[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 125

Aloofi · #**1241** May 12th, 2003, 10:20 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is our daily anti-Fyron moment.

geoschmo · #**1242** May 12th, 2003, 10:53 PM

I am not anti-Fyron at all. I just like batting his ears now and then. Got to keep the young ones in line.

Wardad · #**1243** May 12th, 2003, 11:08 PM

I am not anti Fryon either.
It is just that his comments on what should or should not be posted, and his definition of humor makes a good target for a humorous jab.

Go Ahead Aloofi, leave your self open...

Narrew · #**1244** May 13th, 2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:
"As long as it takes" was not good enough for the pro war people so it's not good enough for me.

Umm "As long as it takes" = 12 years.

That is how long it took before someone said enough is enough of Saddams jerking the weapon inspectors around. It could be argued that someone got tired of the UN dragging its feet, as we dig deeper and see that the UN knew that the "oil for food" was actually "oil for palaces" (ok, but we can agree that it DID NOT get to the Iraqi people, unless you count food given to the children in prison).

It will not take 12 years to figure out the WMD one-way or the other. I still think that what ever is found will NEVER satisfy the Bush haters, but that is politics.

But I can guarantee one thing, that if there are NO WMDs found, this President will not pass the buck to a scape goat, he will assume full responsibility for the action taken.

[ May 12, 2003, 23:24: Message edited by: Narrew ]

Fyron · #**1245** May 13th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wardad:
Imperator was not found in the Cambridge Dictionary.

I did find: imperative (URGENT) adjective
extremely important or urgent; needing to be done or given attention immediately.

So an Imperator must create urgency and need attention.
correct usage: The Imperator threw a tantrum.

Imperator is the latin word for emperor.

Geo, as I have said many times, dictionary definitions are not valid for complex terms. They simplify the terms, and often miss all of the subtleties of the meanings. They often reflect common misconceptions of words too. And, my post was made because there were people using democracy to mean different things, and trying to argue against each other. Some of the counter-arguments made no sense as they were. It was my hope that people would start using more accurate terms to avoid such confusions.

tesco samoa · #**1246** May 13th, 2003, 01:05 AM

narrew it is not about peoples feelings towards bush.

Some of the things it is about is

International law.
deceit.
War.
Incompetence.
WMD
International alliances.

Fyron · #**1247** May 13th, 2003, 01:26 AM

Tesco, most of the people that post for or against Bush's policies do so only because they like or hate him. Very few people have an open mind and look at the whole situation, instead of saying "Republican = evil".

Cyrien · #**1248** May 13th, 2003, 02:46 AM

You mean Republican doesn't = evil?

There goes my entire conception of the world!

rextorres · #**1249** May 13th, 2003, 03:15 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Narrew:

Quote:

But I can guarantee one thing, that if there are NO WMDs found, this President will not pass the buck to a scape goat, he will assume full responsibility for the action taken.

THIS president said - unequivocally - he would call for a vote in the UN for war and he didn't - "We need to know where everyone stands up or down" (or something like that). He lied then about that why would he tell the truth now about this!?

I have an idea:

Why don't we just cut taxes on all the wealthy Iraqis that will solve all that country's problems.

[ May 13, 2003, 02:20: Message edited by: rextorres ]

geoschmo · #**1250** May 13th, 2003, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:
THIS president said - unequivocally - he would call for a vote in the UN for war and he didn't - "We need to know where everyone stands up or down" (or something like that). He lied then about that why would he tell the truth now about this!?

I know you can do better than that Rex. I have supported the the President for the most part on the Iraq issue and even I can see some inconsistancies in a few things. But this is what you bring up as an example of him lying? Please. There would have been a vote if the French had not expressly stated they would veto it. If you don't understand what that means for UN purposes a security council veto stops a resolution before it even comes to a vote. So you can't blame Bush for their being no vote on a second resolution.

Geoschmo