|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: EchoVortex]
#1647475 - 06/20/03 06:27 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
EchoVortex writes:
The real question is, did the Bush and Blair governments mislead the public as to the degree of their certainty about the status of these weapons?
Ah. Now THAT is a reasonable question to ask. And an impossible one to answer, as it is patently impossible to know for sure the degree of certainty either of them held, short of administering polygraph exams to them or hiring a mindreader. As the articles I have posted point out, Bush and Blair were far from alone in publicly declaring their belief that Hussein had WMD. Were all those other people also "misleading the public" as to their degree of certainty?
This is a strawman. This is not what I and most others who criticize what the administration did are arguing. Ours is rather contention #2:
My comments re inflated definitions are inapplicable to you and to others who hold the same position you do. They were directed to those who presume that since WMDs have yet to be discovered, it is correct to claim that Bush and Blair are "lying".
There was conflicting evidence on the status of Iraqi WMD. Many analysts at the CIA and other intelligence organizations have reported that they had evidence mitigating AGAINST the idea that viable WMD were present.
Yes, we know now that some members of the intelligence community had doubts (and others did not), but that is not the issue. The issue is did Bush and Blair have doubts, and if so, to what degree? Contrary to the beliefs of many, intelligence services are not infallible, and intelligence analysts routinely present reports with many possible interpretations -- this is part of the usual bureaucratic "Cover Your Ass" syndrome. Different people presented with the same evidence and analyses could arrive at different conclusions. This happens frequently in criminal trials, for example. This does not necessarily mean that Bush and Blair were "lying" anymore than it means that those who insist a "higher being" exists are lying. Being mistaken (and it is as yet unknown whether they were) is not equivalent to being a liar.
Powell's speech to the Security Council was focused almost entirely on weaponry and the subsidiary issue of al-Qaeda ties, which also have yet to be satisfactorily substantiated.
Perhaps this was because the Security Council has demonstrated repeatedly that internal oppression of the citizenry of a given country and such "subsidiary" issues as the return of POWs and the payment of reparations are considered matters of little import?
To bring up yet another point, the fact that as yet no WMDs have been unearthed does not constitute proof they won't be. I can't help but note that the same crowd who insisted on proof that Iraq's WMDs had not all been destroyed seem to have no difficulty categorizing (with no proof) as "lies" Bush and Blair's (but not Blix's or China's) position on their existence.
I would like to repeat that despite my objections to inflating definitions, I remain unconvinced even at this late date that it was correct for the US, the UK, Australia, Spain, et al to have invaded Iraq. These countries have no obligation to be the world's policemen. However, that personal opinion is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
#1647750 - 06/20/03 09:43 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Ah. Now THAT is a reasonable question to ask. And an impossible one to answer, as it is patently impossible to know for sure the degree of certainty either of them held
Bullshit. They knew allright.
As the articles I have posted point out, Bush and Blair were far from alone in publicly declaring their belief that Hussein had WMD.
But they were alone in thinking Iraqs WMD posed such a terrifying, immediate threat that it justified immediate invasion.
They were directed to those who presume that since WMDs have yet to be discovered, it is correct to claim that Bush and Blair are "lying".
Tell me something. Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Because there's more chance of finding that before WMD in Iraq. The "search teams" spend most of their days watching movies. There is nowhere left to search.
The issue is did Bush and Blair have doubts, and if so, to what degree?
Two cabinet ministers have already resigned. One said Blair was told by Bush in september that he would go to war in February. The whole myth of WMD was the only thing that could conceivably convince the british public to go along with blairs insanity. Both cabinet ministers said they recieved breifings from MI6 saying there was no threat. No doubt Blair would also have been aware of this.
To bring up yet another point, the fact that as yet no WMDs have been unearthed does not constitute proof they won't be.
You could apply this argument just as well to the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Clause and UFO's.
They don't exist. Your long endless tirades about Scott Ritter have been exposed for the bullshine they were. Scott was right, you were massively wrong. This has obviously shaken your belief system to it's very foundations which is why you're dreaming up such convoluted, twisted reasoning.
The WMD arn't there. You were wrong. Deal with it.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: GazzBut]
#1647795 - 06/20/03 10:12 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Even this fact is in doubt now when it turns out that any positive reports of Iraqi compliance with weapons inspectors was modified or buried to put the Iraqi's in a bad light.
ANY positive evidence? Hardly. Besides, compliance is an either or thing -- in this context there are no brownie points given for allowing inspectors into sites one knows are clean. The UN inspectors documented many examples of Iraqi refusal to let them inspect certain sites WHEN the inspectors wished to do so.
Are you seriously claiming they are free now then?
They have been liberated from an oppressive regime, yes. As a matter of fact, in the present post-war quasi-anarchy, they are in many ways more free than citizens of the UK or the US.
That is hilarious, so if enough people say it it must be true??!
You miss the point. Read the title of this thread, then look up a dictionary definition of "lie". Are those who proclaim that a "higher being" exists lying? Were those who proclaimed millennia ago that the Earth was flat lying? Were the European appeasers in the Thirties lying about Hitler's harmlessness?
pinky
--------------------
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
#1647890 - 06/20/03 11:01 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"Weapons of Mass Destruction was not the primary reason we went to war. We emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons ? in order to gain legal justification for war from the United Nations and to emphasize the danger here at home to our own people. We were not lying ? 'it was just a matter of emphasis." - Cofer Black, long-time CIA terrorism official who now heads the State Department's counterterrorism office Did the Bush regime lie? Or did he honestly believe all of the federal intelligence that was filtered and over-emphasized? One thing that we can do is look at the context of this past war and examine the foreign policy doctrines of Bush and the Neo-conservatives. One important place to look is the Project for a New American Century. The Project for The New American Century Report that was written in September 2000 comes right out and says that overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein is simply the immediate justification for establishing a permenant military presence in the Persian Gulf region. Doing so is, itself, just part of the process of establishing (to quote the report) "global US military preeminance". Now, the Statement of Principles of the PNAC was signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Libby, all of whom are now senior officials of George Dubya's cabinet AND former members of Bush SENIOR'S cabinet as well. In fact, Wolfowitz and Libby co-authored the precursor to the PNAC report in 1992, which was known simply as the Defence Policy Guidelines (DPG) document. In my opinion, Bush misled the public via exageration of a minor (if not non-existent) threat in order to fulfill particular foreign policy agendas (Pax Americana). Such misleading proved to be quite "easy to swallow" in the fear-ridden, post-September 11th American climate. Weapons of Mass Destruction were put forth as pretext for regime-change in Iraq, just as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a pretext for an official invasion of Vietnam (and as history has shown the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin was pretty much staged by the United States).
|
Azmodeus
Seeker
Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: SafeHaven]
#1647911 - 06/20/03 11:12 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SafeHaven said: Yes as matter of fact they reported in the news that they saw several convoys heading into Syria from Iraq on satellites,
YES he would have used them on us if it wasnt for alot of other countries (Russia and a few others) telling them that it would be a grave mistake to use them , as it would give us much more legitimacy in this.
Its not that he was this terrifying immediate threat , point is that he has a proven track record of these crimes against humanity. You can read look a Bio on Saddam, the man is evil incarnate.
no kiddin hes had a decade or more to hide this stuff, Dont you know history they hide all kinds of stuff in the desert.
they buy the missiles from China.....and all you have to do is add warhead or chem or bio to warhead then poof couple hours later you have full weapon.
Its not the space shuttle your hiding, it a barrel or sealed container, many of them.
Go walk in a desert and see how easy it is to hide stuff in the ground. Desert is unrelenting and the landscape changes continually. Cant tell whats been dug and whats natural after so long.
Why you think they regulate things in the world like nuclear and chemical stuff, cause of the wide spread danger that could happen , when someone who like Saddam gets power in his hands...
He begins to think he is almost a GOD.. always fear that....
That is absolutely fucking hilarious! You don't know your ass from your tea kettle do ya? I'd point out everything thats wrong here, but i suspect anyone with common scense can make that distinction.
You are a product.
-------------------- "Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source. Lest we forget. "
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
#1648564 - 06/20/03 02:35 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
They have been liberated from an oppressive regime, yes Liberated to what? A yankee backed dictator who'se primary concern is the welfare of US oil corporations. Some "liberation". As a matter of fact, in the present post-war quasi-anarchy, they are in many ways more free than citizens of the UK or the US. Don't talk like a lunatic. Having ten men come into your house and kick your head in before walking out with the television set isn't "freedom". Read the title of this thread, then look up a dictionary definition of "lie". If you are uncomfortable with "lie" use "misled". Bush and Blair insisted Saddams WMD were an immediate threat. No WMD exist in Iraq. Those are the facts. I am amazed at your reluctance to accept reality. You spent months and months posting scores of times insisting that Scott Ritter was a lying awful man and that WMD existed in Iraq beyond any question. You were wrong. Massively, thrillingly, outrageously wrong. You still seem unable to even begin to accept this. Your devotion to a blatant lie is astonishing.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Meat_Log_Smurf
FumbDuck
Registered: 01/31/03
Posts: 1,144
Loc: BFE
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Xlea321]
#1648806 - 06/20/03 03:49 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Alex why didn't the UN inspectors just call you up and ask you if there were any WMD. Damn you know EVERYTHING obviously. I'll just say one thing and leave it at that. My grandmother could use a backhoe dig a very large hole in the ground and then drive a semi (filled with barrels of chemicals) into that hole then cover it up. All in about 48 hours if she was working by herself. Yes it is possible. So to say that you know that there are ABSOLUTELY NO WMD in Iraq makes you a liar. Of course if an when they find something like this you will just say it was planted by the CIA, FBI, or have some moronic conspiracy theory. Your rhetoric is as old as time itself, get over it. Whats done is done.
Edited by Meat_Log_Smurf (06/20/03 03:53 PM)
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
|
Does your grandmother bury barrels of chemicals often then?
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Alex why didn't the UN inspectors just call you up and ask you if there were any WMD
Hang on man, Don't you think that before you piss away billions of taxpayers money, slaughter a good 10,000 iraqis on the basis that "His WMD are a massive and imminent threat to world peace" you should have the first fucking clue whether the WMD exist or not?
Is that really too much to ask?
My grandmother could use a backhoe dig a very large hole in the ground and then drive a semi (filled with barrels of chemicals) into that hole then cover it up.
Come on. Do you seriously think on the eve of a war you bury all your fucking weapons? Can you give me a example in the last two million years of human history when that's happened? And by the way, chemicals ARE NOT WMD. A WMD is a weapon capable of causing mass destruction usually a chemical warhead on a long range missile aimed at a city.
So to say that you know that there are ABSOLUTELY NO WMD in Iraq makes you a liar.
I'm not saying it. I'm listening to the evidence. The inspectors have stopped looking - most of their time is spent watching films.
Of course if an when they find something like this you will just say it was planted by the CIA, FBI, or have some moronic conspiracy theory.
They'll find WMD about the same time they find Elvis on the Loch Ness Monster.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,035
Last seen: 13 hours, 36 minutes
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Phred]
#1649304 - 06/20/03 06:34 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Were those who proclaimed millennia ago that the Earth was flat lying?
yup
|
Meat_Log_Smurf
FumbDuck
Registered: 01/31/03
Posts: 1,144
Loc: BFE
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Xlea321]
#1649384 - 06/20/03 07:02 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Come on. Do you seriously think on the eve of a war you bury all your fucking weapons? Can you give me a example in the last two million years of human history when that's happened? And by the way, chemicals ARE NOT WMD. A WMD is a weapon capable of causing mass destruction usually a chemical warhead on a long range missile aimed at a city.
I suppose WMD are made of snot and duct tape? No, they are made from a combination of elements. Many WMD can fit in a suitcase. Yes they are made of chemicals (elements from the periodic table mixed together to for a tasty brew).
Quote:
Come on. Do you seriously think on the eve of a war you bury all your fucking weapons?
Hitler was on the brink, yes about 30 days from building an atomic bomb but again a handful of special ops saved the day. Those guys went in within 72 hours of knowing where the base was and destroyed it. Would he have used an A bomb? Your damn right he would have. Is it the death of Iraqi soldiers that piss you off so much or what? By calculations this war saved the lives of over 1,000,000,000 Iraqis. I dont pay much attention to what you write but would like to know what exactly pisses you off so much about freeing a country from an oppressive leader? Since Saddam casued two of the largest ecological disasters in the worlds history I honestly dont see how anyone could support the piece of shit.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Many WMD can fit in a suitcase.
Nope, this is a misunderstanding of the term. A WMD has always been understood to mean a weapon capable of delivering massive destruction, usually a missile aimed at a city. This idea that a few anthrax spores or some chemicals in a suitcase is a "weapon of mass destruction" is an example of how the meaning of the phrase has been twisted to suit Bush's agenda. You might kill a few people if you released some gas on the underground but it's a long way from being a WMD.
Hitler was on the brink, yes about 30 days from building an atomic bomb but again a handful of special ops saved the day
Sounds like you get your history from James Bond movies. The fact of the Nazi atom bomb development are far different. They were never anywhere near making a bomb. Read here:
http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/Bomb.htm
Is it the death of Iraqi soldiers that piss you off so much or what?
And the 10,000 civilians. Plus the 700,000 children under 5 who died thanks to the sanctions. I presume you're so tough that doesn't bother you?
By calculations this war saved the lives of over 1,000,000,000 Iraqis.
Well it stopped the sanctions - which had already killed well over a million people. But the sanctions were kept in place by the US and UK remember. They couldve stopped the carnage any time they wanted.
Since Saddam casued two of the largest ecological disasters in the worlds history I honestly dont see how anyone could support the piece of shit.
I don't either. That's why I want Rumsfield, Reagan and Bush put up agaginst a wall and shot for the enormous support they gave to him for decades.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Meat_Log_Smurf
FumbDuck
Registered: 01/31/03
Posts: 1,144
Loc: BFE
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Xlea321]
#1650287 - 06/21/03 03:03 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And the 10,000 civilians. Plus the 700,000 children under 5 who died thanks to the sanctions. I presume you're so tough that doesn't bother you?
first of all 10,000 civilians didnt die. Around 2,200 died. The rest were what are called SOLDIERS. They fought they died its that simple. Getting to the 700,000 children. Why is it a wharehouse in Tikrit had over 10 tonnes of food that was for the food for oil program? Hmmm maybe because Saddam was an asshole and just simply didnt want to give it out or to the fact that much of the food for oil was then resold to African nations, could that be part of the reason? I think so. Plus most if not all of those sanctions were in place when your buddy Slick Whilly was in office. Why didn't he do anything? If there was no threat why did he launch 8 patriot missles into Iraq? Quote:
Nope, this is a misunderstanding of the term. A WMD has always been understood to mean a weapon capable of delivering massive destruction, usually a missile aimed at a city. This idea that a few anthrax spores or some chemicals in a suitcase is a "weapon of mass destruction" is an example of how the meaning of the phrase has been twisted to suit Bush's agenda. You might kill a few people if you released some gas on the underground but it's a long way from being a WMD.
Wrong again. The Hong Kong enfluenza virus of 81 if release would kill millions of poeple. It would fit in a .25x.50 vial. Look it up. I for one would call anything that could kill thousands of people WMD. The fact that Russia has over a dozen suitecase nukes missing is somewhat alarming. Could they have fallen into Saddam hands? Probably not but still possible. The fact that many of Iraq's banned weapons are unaccounted for is also alarming. You can saw whatever you want to fool yourself but lets just face the facts. If you really want to hide something it can be hidden to the point where it simply wont be found. Considering Iraq's terrain taht over 1/3 of it changes daily do to the wind I could hide a city the size of Boston underground and your ass would never find it. Its that simple. Personally I dont give a flying rats ass if he did have any WMD's. He not in power and now the country can choose what they want instead being told they have one choice. Quote:
I don't either. That's why I want Rumsfield, Reagan and Bush put up agaginst a wall and shot for the enormous support they gave to him for decades.
Uh lets see one happened at the end of Bush seniors term and was unavoidable (oil fires and millions of gallons spilling into the sea) and the other started during Clintons (marsh draining).
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
first of all 10,000 civilians didnt die. War may have killed 10,000 civilians, researchers say
Simon Jeffery Friday June 13, 2003 The Guardian
At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000.
Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict.
Its latest report compares those figures with 14 other counts, most of them taken in Iraq, which, it says, bear out its findings.
Researchers from several groups have visited hospitals and mortuaries in Iraq and interviewed relatives of the dead; some are conducting surveys in the main cities.
Three completed studies suggest that between 1,700 and 2,356 civilians died in the battle for Baghdad alone.
John Sloboda, professor of psychology at Keele University and an IBC report author, said the studies in Iraq backed up his group's figures. "One of the things we have been criticised for is quoting journalists who are quoting other people. But what we are now finding is that whenever the teams go into Iraq and do a detailed check of the data we had through the press, not only is our data accurate but [it is] often on the low side.
"The totality is now producing an unassailable sense that there were a hell of a lot of civilian deaths in Iraq."
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said he had not seen anything to substantiate the report's figures. "During the conflict we took great pains to minimise casualties among civilians. We targeted [the] military. So it is very difficult for us to give any guidance or credence to a set of figures that suggest there was x number of civilian casualties."
IBC's total includes a figure of at least 3,240 civilian deaths published this week by the Associated Press news agency, which was based on a survey of 60 Iraqi hospitals from March 20 to April 20, when the fighting was declining. But many other bodies were either buried quickly in line with Islamic custom or lost under rubble.
Prof Sloboda said there was nothing in principle to stop a total count being made using forensic science methods similar to those used to calculate the death toll from the September 11 attack: it was a question of political will and resources.
He said even an incomplete record of civilian deaths was worth compiling, to assist in paying reparations and in assessing the claim before the war that there would be few civilian casualties.
Lieutenant Colonel James Cassella, a US defence department spokesman, said the Pentagon had not counted civilian deaths because its efforts had been focused on defeating enemy forces rather than aiming at civilians.
He said that under international law the US was not liable to pay compensation for "injuries or damage occurring during lawful combat operations".
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Xlea321]
#1650992 - 06/21/03 12:52 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Don't you think that before you piss away billions of taxpayers money, slaughter a good 10,000 iraqis
Quote:
At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000.
How is it you manage to exaggerate so often? MAY HAVE and COULD REACH is not the same as slaughter a good 10,000.
Why do you feel it necessary to "exaggerate"? And I'm using exagerate in the politest sense.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Read it again. See if you can work out where you are (as usual) completely and utterly wrong and why I am actually underestimating the number of Iraqis killed. This is your intelligence test.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Xlea321]
#1651420 - 06/21/03 03:41 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Unless you want to highlight in that article where it says 10,000 civilians Iraqis ARE dead, not COULD reach 10,00, since you didn't claim Could, then you've already failed yours. So come-on mouth, put up or shut up.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
SafeHaven
Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 192
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Xlea321]
#1651483 - 06/21/03 04:14 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
ALEX123 you seem to not listen much, offer inaccurate and totally misguided opinions from a "point of view" that has no fore thought or sensible reasoning. You are suppose to live in the NOW, but you must assure the future,and to do that you must keep on guard for runaway dictators from creating disastors that compare to or exceed what nature can do. Our way of life and future depends on alot of things, especially things staying calm and non threatening Your "WMD" that you have such a good definition is a interesting one. Where do you draw the line? Nuclear bomb? One that can hit NY and take out millions of people. or maybe just a couple planes that can take out 5000? What point do you say to threatening countries/dictators when they show aggression, enough is enough? Hopefully you can get past your point of view sometime to listen and and have some fore thought once in awhile, you'll find things not so BLACK AND WHITE. Though you are entitled to your own opinion. And has demonstrated remarkably. IMHO
-------------------- As I sit here I ponder greater things.
|
SafeHaven
Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 192
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: Azmodeus]
#1651976 - 06/21/03 07:58 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You sound just as bad Alex123, no fore thought only sees black and white. Suprising though your ability to find fault in what I said but not be able to point it out, though you believe everyone else could. Sounds like your ass is the tea kettle. Glad I dont drink tea IMHO
-------------------- As I sit here I ponder greater things.
|
ShroomFarmer
Level 0 zilch
Registered: 09/13/01
Posts: 39
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
Re: Inflated definitions [Re: SafeHaven]
#1652098 - 06/21/03 09:05 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The war JUST ended. We didn't even know what happened to Hitler immediatly following WWII. Instead of these conspiracy theorist liberals trying desperatly to regain power, they should find out what happened to the WMD. Not finding it is the scary part because anybody could have it and we don't know who it is.
-------------------- crinkle crinkle
|
|