fear my Hitlerism!

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons

Prove that you don't have any.

Just the respose i'd expect.

The "rolling eyes" are pretty predictable as well, when you don't have anything to say.

LOL you prove that sadam doesnt have weapons, becuase all the republicans had to prove, and they did, was that sadam wasnt disarming. Prove he doesnt have WMDs and then ill listen. Its just that, the anti war movement has NO proof it just hates republicans and bush; it's really and anti-republican movement. Where were they when clinton launched missiles at iraq.

Prove that you don't have any.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons

Prove that you don't have any.

Just the respose i'd expect.

The "rolling eyes" are pretty predictable as well, when you don't have anything to say.

LOL you prove that sadam doesnt have weapons, becuase all the republicans had to prove, and they did, was that sadam wasnt disarming. Prove he doesnt have WMDs and then ill listen. Its just that, the anti war movement has NO proof it just hates republicans and bush; it's really and anti-republican movement. Where were they when clinton launched missiles at iraq.

Prove that you don't have any.

see you cant and you just proved my point to a tee.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons

Prove that you don't have any.

Just the respose i'd expect.

The "rolling eyes" are pretty predictable as well, when you don't have anything to say.

LOL you prove that sadam doesnt have weapons, becuase all the republicans had to prove, and they did, was that sadam wasnt disarming. Prove he doesnt have WMDs and then ill listen. Its just that, the anti war movement has NO proof it just hates republicans and bush; it's really and anti-republican movement.

No its not. Those who organize the demonstrations have other agendas but most of those who are anti-war are not anti-republican.

 

[her209]

Innocent until proven guilty

or

Guilty until proven innocent

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: her209
Innocent until proven guilty

or

Guilty until proven innocent

or reasonable doubt

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons

Prove that you don't have any.

Just the respose i'd expect.

The "rolling eyes" are pretty predictable as well, when you don't have anything to say.

LOL you prove that sadam doesnt have weapons, becuase all the republicans had to prove, and they did, was that sadam wasnt disarming. Prove he doesnt have WMDs and then ill listen. Its just that, the anti war movement has NO proof it just hates republicans and bush; it's really and anti-republican movement. Where were they when clinton launched missiles at iraq.

Prove that you don't have any.

see you cant and you just proved my point to a tee.

I see you can't, proving my point.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: noxipoo
Bush needs a... well brain.

Hmmm. I notice in your sig you like Duck Tales. Did you come up with this idea for a thread before or after mommy gave you a Juicy Juice during the commercial break ?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: her209
Innocent until proven guilty

or

Guilty until proven innocent

ummm...presumed guilty...where have I heard this before...oh yeah....

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons

Prove that you don't have any.

Just the respose i'd expect.

The "rolling eyes" are pretty predictable as well, when you don't have anything to say.

LOL you prove that sadam doesnt have weapons, becuase all the republicans had to prove, and they did, was that sadam wasnt disarming. Prove he doesnt have WMDs and then ill listen. Its just that, the anti war movement has NO proof it just hates republicans and bush; it's really and anti-republican movement. Where were they when clinton launched missiles at iraq.

Prove that you don't have any.

see you cant and you just proved my point to a tee.

I see you can't, proving my point.

after we remove sadam and FIND them and like i said before all we needed to prove was that sadam WASN'T DISARMING. He also didn't include the thousands of pages of nuclear technology found a scientists home, and refuses to let scientists speak to UN inspectors ALONG and have their family out of harms, sadam's, reach. Thus reasonable doubt comes into play. If it smells like sh!t, looks like sh!t, it probably is sh!t. Sadam sure looks like he's trying to make it appear that he is hiding WMD.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BigJelly
after we remove sadam and FIND them and like i said before all we needed to prove was that sadam WASN'T DISARMING. He also didn't include the thousands of pages of nuclear technology found a scientists home, and refuses to let scientists speak to UN inspectors ALONG and have their family out of harms, sadam's, reach. Thus reasonable doubt comes into play. If it smells like sh!t, looks like sh!t, it probably is sh!t. Sadam sure looks like he's trying to make it appear that he is hiding WMD.

Because you think he probably has them does not seem to be just cause to wage war. I don't like Saddam anymore than you do. But the majority of the country is against war without UN support and I happen to agree that we should do whatever we can to get the support of our allies. Some hard evidence would go a long way.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons

Prove that you don't have any.

Just the respose i'd expect.

The "rolling eyes" are pretty predictable as well, when you don't have anything to say.

LOL you prove that sadam doesnt have weapons, becuase all the republicans had to prove, and they did, was that sadam wasnt disarming. Prove he doesnt have WMDs and then ill listen. Its just that, the anti war movement has NO proof it just hates republicans and bush; it's really and anti-republican movement. Where were they when clinton launched missiles at iraq.

Prove that you don't have any.

see you cant and you just proved my point to a tee.

I see you can't, proving my point.

after we remove sadam and FIND them and like i said before all we needed to prove was that sadam WASN'T DISARMING. He also didn't include the thousands of pages of nuclear technology found a scientists home, and refuses to let scientists speak to UN inspectors ALONG and have their family out of harms, sadam's, reach. Thus reasonable doubt comes into play. If it smells like sh!t, looks like sh!t, it probably is sh!t. Sadam sure looks like he's trying to make it appear that he is hiding WMD.

I know the problem. My neigbour has guns I'm sure he's eventually going to use against me. And you know, the bastard won't let me in his house to have a look around for them, and his kids won't answer my questions and tell me to fvck off. I tried to get the neigbours to blow up his house, but they don't think that's the right approach. I guess I'll just have to act alone... I'm sure once I get in there I'll find a gun (even if I have to plant it there..heheheee).

 

[etech]

Borrowed from another board.
"
Does everyone NOT realize how inspections are supposed to work??

Inspections are NOT a cat and mouse game. It is NOT hide and seek.

It is IRAQ'S BURDEN to show that they are clear of weapons.
It is IRAQ'S BURDEN to show it has stopped it's illegal activities.
It is IRAQ'S BURDEN to show the world that they WANT to be part of the peace process.

When South Africa wanted to eliminate the idea that it had stopped it's nuke program they invited inspector's in, handed over everything, ordered their scientists to speak to the IAEA, etc.

Iraq has not done this.
"

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons

Prove that you don't have any.

Just the respose i'd expect.

The "rolling eyes" are pretty predictable as well, when you don't have anything to say.

LOL you prove that sadam doesnt have weapons, becuase all the republicans had to prove, and they did, was that sadam wasnt disarming. Prove he doesnt have WMDs and then ill listen. Its just that, the anti war movement has NO proof it just hates republicans and bush; it's really and anti-republican movement. Where were they when clinton launched missiles at iraq.

Prove that you don't have any.

see you cant and you just proved my point to a tee.

I see you can't, proving my point.

after we remove sadam and FIND them and like i said before all we needed to prove was that sadam WASN'T DISARMING. He also didn't include the thousands of pages of nuclear technology found a scientists home, and refuses to let scientists speak to UN inspectors ALONG and have their family out of harms, sadam's, reach. Thus reasonable doubt comes into play. If it smells like sh!t, looks like sh!t, it probably is sh!t. Sadam sure looks like he's trying to make it appear that he is hiding WMD.

I know the problem. My neigbour has guns I'm sure he's eventually going to use against me. And you know, the bastard won't let me in his house to have a look around for them, and his kids won't answer my questions and tell me to fvck off. I tried to get the neigbours to blow up his house, but they don't think that's the right approach. I guess I'll just have to act alone... I'm sure once I get in there I'll find a gun (even if I have to plant it there..heheheee).

wow thats the best example you can come up with, that just shows you how bias you are. It would be more appropiate if the neighboor treatened to kill you and a couple of other neigherboors. And killed a few neighboors. Your bias clouds your lack of reasoning. I wonder why i wasted on such a narrow minded person, but hey there's hope for everyone.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: etech
Borrowed from another board.
"
Does everyone NOT realize how inspections are supposed to work??

Inspections are NOT a cat and mouse game. It is NOT hide and seek.

It is IRAQ'S BURDEN to show that they are clear of weapons.
It is IRAQ'S BURDEN to show it has stopped it's illegal activities.
It is IRAQ'S BURDEN to show the world that they WANT to be part of the peace process.

When South Africa wanted to eliminate the idea that it had stopped it's nuke program they invited inspector's in, handed over everything, ordered their scientists to speak to the IAEA, etc.

Iraq has not done this.
"

holy crap someone who actually understands it. I'm not alone, there is hope for humanity.

 

[Jmman]

There was a really good analogy on the radio today concerning the situation with Saddam. The commentator was a former law enforcemnent officer and he used the analogy of a drunk driver. Why are we arresting these people? They aren't bothering anybody as long as they don't hit someone or something. Oh, wait a minute, we arrest them because the odds are that they are going to hurt someone eventually. Saddam is a "loaded gun" waiting to go off. I personally do not want to wait until he lobs a scud loaded with an atomic bomb into Israel and the entire middle east (and possibly the world) plunges into chaos ......

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Jmman
There was a really good analogy on the radio today concerning the situation with Saddam. The commentator was a former law enforcemnent officer and he used the analogy of a drunk driver. Why are we arresting these people? They aren't bothering anybody as long as they don't hit someone or something. Oh, wait a minute, we arrest them because the odds are that they are going to hurt someone eventually. Saddam is a "loaded gun" waiting to go off. I personally do not want to wait until he lobs a scud loaded with an atomic bomb into Israel and the entire middle east (and possibly the world) plunges into chaos ......

OMG another one that gets it. YEAH America is saved

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Jmman
There was a really good analogy on the radio today concerning the situation with Saddam. The commentator was a former law enforcemnent officer and he used the analogy of a drunk driver. Why are we arresting these people? They aren't bothering anybody as long as they don't hit someone or something. Oh, wait a minute, we arrest them because the odds are that they are going to hurt someone eventually. Saddam is a "loaded gun" waiting to go off. I personally do not want to wait until he lobs a scud loaded with an atomic bomb into Israel and the entire middle east (and possibly the world) plunges into chaos ......

That analogy sucks. It's pretty simple to prove if someone is drunk or not.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Jmman
There was a really good analogy on the radio today concerning the situation with Saddam. The commentator was a former law enforcemnent officer and he used the analogy of a drunk driver. Why are we arresting these people? They aren't bothering anybody as long as they don't hit someone or something. Oh, wait a minute, we arrest them because the odds are that they are going to hurt someone eventually. Saddam is a "loaded gun" waiting to go off. I personally do not want to wait until he lobs a scud loaded with an atomic bomb into Israel and the entire middle east (and possibly the world) plunges into chaos ......

That analogy sucks. It's pretty simple to prove if someone is drunk or not.

It's it pretty simple to realize sadam is trying to hide something, so BEST ANALOGY EVER.

 

[Damage]

Originally posted by: Jmman
There was a really good analogy on the radio today concerning the situation with Saddam. The commentator was a former law enforcemnent officer and he used the analogy of a drunk driver. Why are we arresting these people? They aren't bothering anybody as long as they don't hit someone or something. Oh, wait a minute, we arrest them because the odds are that they are going to hurt someone eventually. Saddam is a "loaded gun" waiting to go off. I personally do not want to wait until he lobs a scud loaded with an atomic bomb into Israel and the entire middle east (and possibly the world) plunges into chaos ......

Thank you.. very nice.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Jmman
There was a really good analogy on the radio today concerning the situation with Saddam. The commentator was a former law enforcemnent officer and he used the analogy of a drunk driver. Why are we arresting these people? They aren't bothering anybody as long as they don't hit someone or something. Oh, wait a minute, we arrest them because the odds are that they are going to hurt someone eventually. Saddam is a "loaded gun" waiting to go off. I personally do not want to wait until he lobs a scud loaded with an atomic bomb into Israel and the entire middle east (and possibly the world) plunges into chaos ......

That analogy sucks. It's pretty simple to prove if someone is drunk or not.

It's it pretty simple to realize sadam is trying to hide something, so BEST ANALOGY EVER.

Best as in "agrees with what you think" or best as in "not really accurate at all"?

 

[Damage]

Originally posted by: hagbardI know the problem. My neigbour has guns I'm sure he's eventually going to use against me. And you know, the bastard won't let me in his house to have a look around for them, and his kids won't answer my questions and tell me to fvck off. I tried to get the neigbours to blow up his house, but they don't think that's the right approach. I guess I'll just have to act alone... I'm sure once I get in there I'll find a gun (even if I have to plant it there..heheheee).

Hagbard, I have enjoyed our debates today, up until now.. This is rediculous and without precendent.. Megan's law was enacted to warn townspeople of sex offenders, so the UN has warned the world to Iraq's misdeeds..

You had some really good points.. up till now.. sorry.. you loose.

 

[flavio]

And you didn't repond to my big point so I'll post it again:

"Because you think he probably has them does not seem to be just cause to wage war. I don't like Saddam anymore than you do. But the majority of the country is against war without UN support and I happen to agree that we should do whatever we can to get the support of our allies. Some hard evidence would go a long way."

 

[fluxquantum]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Like liberals have never made mistakes or verbal slips. Just ask Gore about "inventing the internet"......

he never said that. read here: internet

 

[Damage]

Originally posted by: flavio

PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons

Prove that you don't have any.

If forced by UN resolution to proove that I don't have WMD I woudl invite you into my house, let you examine anywhere you want and show you all my "old" WMD factories and pray to god you didn't blow my butt away while inspecting..

I would not play this "hide the weapon/nuke" game with thm.. which he has for 12 years.. don't you get that?

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Jmman
There was a really good analogy on the radio today concerning the situation with Saddam. The commentator was a former law enforcemnent officer and he used the analogy of a drunk driver. Why are we arresting these people? They aren't bothering anybody as long as they don't hit someone or something. Oh, wait a minute, we arrest them because the odds are that they are going to hurt someone eventually. Saddam is a "loaded gun" waiting to go off. I personally do not want to wait until he lobs a scud loaded with an atomic bomb into Israel and the entire middle east (and possibly the world) plunges into chaos ......

That analogy sucks. It's pretty simple to prove if someone is drunk or not.

It's it pretty simple to realize sadam is trying to hide something, so BEST ANALOGY EVER.

Best as in "agrees with what you think" or best as in "not really accurate at all"?

okay i can see your dodging the issues you LOST at so address this: What would you call what sadam is doing: failing to let scientists meeting with UN inspectors ALONE and have the families safe, not including thousands of pages of NUCLEAR documents found in a scientists home, the weapons and chemicals that were not including in iraqs report to the UN that we KNEW he had in 1995. Address this and you would see he is trying to hide something that is why i said it is a good analogy. (BEST ANALOGY EVER was stolen from the simpson: Fat computer geek "WORST MOVIE EVER")