Blix interview: No WMD's in Iraq!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Every time Bush said the US was going to Liberate Iraq but NOT Occupy Iraq . . . he was lying. Now by definition Iraq's occupation most certainly required its liberation but this administration adamantly opposed the moniker - Occupying Force - until they requested the lifting of UN sanctions . . . under the auspices that the Occupying Force required such actions to rebuild Iraq.

You cannot parse Bush's words to justify such a distinction. Clearly, this administration has ALWAYS intended to Occupy and Control Iraq for an extended period. Therefore, it is reasonable to say Bush lied.


They again and again say "the situation is dynamic. War is that way" Plausable Denial again and again.
They will never admit to a lie so they will never admit the truth as long as they have an audience of believers... and defenders. If they could benefit somehow we'd be innundated with truth.
Well the 'UN is worthless' is the one I like best... 'a weak body capable of nothing'... duh... no kidding... the UN has no army only diplomats.. it really is only as strong as the members....
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you want to believe a murderer like Saddam instead of the US, UK, and UN go ahead, I won't stop you.
----------------------------
Thanks CAD, How bout if I tell you I put them all in the same book when it comes to telling the truth. Your President and his administration lied to you about why we needed to go to war. They killed American soldiers by lying. They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there. You can't hide a truth so massive unless it's a lie. It was a lie. Bush has been playing stump the chump from day one. When you gonna wake up and stop supporting a lie, a killing lie.

When are you going to stop spreading lies about the 2000 election?;)

Bush killed American soldiers? How about Iraqis killed them. Why don't you start blaming the real reason for this mess(Saddam), instead of letting your hatred for Bush blind you.

"They will never find the WMD Bush wanred of because they aren't there." - maybe so, but are you also saying that Saddam never had them? Clinton sure thought they were there, the UN sure thought they were there but gee guess we should just blame Bush:confused:
rolleye.gif


CkG

So David did not kill Uriah? Ahh I see. Completely justified. You can look up the reference.

I know of your reference;)

David's intent was to send Uriah off to be killed so he could take Bathsheba for his wife.

So are you saying that Bush send soldier off to be killed so he could marry their wives, girlfreinds, or lovers?

Ok
rolleye.gif


CkG


Tsk. Tsk. only get a 4 out of 10 on the "duck the question" scale
:D

No, David knew he couldn't kill Uriah himself (which he wanted to do) so he sent him somewhere where he would likely be killed.

There was no ducking of any question you posted. If you really believe your argument you would also have to say that any leader who sends his troops out into battle wants them to die. You can try to fight with that argument but it bears no resemblance with what Bush did by sending our troops off to war.

Shall we continue with this nonesense or do you now realize the error of your implied argument?

CkG


I realize the impossibility of your getting the point. I will dumb it down for you.
David sent a man to die needlessly for his own unjust design.
Bush sent men to die needlessly to die for his own unjust design.

The fact is that people did not need to die (or kill) to protect America from Saddam. Bush did not pull the trigger, but he sure as hell sent people to die that did not have to. The intent may have been different than that of David, but it was no more worthy.

No - you are the one who can't see the real point. David sent a man off to war in hopes that he would die. Intent has everything to do with the David and Uriah story. There still would have been a war whether Uriah was at the front or not. The only reason Uriah died is because David WANTED him dead. Bush didn't send our troops to WAR in hopes that they would die.
That two have nothing in common except the fact that there was WAR and people died. Please reread Second Samuel 11, then you might understand the context of what you are posting.

CkG
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,858
6,394
126
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: HJD1
Prove Bush Lied....

A difficult task indeed. But, not insurmountable.

Bush said Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion or near abouts... to the extent he (Bush) has told the truth he has not lied... the proof is in the pudding... if the truth prevails the lie cannot. Today the truth has not been established so the lie prevails.

There was a thread about this a few weeks ago. Here is a repost of articles I found with links and brief excerpts. It is a fact that Bush and his administration said many things that were untrue or highly distorted. One can always question whether these were intentional lies or merely incompetent ignorance.
**********************
When along the way does the highly distorted become a lie...? When it becomes a material distortion that others relied upon to make decision that materially affect them. Each has a differn't threshold of materiality so too then the value judgement applied.
I'm still and will continue to be stuck at the beginning of this all... I still don't see the legal right to invade regardless of all the rhetoric. The UN Charter is US law as well.. because we signed on to it. It must be determined in the Courts. At this point international legal minds (including Blix, an attorney) say 1441 and before did not give permission to invade in '03 and no issue raised thus far mitagates the violation even if proven to have existed.

Just to comment on UN law being applied to the US(and not directed at you, just to the pointed out subject), the old statement I've heard used much recently seems to apply, "Who's going to make us?"

This is certainly the most dangerous situation Post Cold War. That is, the exisance of a singular Super Power. The Founding Fathers of the US(as well as many other Nations) went to great lengths in order to De-centralize power from 1 source, for they knew the inherent dangers of such a concentration.

Internationally, there is no nation that can counter-balance the US(since the fall of the Soviet Union), there is the UN though. Unfortunetly, it seems that Bush and many Americans would be all too happy to even eliminate the UN as a counter-balance. Big mistake IMO, why trade a rather benign counter-balance for a most likely inevitable Militarized(perhaps re-) other Nation? Why trade sovereign security(the safety from being conquered) for sovereign insecurity for the satisfaction of gluttony for revenge, power, or whatever?

Domestically, has the US Federal government ever had the Domestic power it has recently acquired at any time in it's history? Maybe during WW2(maybe), but at that time the sovereign security of the US was definitely in doubt. Though 9/11 was a horrific act, it at no time threatened to end up in the Foreign Occupation of US soil. Certainly government bodies(particularly elected politicians) were seriously in Harms Way, but they are easily replaced, hell, they get replaced on a regular basis already. :)

Within the last few years the Bush admin has been dropping out of International Treaties and distancing itself from International Institutions like they were the plague. Now they have Homeland Security Part Deux and the recently discussed Space Useage idea, when will it stop? It doesn't seem to be Isolationism as much as it seems Imperialism.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,915
6,792
126
Bush knew the when he sent his men to die. David was malignant, Bush didn't care. Of the two the latter is far more frightening.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Sandorski,
Re: Your thesis on current US policy.

I feel.... gestaltishly, worried that what could occur will occur. The smaller the nation the more likely the result will be the citizen of the US will pay the price and not the military folks. Not in dollars, but that too, in the terror of unexpected attacks by folks using the only weapon available to deal with a super power. Terrorism! It is the notion of the magnitude of change needed to defend against this real threat that will end life style as I know it. I look at current interpretation of law (Patriot Act etc) and what I see is the devistation of rights deemed to be done in the best interests of the country. Once gone and passed by the Supreme Court in the challenges that will come (see all the right wing Justices being nominated to the courts) Getting back those rights will never happen in my life time. Threat of harm is one thing but, to live every day at the whim of the police is another and one I'd not wish to see. Ireland with all its cold and damp becomes more and more attractive. I once heard Michael Chertoff say some interesting things about lies and truth while counsel during Clinton related hearings in Congress... he scares me and was confirmed easily to the third circuit (I think). This seems to be the end objective of the agenda once called "One World Order"

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush knew the when he sent his men to die. David was malignant, Bush didn't care. Of the two the latter is far more frightening.

OK, since you say Bush doesn't care about the troops, I believe you.
rolleye.gif


Leaders have sent troops into battle throughout history - did they all not care about their troops dying then, or as Hayabusarider seems to think- that he wants them to die?

Again, the David and Uriah account in the Bible has no contextual relevance to Bush sending our military to War.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CADGuy,

Suppose a leader decides it is essential to involve military power in a nation for reasons that are contra to the law and thereby, contra to his oath of office. Further suppose that that chance for some of the military to die is extremely likely. This leaders action is such that no mitigation can defend the loss of life. It is premeditated and with callous disregard for life... Malice is present to the nth degree. Now then, you tell me if this leader cares or if this leader sent the military to die. Just supposing now... not a real historical event.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,915
6,792
126
Look, CAD, it's not complex. Both leaders sent men to die with deception. Different intent behind the deception, still deception.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Look, CAD, it's not complex. Both leaders sent men to die with deception. Different intent behind the deception, still deception.

I know it isn't complex but you can not and will not say that the two are similar in context:disgust: I'm not going to say it again, David's intention was to purposely kill his own soldier - Bush's intentions were not to purposely kill his own soldiers.

2 Samuel 11:15
In it he wrote(a letter to Joab), "put Uriah in the fron line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."

Yeah - quite the startling resemblence to Bush's actions huh?
rolleye.gif


CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,915
6,792
126
Yeah - quite the startling resemblence to Bush's actions huh?
---------------------------
Yeah, quite the startling resemblance indeed, they both practiced deception. :D
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yeah - quite the startling resemblence to Bush's actions huh?
---------------------------
Yeah, quite the startling resemblance indeed, they both practiced deception. :D

Yeah Bush tricked our troops into going to war and then hung them out to dry
rolleye.gif


Only in the mind of a Bush hater
rolleye.gif


CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,915
6,792
126
No, he didn't tell them or the American people the real reasons for the war. The Admin knew there were no masses of WMD and particularly, on immediate threat. It was for strategic gain according to neocon theory. American soldiers died for a religion, not to defend the country.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No, he didn't tell them or the American people the real reasons for the war. The Admin knew there were no masses of WMD and particularly, on immediate threat. It was for strategic gain according to neocon theory. American soldiers died for a religion, not to defend the country.

Which even if true doesn't relate to the David and Uriah story ;) Thanks for playing, Next? :D

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,915
6,792
126
Next? Um Oh I guess that5's me. The intentions of the charters was different but the methodology was the same, so, yes, there is a relationship though not of the former kind as you pointed out for some irrelevant reason. :D I was thinking maybe the fact that Gore could be worked in here somewhere, but in that there was no deception.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
MB
I guess my post of 9:38 to CAD cannot be determined. I thought it similar to David and his issue.
Perhaps to close to GWB....
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: HJD1
MB
I guess my post of 9:38 to CAD cannot be determined. I thought it similar to David and his issue.
Perhaps to close to GWB....

No, it wasn't. Please read and digest the context of the David and Uriah account.

"Suppose a leader decides it is essential to involve military power in a nation for reasons that are contra to the law and thereby, contra to his oath of office. Further suppose that that chance for some of the military to die is extremely likely. This leaders action is such that no mitigation can defend the loss of life. It is premeditated and with callous disregard for life... Malice is present to the nth degree. Now then, you tell me if this leader cares or if this leader sent the military to die. Just supposing now... not a real historical event." -HJD1

Your "theory" could possibly hold water if this "leader's" intent was to kill his own soldier(s) by sending them into battle and then abandoning them there to be slaughtered, but otherwise it was a poor attempt to liken the two.

Next...oh wait;) Moonbeam jumped back into the fray for another bloody nose ;)

"The intentions of the charters was different but the methodology was the same, so, yes, there is a relationship though not of the former kind as you pointed out for some irrelevant reason."-Moonbeam

Methodology was the same? Pray tell me how Bush sent his troops out to be purposely slaughtered? Which is the method that David used to exterminate Uriah. Oh yeah, that's right...He didn't. He sent them out to win a WAR. A WAR that Congress willingly approved of and funded;)

Stick around folks :D It looks to be a long night of fun:p
Who be next in line?

CkG
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Most likely reasons why Bush went to war:

1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself.
2) Unfinished business.
3) Oil.
4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden.
5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed.
6) To diminish European influence in the region.
7) The military was already there.
8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base.
9) Re-election.
10)Pure envy.

You see any good intentions here?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CAD,

When premeditation is involved to send a person in harms way he does so with full knowledge that death is sure to occur. Perhaps not to an individual but, to someone. He sent someone to die! This is true for either good cause or bogus cause. Premeditation is not always bad, it is with knowledge of forethought.
Abandonment is subjective... no? A person captured may feel abandonded until he is reunited... it is his feeling that counts... no?
In any or either event.... if the purpose of the "sending" is bogus... a lie then it is unnecessary to prove motive only the lie...
Death is death, slaughtered is just a word that denotes a callousness about the act... being blown up by a terror tactic could be construed as slaughtered... no?
In conclusion, With malice of forethought (the knowledge of pending death upon someone) folks were sent somewhere to effect a plan which included an illegal act... lets say an invasion of a sovereign nation with out the legal right to do so. This then is easily recognized for what it is... breaking the egg at the wrong end... lilliputians never will understand will they?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Most likely reasons why Bush went to war:

1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself.
2) Unfinished business.
3) Oil.
4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden.
5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed.
6) To diminish European influence in the region.
7) The military was already there.
8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base.
9) Re-election.
10)Pure envy.

You see any good intentions here?

No good intentions but, motives to act in the manner acted.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,915
6,792
126
The problem with your post that was overlooked, HJ, IMO, was that while it started as a hypothetical, it was all too frighteningly real.

CAD, naturally as long as you are going to practice sophistry, you will imagine the nose you bloody isn't your own. What you did was cleverly try to switch intention and methodology. Let?s see. I will help you:
----------
CAD: ?Methodology was the same? Pray tell me how Bush sent his troops out to be purposely slaughtered??
-------------------
Note that methodology is a technique and intention a purpose, a state of mental inclination. See how you try to conflate methodology with slaughter. ?To slaughter? is the intention, you even modify it with ?purposefully?, clearly indicating your recognition this is an intention, 'send his troops' is the actual methodology. Follow this closely now because you have lost this argument, obviously, that is to any unbiased mind, but like a fish in the bottom of a boat, you like to thrash about for hours pretending you?re not dead, in this case, out of the water, making little inane remarks like ?next? to lend credence to empty logic. So now that we see the fraud you tried to slip over on us by switching methodology with intention, we have to fix your concomitant switching of intention with methodology.

Bush?s intention was not to slaughter the troops. That happened as a consequence of a war he instigated by deceit. To slaughter troops, a troop, was David?s intention. See they had different intentions. We see clearly that the methodology of both was to accomplish an intention via deceit, to send soldiers into battle.
---------------
Your argument is already destroyed, but we have the bit of ungrammatical gibberish left over to be parsed as best as can be:

CAD: Which is the method that David used to exterminate Uriah. (The question?s OK) Oh yeah, that's right...He didn't. (He didn?t what, use a method, or not kill Uriah?) He (?He? should refer to David but you mean Bush. Very poor sentence construction and very confusing.) sent them out to win a WAR. A WAR that Congress willingly approved of and funded (Congress didn?t fund David?s war. Congress did fund Bush?s War. They were deceived.)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The problem with your post that was overlooked, HJ, IMO, was that while it started as a hypothetical, it was all too frighteningly real.

CAD, naturally as long as you are going to practice sophistry, you will imagine the nose you bloody isn't your own. What you did was cleverly try to switch intention and methodology. Let?s see. I will help you:
----------
CAD: ?Methodology was the same? Pray tell me how Bush sent his troops out to be purposely slaughtered??
-------------------
Note that methodology is a technique and intention a purpose, a state of mental inclination. See how you try to conflate methodology with slaughter. ?To slaughter? is the intention, you even modify it with ?purposefully?, clearly indicating your recognition this is an intention, 'send his troops' is the actual methodology. Follow this closely now because you have lost this argument, obviously, that is to any unbiased mind, but like a fish in the bottom of a boat, you like to thrash about for hours pretending you?re not dead, in this case, out of the water, making little inane remarks like ?next? to lend credence to empty logic. So now that we see the fraud you tried to slip over on us by switching methodology with intention, we have to fix your concomitant switching of intention with methodology.

Bush?s intention was not to slaughter the troops. That happened as a consequence of a war he instigated by deceit. To slaughter troops, a troop, was David?s intention. See they had different intentions. We see clearly that the methodology of both was to accomplish an intention via deceit, to send soldiers into battle.
---------------
Your argument is already destroyed, but we have the bit of ungrammatical gibberish left over to be parsed as best as can be:

CAD: Which is the method that David used to exterminate Uriah. (The question?s OK) Oh yeah, that's right...He didn't. (He didn?t what, use a method, or not kill Uriah?) He (?He? should refer to David but you mean Bush. Very poor sentence construction and very confusing.) sent them out to win a WAR. A WAR that Congress willingly approved of and funded (Congress didn?t fund David?s war. Congress did fund Bush?s War. They were deceived.)

If you would actually try to use some simple reading comphrehension skills you would be able to see that the 2 cannot be likened. Your last little tirade "CAD: Which is the method that David used to exterminate Uriah." That isn't a question, it is a statement after I posed the question "Pray tell me how Bush sent his troops out to be purposely slaughtered?" (please take note of the punctuation;))

You have proven yourself the fool. I am done with this argument, it is no longer on-topic and clearly you choose to not understand the contextual difference of the 2.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
As the football is carried off the playground a smirk appears... not on the face of the carrier but on the ball. The ball wishes not to be kicked around and tossed about willy nilly. The ball has feelings and purpose. Those attributes are genetically ingrained in the skin so carefully crafted into nothing like the the skins former self. Fare thee well....the smirk implies... and I the same... fare thee well.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Once more into the breech, my dear CkG.

Let's check out David. I am sure Athanasius would do a better job, but you are stuck with me.

For those unfamiliar with the story...

David was a king of Israel, chosen by God to succeed Saul. David did everything that God commanded, until one day he saw Bathsheba, the wife of soldier Uriah. David got her pregnant, and decided to send Uriah to the battle front and commanded that the troops withdraw, stranding Uriah. It worked. Uriah died, and David had Bathsheba. Not the end of the story...

A prophet, Nathan was sent to David.
1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.


Here we see that Nathan's metaphor was not aimed at the murder of Uriah, although that was important. No it talks about the powerful using illicit means to gain what could never be David's by right. He did indeed intentionally have Uriah killed, but that was incidental. If his goal was Uriah's death, he could have had it before. No, it was not about killing Uriah, but getting Bathsheba.

Now for the Bush analogy. There are several levels that some here may see in my simple appearing statement. Let's ignore most of them for now though.
Bush is the leader of a powerful country. He wanted something, the elimination of Saddam as ruler. He felt the need to justify his actions to the public, and as a result the justification for war would be refusal to disarm. If Saddam disarmed, then that would satisfy Bush, or so it seemed. The administration on several occasions referred to specific and credible evidence for the existence of WMD's. Bush and his people knew they were there with certainty. Now if I were convinced that weapons were warehoused somewhere, and I were planning a military action, I would darn well want to be able to show it to the world immediately after the war. I would use the abilities that the military has and that everyone knows they have to make sure nothing was touched. If they were removed, I would have pictures of the whole thing. Allowing that the officials of the administration are as intelligent as myself, they would have done the same. Curious thing though, nothing has been produced. Nothing of substance at all.

Why? Because there was never anything there. Bush wanted something. He used deception to drum up support, easy after 9/11. Bush sent soldiers to kill and be killed, not because he wanted our troops dead. That was a necessary means to the ends. Like David. Killing Uriah was necessary, but not because David despised him. Those troops who died in Iraq would not have needed to, except to further Bush's lust for Saddam's removal. He put them in harms way, for a reason that did not exist except in a fantasy. True, the Iraqis killed them, but so too did the Ammonites slaughter Uriah. David put Uriah into battle for his own selfish reasons, and Bush put soldiers in harms way for his personal agenda.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,915
6,792
126
CAD: If you would actually try to use some simple reading comphrehension skills you would be able to see that the 2 cannot be likened. (On the contrary anybody with reading comprehension coupled to their brain would easily see the likeness. Stupidly, you have simply focused on the difference, as has been pointed out numerous times now. A zebra and a horse are almost identical unless, pea bained, you insist on limiting the conversation to stripes.) Your last little tirade (The only one in a tirade is you. That's why my logic is cool and impeccable and yours is rambling lunacy. I do have that effect, though, I know.) "CAD: Which is the method that David used to exterminate Uriah." That isn't a question, it is a statement after I posed the question "Pray tell me how Bush sent his troops out to be purposely slaughtered?" (please take note of the punctuation)((I can take note of the punctuation all day of the week. I pointed out, in the first place that you were already dead out of the water and that section of your incoherence meant nothing, but it is a question and should have had a question mark not a period. A statement doesn't read like a question. And if you intended it as a modifying clause you should have connected it via a comma to the object it was intended to modify. The important point is that you didn't and couldn't refute the logic of what I said because I was right. You switched my definitions to make your case when those very definitions destroyed yours.

You have proven yourself the fool. (You certainly seem to be doing so. A fool is somebody who continues to maintain his correctness long after his argument has been demolished. I am done (somebody stick a fork in him) with this argument, it is no longer on-topic and clearly you choose to not understand the contextual difference of the 2. (Yes yes, I know, the Zebra is not Equis the horse.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Ahhhh the football is back again... no smirk at all... defined, thank god I'm defined at last.
And as the curtain fell.... a hush came over the din of moving seats and occupants...
As logic took the stage... You may leave now.