|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105379] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 22:41   |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
And I'm sure it being called the "War on Terrorism" meant that it was for Iraqi's to be freed, right? Like I stated earlier, had freeing Iraqi citezens been the reason for going to war, ideas of WMD's and Terrorism ties would NEVER of been introduced.
And hind-sight arguements don't hold water, in any arguement where you plan to hold any sort of strength. Using your logic, we should execute you, and half the worlds population because we don't know what they'd do.
so Bush jr decides to wait over 6 months? And seeing as how you enjoy hind-sight arguements, here's one of my own. Had 9/11 not happened, I somehow doubt he would have invaded.
Oh, and sending supplies doesn't mean anything. At least it seems not to when it's Canada doing rather than participating in the war...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105382] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 22:46 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Oh, so someone praising something makes it less illegal? Where have I head something similar... oh yes, vigilante cases! Law enforcement officials usually praise the work thats being done, publically or not, but when it comes down to that final desicion, IT'S STILL ILLEGAL EVEN IF IT ENDS UP BEING FORGIVEN.
LLiberty is the product of invasin, that has never been disputed (so I don't know why you seem to think it has been. It must make you feel better or something?) However, that DOES NOT mean that Liberty is a REASON for invading, it's simply a product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105385] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 22:49 |
 |
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
And I'm sure it being called the "War on Terrorism" meant that it was for Iraqi's to be freed, right? Like I stated earlier, had freeing Iraqi citezens been the reason for going to war, ideas of WMD's and Terrorism ties would NEVER of been introduced.
And hind-sight arguements don't hold water, in any arguement where you plan to hold any sort of strength. Using your logic, we should execute you, and half the worlds population because we don't know what they'd do.
so Bush jr decides to wait over 6 months? And seeing as how you enjoy hind-sight arguements, here's one of my own. Had 9/11 not happened, I somehow doubt he would have invaded.
Oh, and sending supplies doesn't mean anything. At least it seems not to when it's Canada doing rather than participating in the war...
|
It is the War on Terror.
Is Saddam not a terrorist?
Your logic is seriously flawed. I am not Saddam. I have not done what Saddam has done. You have no reason to suspect me of anything. Saddam on the other hand.....you get my drift.
The Military Operation was called 'Operation Iraq Freedom'
You are jackass. Plain and simple. Europe would have failed in 15 minutes if we did not supply them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105399] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 23:04 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Your logic is seriously flawed. I am not Saddam. I have not done what Saddam has done. You have no reason to suspect me of anything. Saddam on the other hand.....you get my drift.
|
I never stated you were Saddam, I never stated that you had done what he did. All I am saying is that by using your logic of not knowing the future, everyone should be taken care of, simply because they "may" do something.
See what I mean by hind-sight arguements not holding any strength? Unless, for whatever reason, it's you providing them :rolleyes:
Was he a terrorist? Yes. However, if the plan was to free the peopel of iraq, would the war not have been called something else, and the whole idea of the war NOT revolve around WMD's and terrorist ties?
Quite interesting here.. Resolution 1441 also states something else...
"Reaffiriming the comittement of all member states soverignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and all the neighboring states."
And then again in 1443 (which I'm pretty sure comes after 1441)...
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the soverignty and territorial integrity of Iraq"
Kind of suggests that nothing should happen to them... no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105401] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 23:07 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
And Javaxcx, he's right about the terrorist thing...
Specifically, "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person against people with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies, often for ideological or political reasons."
Edit: sorry Javaxcx, I guess I hate you now.
And nodbugger, I severly suggest you watch what you say about Canadians.
[Updated on: Sat, 31 July 2004 23:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105402] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 23:08 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
| Quote: |
Your logic is seriously flawed. I am not Saddam. I have not done what Saddam has done. You have no reason to suspect me of anything. Saddam on the other hand.....you get my drift.
|
I never stated you were Saddam, I never stated that you had done what he did. All I am saying is that by using your logic of not knowing the future, everyone should be taken care of, simply because they "may" do something.
See what I mean by hind-sight arguements not holding any strength? Unless, for whatever reason, it's you providing them :rolleyes:
Was he a terrorist? Yes. However, if the plan was to free the peopel of iraq, would the war not have been called something else, and the whole idea of the war NOT revolve around WMD's and terrorist ties?
Quite interesting here.. Resolution 1441 also states something else...
"Reaffiriming the comittement of all member states soverignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and all the neighboring states."
And then again in 1443 (which I'm pretty sure comes after 1441)...
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the soverignty and territorial integrity of Iraq"
Kind of suggests that nothing should happen to them... no?
|
We are talking about past events. Saddam did bad things before.
We can now get rid of him.
So why the hell do you care so much?
there is no reason to be against the war.
Other than you are just a stupid jackass that needs something to complain about.
Sovereignty of Iraq. Not Saddam.
Try again jackass.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105403] |
Sat, 31 July 2004 23:09 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
You have proven nothing, actually. Both Warranto, AND myself have provided evidence. Evidence you have chosen to ignore.
Your statements are full of logical fallacy, ad hominem, and false assumptions.
And another thing, that's twice now you've said you were done arguing here. And that's now that you've replied thereafter in short succession.
Oh, and I know you're a kid, too. A little bird told me.
Now scuttle off, you have been owned.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
[/i]
