If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Dick Locke" wrote in message ... Bzzzt! Too late! You challenged anyone to show where you posted something that wasn't true and I only had to look back about two posts. Actually, the challenge was, "Please identify what I have written here that is factually incorrect and prove it to be so." Nobody has met the challenge. How about, as recently as today, when you asked "And you didn't read the following message?", an obvious lie since there was no following message to be read? And you weren't referring to other or previous messages, so don't try to use that as an excuse. You referred to "the following message" and there was none, which means that you lied when you inferred that there was a message following. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... No, would you mind translating the vacant spaces for me? I said "the following message", not "what appears below." |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Why not? Because they served no defensive purpose. It theoretically had no defenses after we finished with them in the Gulf War. Iraq's defenses were not destroyed during the Gulf War, just it's ability to threaten or attack it's neighbors. We permitted Japan to raise minimal military forces to defend itself after WWII, and did the same with what was left of Hitler's Deutchland. We did the same with Iraq. You're obviously in denial and have been hung out to dry by your party line. You need to walk away from this particular discussion, because you're never going to win it. You're obviously uninformed. On the contrary, I am very well informed; it's you who is in denial of the truth. We labelled Scuds being delivered to Yemen as defensive weapons, and you are claiming that Iraq, with or without her defensive capabilities in ruins, was entitled to such capabilities, and yet not entitled to use a defensive weapon (by our own definition) like the Scud missile. There's a dichotomy there that you seem to be too stubborn to admit, but it's still there and it won't go away even if you wish it would. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... How about, as recently as today, when you asked "And you didn't read the following message?", an obvious lie since there was no following message to be read? You responded to my message; "You're confusing tax rates with tax revenue. Reagan cut tax rates, tax revenue then rose, rising tax revenue does lead to deficits." The message following that one is; "Oops, that obviously should have been '...rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits.' Well, I guess that isn't so obvious to some!" And you weren't referring to other or previous messages, so don't try to use that as an excuse. You referred to "the following message" and there was none, which means that you lied when you inferred that there was a message following. I obviously was referring to another message. Well, I guess that isn't so obvious to some! |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... On the contrary, I am very well informed; Actually, you are disinformed. You've bought the propaganda and ignored the facts. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Jarg" wrote in message om... "Werner J. Severin" wrote in message .... In article , Mike1 wrote: Is anyone in disagreement with the basic *fact* that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the course of slaughtering nearly a million people overall? Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians? Even if this were true, what is your point? Are you suggesting that past support for Iraq means the US should not have removed the Saddam regime? Jarg Of course not, but neither should anyone have to put up with the bull**** lies about who built up Iraq's chemical weapons in the first place, whether we did it directly or through the cloak of another country. We paid to build him up, and again, we paid to tear it down, now we get to pay to rebuild what we tore down. It's a pathetic and vicious circle we keep jerking in. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
... On the contrary, I am very well informed; it's you who is in denial of the truth. We labelled Scuds being delivered to Yemen as defensive weapons, and you are claiming that Iraq, with or without her defensive capabilities in ruins, was entitled to such capabilities, and yet not entitled to use a defensive weapon (by our own definition) like the Scud missile. There's a dichotomy there that you seem to be too stubborn to admit, but it's still there and it won't go away even if you wish it would. What is your point? Iraq agreed not to deploy any missiles over a certain range after losing the first Gulf War. They then proceeded to violate the agreement. Yemen was not subject to this agreement. Seems pretty simple to me. Jarg |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"None" wrote in message hlink.net... "Jarg" wrote in message om... "Werner J. Severin" wrote in message ... In article , Mike1 wrote: Is anyone in disagreement with the basic *fact* that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the course of slaughtering nearly a million people overall? Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians? Even if this were true, what is your point? Are you suggesting that past support for Iraq means the US should not have removed the Saddam regime? Jarg Of course not, but neither should anyone have to put up with the bull**** lies about who built up Iraq's chemical weapons in the first place, whether we did it directly or through the cloak of another country. We paid to build him up, and again, we paid to tear it down, now we get to pay to rebuild what we tore down. It's a pathetic and vicious circle we keep jerking in. But perhaps this will end it. Jarg |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Why not? Because they served no defensive purpose. It theoretically had no defenses after we finished with them in the Gulf War. Iraq's defenses were not destroyed during the Gulf War, just it's ability to threaten or attack it's neighbors. We permitted Japan to raise minimal military forces to defend itself after WWII, and did the same with what was left of Hitler's Deutchland. We did the same with Iraq. You're obviously in denial and have been hung out to dry by your party line. You need to walk away from this particular discussion, because you're never going to win it. You're obviously uninformed. On the contrary, I am very well informed; You are kidding, right? Do you even know what UN Res 687 *was*? it's you who is in denial of the truth. We labelled Scuds being delivered to Yemen as defensive weapons, and you are claiming that Iraq, with or without her defensive capabilities in ruins, was entitled to such capabilities, and yet not entitled to use a defensive weapon (by our own definition) like the Scud missile. Not a weapon with a range of over 150km. You really need to go back and familiarize yourself with the requirements imposed upon Iraq, why they were imposed, and how Yemen has not demosntrated any of the behaviors associated with why those requirements were imposed upon Iraq. There's a dichotomy there that you seem to be too stubborn to admit, but it's still there and it won't go away even if you wish it would. There is no dichotomy. We outlawed the Nazi party in Germany after WWII, but we did nothing to outlaw facism in Spain, which had *not* conducted a war of aggression--was that a "dichotomy"? Nope. It was a simple case of the defeated nation having to submit to measures that are not imposed upon other nations--just like the case you are discussing. Brooks |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... No, would you mind translating the vacant spaces for me? I said "the following message", not "what appears below." So, where's "the following message"? There wasn't any....so why were you referring to it when it obviously didn't exist? You knew it wasn't there. Your attempts at wiggling out of admitting an error are really pathetic for someone who's presumably an adult. They don't serve you well, and you ought to be man enough to admit it when it's as obvious as the nose on your face that you misspoke or, as you probably would have said if I had done that, that you lied. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
State Of Michigan Sales/Use Tax | Rich S. | Home Built | 0 | August 9th 04 04:41 PM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
Soviet State Committee on Science and Technology | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 0 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
Homebuilts by State | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 03 08:30 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |