No shifting the topic, please answer my questions from before. In case you didn't notice I'm not going to let you weasel out this time.
No shifting the topic, please answer my questions from before. In case you didn't notice I'm not going to let you weasel out this time.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing that anyone can say to TLC that will get him to admit that he was wrong. I just want to get enough of his BS down in this thread so its useful as a reference before I once again throw my hands up in disgust. It does seem that shorter postings give him fewer opportunities to dodge and hide though.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Don't you get it yet?
When you ask a stupid question you can expect a stupid answer. That means YOU will usually receive stupid answers to your questions. When you begin to ask questions that don't sound as if they are coming from a complete simpleton with seemingly no grasp of nuance, surrounding circumstances, and the overall complexity of a situation then you might begin receiving some decent answers. But I don't expect you to actually grasp those things because it doesn't appear to be your style and you don't demonstrate the capabilities to grasp any of that.
Maybe in your world every question can be answered with a simple yes or no without consideration for anything else. In the real world that's not the case. Feel free to become a member of the real world some day.
I didn't ask for a yes or no answer. Your descent into insults and trash talk means that you are incapable of explaining yourself. This is not surprising. You have already tried to weasel out several times, and you're probably getting frustrated that I'm not letting you. Answer the question.
:thumbsup:
You should really give up though, you aught to know by now that TLC is not going to stay on a topic he can't win.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
If you're not looking for a yes or no answer then my answer has already been given. If you don't want to accept that answer then it's not my problem.
As far as insults and trash talking, do I really need to review some of your own responses in this thread, Mr. Pot?
No, you didn't give me an answer. As far as trash talk goes, I called you an idiot in a post that also included relevant commentary, unlike your last post. So... answer the question.
Without the USA there is no UN.
What other country has enough backbone in the UN?
UK?
France?
Germany?
What other country has enough backbone in the UN?
UK?
France?
Germany?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I will repost my answer for you:
You aren't complaining because you didn't get an answer. You are complaining because I didn't tell you what you wanted to hear. That's not my problem, it's yours.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
So you're back to saying we violated the UN charter to enforce UN resolutions. Surely you realize how stupid that reasoning is.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
To anyone looking at it as a black & white issue, it probably does sound stupid. But, personally, I believe anyone trying to make this into a black & white issue sounds stupid and is being intellectually dishonest in the process.
So it appears we are at a stalemate of stupid.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Poor TLC. You are constantly trying to smear other people with the shit you have smeared on yourself.
You just keep going with your logical fallacies nonsense in an endless loop. Just because you are stupid and endorse criminal action doesn't mean those who oppose it are stupid. Just because you are intellectually dishonest doesn't mean others are.
What could possibly be more intellectually dishonest than holding others to a different standard than yourself. If you claim the US (represented by Bush) is above the law, while Iraq (Saddam) is not, then you are being intellectually dishonest are you not.
On the other hand, those that claim both Bush and Saddam are subject to the same laws are being intellectually honest, are they not.
Let me also remind you that YOU, earlier in this thread, were the one that made the ludicrous claim that Saddam was the reason for the US invasion thus reducing it to the oversimplified one issue argument you are now conveniently ridiculing. Just another example of your intellectual dishonesty, the very dishonesty you pretend to abhor while, the hypocrite you are, heartily embrace at every opportunity :roll:
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The problem here is that we are of differing opinions. Unfortunately, instead of accepting that we have differing opinions you and a few others in here have some sort of superiority complex where you seem to believe that your opinion is the right one and the only opinion that matters.
You and a few others want to pretend that the UN is some sort of bastion of righteousness in applying the law. My point, and one that keeps getting overlooked, purposefully I imagine, is that the UN had absolutely no intention of enforcing their own laws. If they did the UN would have invaded Iraq again in the 90s after he flaunted resolution after resolution and failed to comply time after time. Since the UN wasn't going to follow their own rules, why should Bush follow their rules? Using your own argument, isn't it intellectually dishonest to continually give Saddam a pass from complying with UN law but NOT Bush?
And let me remind you that I have reiterated in this thread that there were a multitude of reasons why we invaded Iraq, yet someone on here was trying to argue is if there was only one. In fact, the anti-war crowd loves to claim there was really only one reason we invaded by magically waving their hands and dismissing all else, as if their opinion instantly becomes truth. More of their intellectual dishonesty on display.
TLC,
One quick question for you that you can answer in any format that you would like (bullets, paragraph form, etc.).....
Would you be so kind as to list the stated reason(s) used by this administration PRIOR TO the invasion for going to war with Iraq?
Your only requirement: No excuses/reasons given post facto will be accepted since they are not valid reasons for going to war or they would have been given prior to going to war.
One quick question for you that you can answer in any format that you would like (bullets, paragraph form, etc.).....
Would you be so kind as to list the stated reason(s) used by this administration PRIOR TO the invasion for going to war with Iraq?
Your only requirement: No excuses/reasons given post facto will be accepted since they are not valid reasons for going to war or they would have been given prior to going to war.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I used to play the angle that the UN couldn't enforce its laws so the US had to, which is silly considering the US and most countries in the UN don't give a crap for its laws anyway (example, US and world court). If it doesn't enforce its own laws, it doesn't want them enforced. For the US to pretend it's doing what the UN could not do, by breaching UN guidelines in enforcing it is a circular jerking. Anyway, in hindsight it's quite apparent why the UN didn't endorse attacking Iraq. It's not that the UN is impotent (which it is), but that in this case the war was a total mess/debacle/fiasco/goose chase anyway. It was about WMD and Iraq had none, wasn't actively seeeking them, and the intelligence cherry picked to support the war was still wrong. It was a fvckup. Sometimes when you really, really screw up the only way to safe face is by admitting how much you just sucked and hoping to learn from it. But if you cannot even do that, you're a jackass. And the jackass would be those who supported the war and have not yet admitted their folly. That they are not more pissed off at the deceit (or at the very least, absolute and utter incompetence) of their government is detestable to me and they shame themselves in their denial of fact.
Don't forget, April/04 for those who are pretending otherwise: Link
Ari Fleischer: "We know Saddam Hussein is there, but we haven't found him yet, either....But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."
And almost four years later, you have Huckabee, the guy in third spot for the nomination saying almost the exact same kind of stupid thing (see my sig)
Don't forget, April/04 for those who are pretending otherwise: Link
Ari Fleischer: "We know Saddam Hussein is there, but we haven't found him yet, either....But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."
And almost four years later, you have Huckabee, the guy in third spot for the nomination saying almost the exact same kind of stupid thing (see my sig)
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
You're right...I can google. But I don't want their (the admin's) reasons. I want yours. I want to read what you heard/thought/believed the reasons to be.
You have tap danced around this question for years now. Be a man and own up to your opinions. Tell us what they are so that we can discuss/debate whether or not there is any validity to them.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Well you said previously that you wanted me to list the administration's reasons.
As far as my personal opinion I've stated it in this forum numerous times. No doubt you can use the forum search function too.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter