fear my Hitlerism!

[etech]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: 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")

Nuclear documents huh? LMAO... i wouldn't want to have them in my home...

Good point SnapIT, I wonder what happened to the Iraqi scientist whose documents were found.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: 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")

Nuclear documents huh? LMAO... i wouldn't want to have them in my home...

Good point SnapIT, I wonder what happened to the Iraqi scientist whose documents were found.

Maybe he died from the radiation?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: 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")

Nuclear documents huh? LMAO... i wouldn't want to have them in my home...

Good point SnapIT, I wonder what happened to the Iraqi scientist whose documents were found.

Maybe he died from the radiation?

Ooops...sorry...I just wanted to get in on some of this mutliple quoting action...

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: JShaker

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Why is it that the people against bush can only come up with calling him a moron or a nazi. Why don't you PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons until then call him a moron, because it takes one to know one.

Because they are innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the onus is on the USA to prove that he has weapons of mass destruction. Finding a missile that carries weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean he has said weapons. Before you attack, PROVE that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.

Chirst thousands of pages of nuclear information on how to build nukes. Now i don't know about you but I would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research if i didnt intend on USING it. Therefore REASONABLE doubt, the problem with you people is that you need a smoikng gun but fail to realize that a smoking gun was fired, so are willing to let inicents die because you would rather believe a mudererous dictator than a republican.

 

[PG]

Originally posted by: JShaker

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Why is it that the people against bush can only come up with calling him a moron or a nazi. Why don't you PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons until then call him a moron, because it takes one to know one.

Because they are innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the onus is on the USA to prove that he has weapons of mass destruction. Finding a missile that carries weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean he has said weapons. Before you attack, PROVE that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.

You obviously don't know how to listen or didn't watch Bush's speech last night. Bush explained that the UN and Inspectors back in the 90's proved that Sadaam had WMD. Sadaam was guilty back then and now needs to prove that he has destroyed those WMD.

Get it now? He was guilty a long time ago and now needs to explain what happened to those WMD.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Flavio we said repeatly that we can't prove with ABSOLUTE certainty that he has or doesnt have WMDs. So answer my questions and stop DODGING. Don't tell me to answer and refuse to address my questions AFTER i addressed yours.

I'll address your question the same way you addressed mine "reasonable doubt". Your two word response seems to work for me too.

i explained "reasonable doubt" look for it FIND feature. Now ANSWER questions, with EXPLANATIONS, or prove your narrow mindedness

Look, I posted the same paragraph twice and the only response you gave was "reasonable doubt" which really doesn't explain jack sh!t about your stance on UN support or the majority of Americans being against action without UN support. Does this mean you have proved your narrow mindedness?

"Reasonable doubt" can be as good an excuse for not invading as it can for invading.

My first explanition about it:
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.

Then Jmman explains:
Yeah, Saddam has never done anything to raise doubts about his intentions. He never gassed his own people, attacked Iran, invaded Kuwait, attempted to build a nuclear arsenal, never built up a stockpile of tons of VX, Sarin, Anthrax, attempted to assassinate a former president, violated every UN resolution every made concerning Iraq, attempted to kill his own son, etc. Actually I think we should all fly over there and sit around the campfire and sing a few songs....

Then my final explaination:
Chirst thousands of pages of nuclear information on how to build nukes. Now i don't know about you but I would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research if i didnt intend on USING it. Therefore REASONABLE doubt, the problem with you people is that you need a smoikng gun but fail to realize that a smoking gun was fired, so are willing to let inicents die because you would rather believe a mudererous dictator than a republican.

And here to prove the UN is completely useless, here's a link to CNN's article on how iraq is getting a chair on the disarmament process:


Thats like letting the wolf guard the hen house.

 

[Insane3D]

Bush explained that the UN and Inspectors back in the 90's proved that Sadaam had WMD.

From his speech..

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

So which is it? Does he have Anthrax, Botulism, etc., or just the materials to produce it? While I personally have no doubt he has it for the intention of manufacturing these weapons, don't we need a little more evidence of an immediate threat? It sounds like all we are saying is that all he has are materials that could be used to make WMD, not the WMD themselves.

If this is the best we have, I don't see how we are going to convince the UN that war is the only answer...

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: PG

Originally posted by: JShaker

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Why is it that the people against bush can only come up with calling him a moron or a nazi. Why don't you PROVE that sadam has absolutely no weapons until then call him a moron, because it takes one to know one.

Because they are innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the onus is on the USA to prove that he has weapons of mass destruction. Finding a missile that carries weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean he has said weapons. Before you attack, PROVE that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.

You obviously don't know how to listen or didn't watch Bush's speech last night. Bush explained that the UN and Inspectors back in the 90's proved that Sadaam had WMD. Sadaam was guilty back then and now needs to prove that he has destroyed those WMD.

Get it now? He was guilty a long time ago and now needs to explain what happened to those WMD.

They don't get it i must of explained that about a half a dozen times and some other people, all they say is UN this UN that. They're evaiding the issues, looks like furture politicans in the making.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Bush explained that the UN and Inspectors back in the 90's proved that Sadaam had WMD.

From his speech..

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

So which is it? Does he have Anthrax, Botulism, etc., or just the materials to produce it? While I personally have no doubt he has it for the intention of manufacturing these weapons, don't we need a little more evidence of an immediate threat? It sounds like all we are saying is that all he has are materials that could be used to make WMD, not the WMD themselves.

If this is the best we have, I don't see how we are going to convince the UN that war is the only answer...

This is the problem of main stream media. What wa the SCARIEST part of the 12 empty weapons that could carry chemical weapons. The fact that they were MOVED, the UN knows this because they have records of the weapons. Now i dont know about you but i dont drive my garbage to a new storage facility and hide it before i throw it away. Maybe you do. People are not using reasonable thinking they just regurgatate the facts, but in some cases manipulate them.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

hitlerism is a clever word choice. it de-emphasizes the political party aspect of its horror and focuses on the dictator (hitler) as the prominent factor in perpetrating horrors and atrocities. bush clearly wants the same effect in saddam hussein; he's been calling for the people to overthrow this guy and start revolts. it's a good strategy and i think you simpletons are missing the point.

 

[idNut]

Fascism

 

[BigJelly]

bump for flavio to reply to my last couple of comments

 

[ConclamoLudus]

If the word Hitlerism doesn't make sense to you, then you need to get...well... a brain

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: BigJelly
bump for flavio to reply to my last couple of comments

Of all the extremist nuts here, you have the worst arguments....

At least people like e-tech and others provide links and facts... you are just boring...

 

[Red Dawn]

fear my Hitlerism!

I fear your Pimple Farmerism more!

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
If the word Hitlerism doesn't make sense to you, then you need to get...well... a brain

It DOESN'T make sense, no more sense than Godism or Jesusism (are you a christian or a Jesusist, are you a Nazist or a Hitlerist, get my point)... the word bush is looking for is Nazism...

THAT was what it was called, not Hitlerism or naziism, just plain Nazism...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

fear my Hitlerism!

I fear your Pimple Farmerism more!

LOL!

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: BigJelly
bump for flavio to reply to my last couple of comments

Of all the extremist nuts here, you have the worst arguments....

At least people like e-tech and others provide links and facts... you are just boring...

When you cant answer the questions, then insult the character...
If my questions/arguments are so bad the show me how they are; otherwise, your argument is bad. Ironic isn't it that your argument, to insult my arguments, is a bad argument.

 

[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.

So what your saying is we haven't found any hard evidence yet right?

Yeah, Saddam has never done anything to raise doubts about his intentions. He never gassed his own people, attacked Iran, invaded Kuwait, attempted to build a nuclear arsenal, never built up a stockpile of tons of VX, Sarin, Anthrax, attempted to assassinate a former president, violated every UN resolution every made concerning Iraq, attempted to kill his own son, etc. Actually I think we should all fly over there and sit around the campfire and sing a few songs....

Yep, Saddam sucks. So do people in charge in alot of other countries. Why is it that N. Korea isn't as much of a focal point as Saddam? I think evidence is a little better that they might have WMD's.

Chirst thousands of pages of nuclear information on how to build nukes. Now i don't know about you but I would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research if i didnt intend on USING it. Therefore REASONABLE doubt, the problem with you people is that you need a smoikng gun but fail to realize that a smoking gun was fired, so are willing to let inicents die because you would rather believe a mudererous dictator than a republican.

I'm not for letting "inicents die". I say keep the pressure on Saddam and do what it takes to get UN support and therefore the support of US citizens. If Powell has something to convince the UN then great. It would be a smart move to have allies especially if there is an extended occupation, not to mention someone to share the staggering cost of the operations.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: BigJelly
bump for flavio to reply to my last couple of comments

Of all the extremist nuts here, you have the worst arguments....

At least people like e-tech and others provide links and facts... you are just boring...

When you cant answer the questions, then insult the character...
If my questions/arguments are so bad the show me how they are; otherwise, your argument is bad. Ironic isn't it that your argument, to insult my arguments, is a bad argument.

Wow... that has to be the lousiest comeback i have ever seen...

I don't know what to answer your arguments, it should be so obvious... even to you...

I'm amazed, you are... well... just worse... are you sure you aren't high?

 

[BigJelly]

Ahh finally a response from flavio...
It's funny you bring up Korea. And that you say we should pressure sadam with the UN. Nice idea...didn't clinton do that to north korea and they now have nukes. Wow, geeze why didn't i think of that.
Yes i can't prove sadam has WMD but you can't prove he doesn't so as i implied; the arguments to prove he doesnt or does are useless and thats why i posted several times about reasonable doubt.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: BigJelly
bump for flavio to reply to my last couple of comments

Of all the extremist nuts here, you have the worst arguments....

At least people like e-tech and others provide links and facts... you are just boring...

When you cant answer the questions, then insult the character...
If my questions/arguments are so bad the show me how they are; otherwise, your argument is bad. Ironic isn't it that your argument, to insult my arguments, is a bad argument.

Wow... that has to be the lousiest comeback i have ever seen...

I don't know what to answer your arguments, it should be so obvious... even to you...

I'm amazed, you are... well... just worse... are you sure you aren't high?

Then tell me where i'm wrong, dont dodge the issue, just answer the question. You sure seem to think its easy to prove so it shouldn't be that hard for you.

 

[SnapIT]

Oh come on flavio...

The NK has just stated that they have nukes, that a war with the US is inevitable, thrown out the UN inspectors and claimed that they will start WWIII...

Is that a threat, i think NOT!

 

[Jmman]

Well, I think they are a couple of main reasons why the approach to NK differs from the approach to Iraq. One, NK hasn't attacked or invaded anybody in recent history. Two, they already have a nuclear weapons capability which definitely makes the situation a little bit more difficult. Would you be willing to threaten military action when they could possibly destroy Seoul or maybe Tokyo? Three, they have shown a little more willingness to negotiate in good faith than Saddam has shown. Saddam hasn't made an agreement yet that he has kept. I don't think the two situations really are analagous.....

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: BigJelly
bump for flavio to reply to my last couple of comments

Of all the extremist nuts here, you have the worst arguments....

At least people like e-tech and others provide links and facts... you are just boring...

When you cant answer the questions, then insult the character...
If my questions/arguments are so bad the show me how they are; otherwise, your argument is bad. Ironic isn't it that your argument, to insult my arguments, is a bad argument.

Wow... that has to be the lousiest comeback i have ever seen...

I don't know what to answer your arguments, it should be so obvious... even to you...

I'm amazed, you are... well... just worse... are you sure you aren't high?

Then tell me where i'm wrong, dont dodge the issue, just answer the question. You sure seem to think its easy to prove so it shouldn't be that hard for you.

Where are you wrong? nah, i don't have the time, is it okey if i tell you that you haven't been right sofar? and you still haven't asked me a question moron... how can i answer something you haven't asked me? THINK McFly...