inspector acknowledges that Iraq’s declaration fails to “answer a great many questions.”

But is not in material breach. As the UN resolution doesn't state that he has to account for weapons he says he has destroyed. It's that easy! :

He needs to destroy them "under international supervision" = provide proof.

You misinterpreted this. He has to destroy his WMD under international supervision, yes. But he does not have to provide proof for things A) he claims were destroyed B) may never have existed.

And you haven't proven that there has been a lack of "full disclosure". :

Provided links stating the feelings of the US, Britain, world leaders, and the inspectors and compared it to the language of the resolutions.

The "feelings" not the "evidence". It's like a jury saying "We think he is guilty, we have little evidence, definatly not conclusive evidence, but we'll convict anyway."

Actually it means that the weapons they declare must be seen destroyed, or be destroyed by the weapons inspectors. :

Nitpick. He must have proof that he has disarmed.

Actually it must be proved that he has disarmed. The proof? No weapons!

That is not full disclosure. Full disclosure is him telling them about everything he currently has. :

And disclose to the UN weapon inspectors proof of destruction for missing WoMD = proof of disarmament = Full Disclosure.

Please, I would like to know more about these missing weapons, and please don't quote from Faux News.

---

Gee Wally, don't you think Terry is too predictable in his responses?

At this point, your concession has already been accepted since you apparently given up on debating intelligently. I quote sources, I tie them to the specific language of the UN resolutions, I create a solid argument. You simply dismiss it with a wave of your hand.

Even other people are starting to see your lovely Wall of Ignorance™. Even...certain people in the Newgrounds hierarchy.

Anyway, you sucked the life out of this debate as usual. So...................

---

Let me Illustrate Bush's evidence to you;

---

I quote sources

All you have given me is hearsay and opinions.

I tie them to the specific language of the UN resolutions

Actually you misinterpret the UN resolutions.

---

At this point, your concession has already been accepted since you apparently given up on debating intelligently. I quote sources, I tie them to the specific language of the UN resolutions, I create a solid argument. You simply dismiss it with a wave of your hand.

I responded to your "arguement", you infact dismissed me with a wave of your hand. This is clearly just to save face, as normal, you end it and declare victory.

Even other people are starting to see your lovely Wall of Ignorance™. Even...certain people in the Newgrounds hierarchy.

Pfft, people like Wade have always been on my case.

---

At 2/9/03 03:46 PM, Slizor wrote:

blah blah blah blah blah :

State your asinine position, ignore evidence and repeat. After submitting a good line of reasoning and evidence, reasonable people choose to end the debate because you not only build up an enormous Wall of Ignorance™ but are so damn Stonedeaf™.

I will be waiting for another response in my mail box Terry.

:~D

---

As a japanese american i must say...

Colon Pow-wa!!!!
Super happy no-rage make-a-da sad to happy!
No-rage is pow-wa!!!