Things that make you go hmmmmm

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Yeah, I'd vote them out of office.

I will be voting for who I want, it isn't Kerry and it isn't Nader.

Next time, ask me who I will vote for if you want an answer.

I'm not backed into an indefensible corner, you've been in the corner ever since you first posted. Couldn't come up with anything remotely intelligent to say, so you just spewed the typical "I'm **** out of smarts" BOOSH HITLER drivel.
-SW

[Martlet]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yeah, I'd vote them out of office.

I will be voting for who I want, it isn't Kerry and it isn't Nader.

Next time, ask me who I will vote for if you want an answer.

I'm not backed into an indefensible corner, you've been in the corner ever since you first posted. Couldn't come up with anything remotely intelligent to say, so you just spewed the typical "I'm **** out of smarts" BOOSH HITLER drivel.
-SW

Your post got an appropriate response.

You try to argue that Bush botched the occupation by losing equipment for a nuclear arms program.  

It's pointed out the equipment for a nuclear arms program is pretty good justification for an invasion.

Then you point out that the CIA says there was no program.

Then you tried to change the topic, since that one is obviously not going where you want it to, to "we should have invaded Iran instead".  

That's an argument you could make, but it would have nothing to do with this one.  That's pointed out to you, so you change tacks again.

Next you claim that Iraq DID have the components for a nuke program, they just weren't using them because they were "pressured" into behaving.

But that doesn't make a lot of sense, since we couldn't even pressure them into conforming with the UN resolutions that forbid those same programs.

Your argument is nothing more than an attempt to push your partisan agenda.   It's evident in your flawed defense.  Only a fool would deliver facts that negate a former debate to bolster a latter one.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

My partisan agenda? You are a tool, and you couldn't even follow the thread.

Then you tried to change the topic, since that one is obviously not going where you want it to, to "we should have invaded Iran instead".

I didn't change tracks with Iran, I was comparing a bigger known threat to a questionable one. We should have invaded Iran if we are invading based on potential nuclear programs.

You try to argue that Bush botched the occupation by losing equipment for a nuclear arms program.

No I didn't. That is one of the reasons I won't vote him back into office.

It's pointed out the equipment for a nuclear arms program is pretty good justification for an invasion.

Where?

Then you point out that the CIA says there was no program.

Good for you, you can read.

That's an argument you could make, but it would have nothing to do with this one. That's pointed out to you, so you change tacks again.

It has everything to do with Iraq, it's a far greater danger with an obvious nuclear program.

Next you claim that Iraq DID have the components for a nuke program, they just weren't using them because they were "pressured" into behaving.

And? This contradicts nothing.

But that doesn't make a lot of sense, since we couldn't even pressure them into conforming with the UN resolutions that forbid those same programs.

They didn't have it operational, you must assume it was Saddam's good will that kept it not operational.

Your argument is nothing more than an attempt to push your partisan agenda. It's evident in your flawed defense. Only a fool would deliver facts that negate a former debate to bolster a latter one.

Guess you can't read, oh well - nice try.
-SW

[Martlet]

My partisan agenda? You are a tool, and you couldn't even follow the thread.

Actually, I outlined it very accurately.

I didn't change tracks with Iran, I was comparing a bigger known threat to a questionable one. We should have invaded Iran if we are invading based on potential nuclear programs.

We're talking about Iraq.  You start talking about Iran.  Yeah.  That's the same topic.  Flip flop flip flop

No I didn't. That is one of the reasons I won't vote him back into office.

no you didn't, that is one of the reasons.....?

HAHAHAHAHAHA  You contradict yourself in the same comment.  At least wait a bit.


Where?

Ripsnort's first comment, that's what caused you to drag out the CIA line, thus negating  your initial spinfest.

Then you point out that the CIA says there was no program.

Good for you, you can read.

It has everything to do with Iraq, it's a far greater danger with an obvious nuclear program.

What does it have to do with the initial topic?  Saying it does doesn't make it so.

And? This contradicts nothing.

Nope, it just points out your flawed logic.

They didn't have it operational, you must assume it was Saddam's good will that kept it not operational.

No, I'm saying that you selectively pick and choose which CIA intelligence you want to believe.    Are they incompetent or not?  They were wrong before and right now?  Only a fool would believe that we had the influence to halt research, but not get them to stop firing at our planes or allow us to conduct inspections.  Pressure only works on some things?


Guess you can't read, oh well - nice try.

I understand your need to continue to defend a position most of us laugh at.   Saving face is important to a boy your age.

[AWMac]

"Following this brief intermission, we shall return to "As the Flip, Flops."



    Now a word from our sponser....

  "Ever get tired of the same old crud on yer favorite BBS?"  

  "Then try the "New and Improved Skuzz~Away"  

   Gauranteed to dispell ignorant drivel with a long lasting brighter that bright Threadness"    

   Available in the small "Last~Edited" size or for the heavier drivel try "Lock~Away".  

  *Void where prohibited by Law, keep children and pets away*

[AWMac]

Now back to "As the Flip, Flops".....

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

You called me partisan, you obviously don't even know what that word means.

You were talking about a nuclear program, Iran was way further along than Iraq was. Given that evidence, and reasons for invasion - Iran has everything to do with Iraq.

no you didn't, that is one of the reasons.....?

HAHAHAHAHAHA You contradict yourself in the same comment. At least wait a bit.

You are uber smert. I never said Bush botched the invasion, you did. I did say I wouldn't vote for him because he let those materials slip through our forces hands.

Ripsnort's first comment, that's what caused you to drag out the CIA line, thus negating your initial spinfest.

What spinfest? You are in your own little ****ed up world there.

What does it have to do with the initial topic? Saying it does doesn't make it so.

Iraq's nuclear capabilities have been proven to be nill. That was one of the least concerns for this war. What he did have is now gone. Iran, OTOH, prior to the Iraq war was flaunting it's capabilities to us and we ignored it. Now they may very well have what little Iraq had. They go hand in hand, you just choose to ignore it - just like everything else you don't agree with.

No, I'm saying that you selectively pick and choose which CIA intelligence you want to believe. Are they incompetent or not? They were wrong before and right now?

I do? What intelligence am I not believing right now? The stuff proven to be false? Gee, I guess I should go back and start believing things proven false just so I can stay consistent for you.

Only a fool would believe that we had the influence to halt research, but not get them to stop firing at our planes or allow us to conduct inspections. Pressure only works on some things?

The latter has nothing to do with the former, only a fool would associate the two.

I understand your need to continue to defend a position most of us laugh at.

Who are these "most"? I didn't know you spoke for people.
-SW

[Saurdaukar]