Who won the debate?

[PissedGodzilla]

I don't need to provide huge additions when half intelligent people such as FOL get the point across perfectly fine.

I think that was the most perfect back-handed compliment ever...

[Miscue]

I think that was the most perfect back-handed compliment ever...

Hehe, I got a chuckle out of it.

[-=Squid=-]

Hehe, I got a chuckle out of it.

I'm sure you would laugh at something completely unfunny in front of your monitor.


You seem the type.

[Automaggot68]

I'm sure you would laugh at something completely unfunny in front of your monitor.


You seem the type.

I found that most of Kerry's replies were....well..Cheesy.

I bow down to Squid.

[-=Squid=-]

I found that most of Kerry's replies were....well..Cheesy.

I bow down to Squid.

We all should.

[FactsOfLife]

I think that was the most perfect back-handed compliment ever...

If he thinks I'm only half intelligent, wonder what he thinks about you?

[Hasty8]

Well, this blows that entire argument away... Ready??


Where did I say Pres. Bush Lied?? I didn't. Boom you lose.





"The only problem with your argument is that your reasons for going to war were not the reasons we were given... we were <b>decieved</b>. and the President is responsible for his people.

Definition of Deceived.

you read the definition of deceived and tell me how it does not equate to lying.

[Zygote]

Reading only that quote it looks like he was saying someone under Bush lied and since he's subordinate to Bush, Bush is ultimately responsible.

Whether that's what was meant, who knows.

[Hasty8]

yet another problem with your thinking is that Bill isn't running for President. blame him all you want for 9/11 I'm talking about the war in Iraq.

Bill Clinto this, Bill Clinton that... anything to get away from the ineffectiveness and Mistakes of Dubya

Fine, let's discuss the war in Iraq.

Saddam was order, not asked, <b>ORDERED</b> to disarm. In response he tossed out the inspectors.

Add on to that the numerous regime insiders who fled the country and told stories of how Saddam was trying to rebuild his WMD programs.

Add to that Saddam's past history of using WMD's against Iran, the US and his own citizens.

Add to that 17 resolutions by the UN demanding Saddam step up and he simply refuses.

Add to that current intelligence of the time stating that Saddam either has or soon will have WMD's.

Add to that 39 nations agreeing with the current situation.

No matter how you add it all up it equates to a potential threat and I fully agree with removing a potential threat long before it becomes a North Korea.

Not a single argument you have posted here, Godzilla, has been based ona single piece of fact.

The intelligence was wrong. You claim Bush "deceived".
If Bush "deceived" then so did Kerry. Which should not surprise anyone who knows the mans history.

Kerry enlisted in Vietnam only to get a few medals. Then he comes home, after serving 4 months "in-country" and betrays his fellow soldiers. Then he betrays his protesting buddies by throwing someone' else's pins and medals over the White House wall.

The primary difference between KErry and Bush is that Bush is willing to hold the line. This is something that Kerry has simply not be able to do in over 30 years of being in the public eye. He cowtows to which ever party or interest he feels will give him the best "bang for the buck".

Yes, the intelligence that Bush used as evidence of Saddam's intentions was wrong. However, had Saddam done what was ordered of him by the UN and allowed proper inspections then this war would not have happened.

Blame for this war falls on Saddam.

Also, the Duelfer report, which if you have not read the key points of I highly suggest that you do, has clearly painted a picture of how Saddam was directly involved in the continual weakening of UN sanctions against Iraq while ferverently working to acquire, develop and maintain the capital needed to restart his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

Not a single on of your arguments, that I have seen so far, has been factual. Rather they have been based solely on personal interpretation of facts and your own internal feelings.

Now, let's discuss "ineffectivesness and mistakes".

First off, Kerry has apparantly made the same mistakes as Bush. He did vote for the war after all.

And I think my earlier post about how Kerry handled the attacks of Sept 11th gives a clear enough image of just how "effective" he can be.

<edit>BTW, Godzilla, your quote at the top of this post shows just how far you will go to try and twist the facts to fit your truth. The war in Iraq is a direct result of the September 11th attacks. Not because of any link to Al-Qaida but becuase Iraq is a state that supports terrorism. Again, had Saddam done what the UN asked and allowed ful access by the weapons inspectors we would not be in there now. </edit>

[Hasty8]

do you realise how stupid that was?

you basically said that we need to stop working with the rest of the world "testing" them, then said that it was right to topple a forign government, you hypocritical moron you also spouted off tons of opinions without any proof at all think before you speak next time

i dont want to hear from you about people saying irrelevant or dumb things

Perhaps you should think before you go spouting off.

You seem to feel that Bush was wrong for invading a soverign nation and effecting regime change.

Well, let's not act like that's solely a Republican thing.

Roosevelt invaded Germany and effected regime change. So did Truman, Kennedy & Johnson and of course, Clinton.

And that was just with direct invasion.

Think of this, my factually impared friend.

At the end of WWII there were 4, yes 4, democracies worldwide. There are now over 130.

Do you think they just sprang up overnight ala 7-Eleven?

You moral indignation is cute but hardly worth it.

As for FOL's comment about "not working with the world" I think he was more accurately commenting on Kerry's wholly scary sense of appeasing the world first and defending America second.

In the '70's Kerry told that if he had his way he would put control of the AMerican military in the hands of the US.

That scares the hell out of me. If that were in place right now Saddam, North Korea, Iran and over a dozen other tinpot dictators would now have the right to influence where and what our military does.

And now Kerry talks about any pre-emptive strikes passing a "global test"?

I'm sorry but no one but an American should have the right to decide where, when and how our military is used.

While I do not agree with a lot of the things that FOL says I do feel that your personal attacks are juvenile and makes you look all the more like a rash and impudent child and you owe him an apology.

[Hasty8]

and your anology is a very poor one. It should be more like this... if your'e driving down a 2 lane road, and notice a car in your lane, do you swerve into the next lane as soon as possible, or wait until the van next to you with the innocent people gets out of the way, and act intelligent by doing everything you can to get that car in front of you out of the way. Doing it your way leaves the innocents dead without their having a chance t get out of the way. that is a more equal analogy.

After re-reading this analogy I am shocked and amazed that you think yours was better.

You refer to the "innocent". I wonder who you speak of.

Perhaps you are referring to the innocent eldery and children that Saddam used nerve gas on to quell a "rebellion".

Or perhaps you are referring to the innocent hundreds of thousands that died under the UN OFF program in which Saddam illegally siphoned monies intended for medicial and food purchases into funding his re-armamnet programs.

"act intelligent". Another nice try Godzilla but, as I have said before, there were <b>17</b> resolutions about Saddam's IRaq and his weapons program.

How "intelligent" is it to keep admonishing someone and not finally spank? Out of curiousity, just how many resolutions is the "intelligent" amount? 20? 30? 100? How many resolutions do we need to give before we are finally allowed to act?

It was a nice try to add the "innocents" to my analogy.

[FactsOfLife]

As for FOL's comment about "not working with the world" I think he was more accurately commenting on Kerry's wholly scary sense of appeasing the world first and defending America second.

While I do not agree with a lot of the things that FOL says I do feel that your personal attacks are juvenile and makes you look all the more like a rash and impudent child and you owe him an apology.

Maybe I need to get myself a case of diarrhea of the keyboard. I apparently post here under the assumption that what I say is going to be understood by people that claim they have at least an 8th grade level of reading comprehension....

As for his attacks, doesn't bother me in the least. And I hardly expect any kind of apology, apparently he couldn't contain himself in his exuberence for a flame war. He even admits it in an earlier post.

all the hashness in that was simply a joke

but the points in my last post do stand

*edit* can me and facts have the flame war we're both itching for?

I look at it like this, the more shrill and insane their responses are to the facts of this world the more I'm convinced President Bush will be re-elected in a landslide.

I can't wait to see them lose it after the election.

10 bucks says that one of them says anything but a win for Kerry, means that Bush stole the election again.

[Hasty8]

No, you replace the man who took our country into war in error. we did it in Vietnam, I believe...

You put someone in there who has a clear plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

John Kerry

I have yet to hear a single plan of Kerry's that handles specifics.

In closing, let's just agree to disagree.

These arguments bore me already.

I just find it frustrating that all this country has to offer is Bush and Kerry.

[-=Squid=-]

If he thinks I'm only half intelligent, wonder what he thinks about you?

... I don't feel like getting another 3-day.

[FactsOfLife]

... I don't feel like getting another 3-day.

ahahahaha nice one