Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:59 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3415
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
Having not found any mass destruction weapons, and looking real silly and stupid, and before people begins to use their head and realise that this Iraq war was about nothing taht he said so far, Mr. Bush has just declared that he thinks Syria HAS some mass destruction weapons ! Since nobody seems to be able to answer me about what this war was all about (I asked 2 times already), and certainly not being able to match this with was Mr. Bush said what this war was all about, I now want to know one thing...<br><br>Can somebody stop that moron before he burns the whole wide world ? <br><br>All you all, pro-Bush adorators, does that open your eyes, at least a little ? Or are you hopeless dead-brain ?<br><br>And to think he uses the Bible as a partner in this whole mess, and thanks Americans for their prayers, saying that God is an American ! The whole situation makes me want to puke ! So, excuse me cause that's what I'll do...  

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
Pot. Kettle. Zzzzz.

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 12:03 am
Posts: 1622
Location: Italia
[quote author=Mij link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=0#0 date=04/13/03 at 19:28:34]Having not found any mass destruction weapons, and looking real silly and stupid, and before people begins to use their head and realise that this Iraq war was about nothing taht he said so far, Mr. Bush has just declared that he thinks Syria HAS some mass destruction weapons ! Since nobody seems to be able to answer me about what this war was all about (I asked 2 times already), and certainly not being able to match this with was Mr. Bush said what this war was all about, I now want to know one thing...<br><br>Can somebody stop that moron before he burns the whole wide world ? <br><br>All you all, pro-Bush adorators, does that open your eyes, at least a little ? Or are you hopeless dead-brain ?<br><br>And to think he uses the Bible as a partner in this whole mess, and thanks Americans for their prayers, saying that God is an American ! The whole situation makes me want to puke ! So, excuse me cause that's what I'll do...  [/quote]<br>So hard to accept...<br>So true to agree...<br><br>

_________________
God is is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 12:03 am
Posts: 1622
Location: Italia
<br>[quote author=Disco Boy link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=0#6 date=04/14/03 at 22:17:16][tt][size=2]<br><br>You don't exactly know what Bush knows. [/quote]<br><br>eh eh eh eh eh eh! ;D<br>That's true... ;) but not only in the meaning that you're considering... ;)<br>So much things we don't know... and so much things we don't care to know... just believing blindly  8)in Jesus Bush Jr. ... Let's close our eyes guys, Syria is so far away from us ... :-X<br><br><br>

_________________
God is is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=Mij link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=0#0 date=04/13/03 at 19:28:34]And to think he uses the Bible as a partner in this whole mess, and thanks Americans for their prayers, saying that God is an American ![/quote]<br>And to think that God was still a German back in WW2. I feel God changes sides toooooo damn often.<br><br>Bush was kinda nervous it seemed when he gave this speech in the middle of some street 'bout Syria, as if he knew he'd get isolated with his stance - the brits said they would go to war 'gainst syria, so... <br>Anyhow, I was in utter disbelief when I saw the speech, will the torture never stop? I mean, come on, who the fuck does the present day US-government think they are?<br><br>AND INDEED: WHERE THE FUCK WERE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION? OH, YEAH, SADDAM HAS THEM IN HIS BACKPACK, RUNNING, SURE.<br><br>Come on Them and others, at least make an announcement of some sort on this fact...

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 2:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3415
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=Disco Boy link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=0#6 date=04/14/03 at 22:17:16][tt]<br><br>I'm not pro-Bush. I just agree with him on this war with Iraq. I don't appreciate you having such a closed mind. Just because you do not agree with a certain perspective, doesn't necessarily make you right in the least. You may as well could be wrong? You don't exactly know what Bush knows. No one does apart from the people that should - the ones who are taking care of the situation; whatever that may be. If you want bitch and complain and moan, you'd be better off as a politician. So, run for office in the next federal election. Heck, even run for Prime Minister of our own beloved country, Canada, Mij. You'd probably do some good work? So, stop being such an arrogant asshole. I'm not a hopeless dead-brain.<br><br>Oh and btw, I don't agree with virtually anything else Bush has done within his tenure...so far, at all.[/tt]<br>[/quote]<br><br>And it doesn't mean I'm wrong either !<br><br>OBSERVATIONS ! MAN ! USE YOUR EYES, AND SEE !<br>AND, IF, BY CHANCE, YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BRAIN, YOU MAY WELL ADD UP TWO AND TWO AND SEE WHAT THIS MORON IS COMING TO !<br><br>How could you be at ease with was he's doing is way way way beyond me ! Preemptive war ? Mass destruction weapons ? War on terrorism, where's Osama Bin Laden ? Liberating Iraq, but surprisingly not another country ? Israel having mass destruction weapons is OK but not the rest of the world ? Etc... <br><br>A lot of us are able to see that this man is a total FAILURE for USA and for the world. And since I'm living IN this world, I have to care !<br><br>I didn't tell you that you were a hopeless dead-brain ! You did yourself ! And there are lots of 'arrogant assholes' like me, so you'd better watch your steps. Us, 'arrogant assholes', think that this war is the fruit of a loony mind and think that this Bush administration is nothing but a shame to all USA is supposed to be all about ! Freedom. Imposing your view with armed forces is not freedom. What will it be next since Bush is such on a good roll now ? And STILL NO MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS IN IRAQ ! Don't you think it's sadly funny ?<br><br>So, if you want to trust blindly, supposing he knows what he's doing, your God Bush, be it. Trusting someone like that so blindly is the exact opposite of what Frank told us in his living years, don't you agree ?

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=Mij link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=0#9 date=04/15/03 at 05:28:06]And there are lots of 'arrogant assholes' like me, so you'd better watch your steps. Us, 'arrogant assholes', think that this war is the fruit of a loony mind and think that this Bush administration is nothing but a shame to all USA is supposed to be all about ![/quote]<br>Allthough I seem to be on your side on the 'content' side of your story, and allthough I, in the real world, am also considered as arrogant by many (but not all), I still want you to speak for yourself. There is no us. Why not?<br><br>There are other reasons too, but I'll stick to just this example:<br><br>[quote author=Mij link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=0#9 date=04/15/03 at 05:28:06]So, if you want to trust blindly, supposing he knows what he's doing, your God Bush, be it. Trusting someone like that so blindly is the exact opposite of what Frank told us in his living years, don't you agree ? [/quote]<br>Where the hell did Disco Boy say he trusts Bush blindly? Where? Nowhere. On the contrary, he actually says he agrees with virtually nothing Bushes has done in his tenure.<br><br>Allthough I sympathise with a certain 'radicalism' in your posts, I fucking hate dishonest debaters, and for sure if they try to speak in my name. We may fight for the same goals, but we clearly don't fight the same battle.<br><br>Instead of shouting and jelling, try to be a bit more constructive, and try to maintain the respectfull atmosphere of this place.<br><br>-----<br>Words offered to you by Tuvok of the Starship Voyager - sent here on a mission - fighting erroneous logic among debaters.<br><br>Image<br>Live long and prosper.<br><br><br>education, contemplation, salvation.<br><br><br>

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3415
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=0#9 date=04/15/03 at 07:54:20]<br>Allthough I seem to be on your side on the 'content' side of your story, and allthough I, in the real world, am also considered as arrogant by many (but not all), I still want you to speak for yourself. There is no us. Why not?<br><br>There are other reasons too, but I'll stick to just this example:<br><br>Where the hell did Disco Boy say he trusts Bush blindly? Where? Nowhere. On the contrary, he actually says he agrees with virtually nothing Bushes has done in his tenure.<br><br>Allthough I sympathise with a certain 'radicalism' in your posts, I fucking hate dishonest debaters, and for sure if they try to speak in my name. We may fight for the same goals, but we clearly don't fight the same battle.<br><br>Instead of shouting and jelling, try to be a bit more constructive, and try to maintain the respectfull atmosphere of this place.<br><br>-----<br>Words offered to you by Tuvok of the Starship Voyager - sent here on a mission - fighting erroneous logic among debaters.<br><br>Image<br>Live long and prosper.<br><br><br>education, contemplation, salvation.<br><br><br>[/quote]<br><br>You know, I respond the way I'm talking to. Period.<br><br>If DiscoBoy thought I was adressing HIM directly, even though I never mentioned his name, it's not my faullt. I tend to never name someone directly, except for some celeb cases when most than often I'm adressed personnaly. If he feels offended, it's probably because he feels he was the one I was speaking to, although I was telling things in a more 'general' matter. Like when the world talk about USA, they speak 'in general' of the politics back there. Except, of course, when they name Bush and his followers. They don't really blame Mr. Joe Public from Wisconsin.<br><br>I tell things like I see them. And 'us' is again a 'general thing' not limited to any members of this forum but to Zappa fans 'in general'. You have to admit that blind faith was not on Frank's agenda ! And, EXCUSE MEEE, but for me blind faith (like DB said: "You don't exactly know what Bush knows. No one does apart from the people that should - the ones who are taking care of the situation; whatever that may be. "), and trusting somebody without knowing, is not something I favor in any way. Should I say "Stupid and blind" ?   <br><br>Sorry if you don't feel I'm respectful enough, but a lot of us (don't count you in if you want to) anti-war people, are fed up with the way USA is doing things right now. And it sure will boil the kettle ! It's hard to be 'constructive' in that whole mess. As I see it, Bush is not 'constructive' either with all his ambitions, don't you think ?<br><br>Have a nice day, yeah, YOU !

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
1) The coalition has been fighting a war; the objective of the military efforts so far has been the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his regime by decimating the Iraqi military. It has been a mere month since the war began. Anyone waxing impatient at the lack of chemical/biological weapons evidence at this point had better steer clear of rush-hour Montreal traffic.<br><br>2) As no verifiable weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq yet, Mij claims bewilderment and professes outrage at the coalition's war with Iraq; in fact, the obvious insinuation of his posts is that the coalition invaded Iraq under false pretenses. During the Clinton administration, the UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam; does Mij believe that Saddam was a good boy, refraining from WMD production, during this time period? He claims not to be persuaded by the photos of dead Kurdish children and women gassed by the Iraqi army published in the aftermath of Desert Storm. It is tempting to assume that no amount of evidence will ever persuade him.<br><br>3) If no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, hard as they may be to find, Mij will claim as fact (as he is now insinuating) that Saddam didn't have any.<br><br>4) If weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, will Mij claim that the evidence was planted by Bush and the American military? If none are found, will he admit that Bush and the coalition were honest enough not to plant evidence and to let the political chips fall where they may?<br><br>Does Mij have a sincere bone in his body? Or has his hatred of George Bush driven him to the point of insanity?<br><br>Questions questions questions flooding into the mind of the concerned young person today!

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3415
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
The overthrow of Saddam's regime may be reason #14, no, maybe #15 (but then again, it may well be #16). Excuse me, I'm lost in all these Bush speeches that I have a hard time keeping count !<br><br>What strikes me is that some thinks it's OK, our God mission, and that we're justified to go to any country we don't like for some reasons (still have to find the Iraq's ones) and straighten them up. I would call that 'arrogance' and lots would agree. If there is no menace from Iraq to the USA national security, it's hard to defend the whole thing on a national and world level. Search one reason, a moral justification. Search. Search again ! Not found anything worthy apart from oil ? The only reason that is worthy to start a war is when you're being attacked by another nation. Not only by 20 stupid with 4 airplanes. I'm not saying that cause I don't care. I'm saying that cause I think the two are not related. It's out of proportion.  <br><br>If USA is to play the role of Superman in this world, they ought to do it right. Go to ALL countries with dictators or regime not bearing our ideologies. Straighten up Israel while we're at it ! Why not ? They too are UN violators, and for so many years ! So, why not liberate the WHOLE WIDE WORLD ? Even small African countries ! What ? Not interesting enough ? Nothing to gain from that ? And what about Korea ? And what about Canadian politics on soft lumber wood while we're at it ? And since USA is a UN violator too, does that give the right to another country to start a preemptive war on them ? Why not ?   <br><br>The trouble I have with that is that it's the USA who's deciding who's good and who's bad in this world ! They're not too prone generally at accepting other ways of thinking. May they not like it, and that's it, friends. Invasion ! I have a term for that. I call it "Playing the God game" ! Not only it's arrogant, but it's pretentious.<br><br>Cause they do the same the other side and, surprise, WE THINK IT'S A BAD THING ! Specially when they bomb themselves in Allah's name. So, if we think that playing, with various degrees, that game is bad, so it must be mad for EVERYONE playing it. Excuse me, but when I see Bush using God and the Bible in his "crusade", I can't help it. He's playing the "God is on our side" game. And acts accordingly. And that WORRIES me a lot ! History is full of illuminated who did really bad things to poor Ordinary Joe.<br><br>We all know Saddam is a bad bad bad guy. He's not the only one. There's more that meet the eyes that the fall of a regime here. If you were an arab you would certainly see things differently, even if you're an Iraqe one. Troubles are on the way. <br><br>And I'm beginning to wonder if Bush knew that Saddam had no really mass destruction weapons (so far, I'll retract if I'm wrong, don't worry !) to oppose to that invasion. Looking like the classroom big bully who keeps on attacking the little ones. I hope I'm guessing cause that would draw a horrible picture of that Bush man. Being moron is one thing. Being cruel is another one.<br><br>My indignation is not feigned, you know that. There's no hypocrisy about my point of view. You know all about it ! I never hide anything to 'look' good. So look up "sincere" in any dictionnary ! Some are using words without knowing what they mean.<br><br>PEACE !

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3415
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
What do you call a mess ?<br>Pure bias speculation.<br><br>I can't have an open-mind about the mess I'm seeing. For me, it would be like agreeing, giving my silent OK. Or being blind. Looking the other way cause it's not happening to me. For Bush followers, having a open mind is following him on that one. I won't follow. I could extend that one in saying that people who criticised Saddam Hussein, for the mess he did, didn't have an 'open-mind'. When you see bad, and you say it's bad, no matter what side it is to be found, what 'open-minded' has to do with it ?<br><br>I don't see where the Pure bias speculation is regarding Israel ? Explain that one please !<br><br>Caring for the world is trying to preserve the fragile balance the world is in. I don't see how a war will enhance that notion. Specially toward the arab world. War was on Bush agenda since day 1. So, no much room for other solutions (I know your answer on that one: Pure bias speculation).<br><br>And Frank was not a man of blind faith. I don't understand how you can say that it's Pure bias speculation. Have you find a formula ?

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: re: bush vs syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:29 pm
Posts: 9599
they got the mystery wmd
turn your peter green

_________________
Image


Last edited by slime.oofytv.set on Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=Mij link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=0#11 date=04/15/03 at 14:18:01]If DiscoBoy thought I was adressing HIM directly, even though I never mentioned his name, it's not my faullt. I tend to never name someone directly, except for some celeb cases when most than often I'm adressed personnaly. If he feels offended, it's probably because he feels he was the one I was speaking to, although I was telling things in a more 'general' matter.[/quote]<br>Bullshit. Look, all this is a context thing. The reply DB gave to your accusations of 'pro-bush adorators', 'dead-brains', etc, didn't justify the content of your reply. You just ignored the fact that DB says he is overall against Bush. Still, you go on rambling and rambling, even childishly threatening DB ("so you'd better watch your steps") in a context where 'you' clearly refers to DB ("I didn't tell you that you were a hopeless dead-brain! You did yourself !") etc.<br><br>If you quote a part of a post by someone, and then go on by saying 'you', 'you', 'you', it is obvious that you refer to the person of the quote. Just reread your post - the first couple of paragraphs are clearly directed to DB. In the last one (which I refered to) 'you' *could* be taken generaly, sure. But you should make that clear, by using another way of saying stuff, to avoid confusion - because in the rest of the post you use 'you' in reference to DB, clearly. If you don't see that, there is something wrong with your linguistical feelings.<br>If you don't mean 'you', don't fucking use it. Use 'one', or 'a person', or whatever. Instead of saying afterwards you meant it in a more general matter, just try to avoid things like this upfront, by thinking a bit about what you post, and by trying to be CLEAR and unambiguous.<br><br>Same for the 'us' part: of course you can dig yourself out saying it was not meant to include any forummembers, etc. Probably even true, I even believe you mean this. BUT WHY THE FUCK USE 'US'? You don't have to hide behind numbers of people opposed to the war to make your statement. Just say 'I'.<br><br>

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=15#17 date=04/15/03 at 20:17:34]<br><br>Just a point of fact for THEM: the inspectors left Iraq voluntarily, they were not kicked out. Now, Saddam wasn't making life easy for them, but they did pack up and go on their own. This is just the type of fact editing that Bush is so good at.[/quote]<br><br>"Points of fact" require at the very least a modicum of evidence. Otherwise they are "points of speculation" or "points of assertion."<br><br>According to the BBC, Tony Blair, ABC News, William Safire and many, many others, they were kicked out. You've provided no evidence for your claim, so I'll present the gist of the oft-repeated argument used to substantiate it:<br><br>Scott Ritter has claimed that Richard Butler pulled the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq in order to protect them from Bill Clinton's bombing of Iraq, which he knew was coming; a prudent move if it happened the way Ritter claims it happened. Ritter's credibility is highly suspect, however, as he seems to have a penchant for soliciting sex from underage girls at fast-food restaurants and cutting secret deals to hush it up.<br><br>Regardless, even this version of events is forced to cede that, after the inspectors were "pulled out," Saddam refused to let them back in until the recent brouhaha over 1441, when he was attempting to buy time in order to consolidate world opinion against Bush, which he achieved.<br><br>[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=15#17 date=04/15/03 at 20:17:34]<br><br>As for WMD, it is significant that none have been found yet. I do assume there are at least some old reserves of this stuff there somewhere, even tho the technology to target it is said to be non-existant. Maybe there isn't any anymore. However, for me, WMD is not the issue in my objection to this U.S. aggression. My issue is that Bush skipped a lot of steps and went straight to war for his only solution. Discovery of WMD will not change my opposition to the war.[/quote]<br><br>You haven't been paying attention; perhaps the demands of your advice column prevent you from sweating the small stuff, like developing a cogent argument.<br><br>WMD are essential and central to Bush and Blair's argument for the use of force. So are Saddam's links to terrorists and terrorist organizations (Abu Abbas, anyone?) and his human rights abuses.<br><br>Of course, the coalition gave Saddam plenty of time to disarm. If he didn't, we'll know soon enough. <br><br>But why am I bothering? Your mind is closed to considering opposing viewpoints; you have made your decision. Your opposition to the war is based on something (exactly what, you haven't said) Bush didn't do prior to the onset of hostilities, something which he cannot now go back and do.<br><br>So, what should Bush, Blair and the coalition have done that they didn't do, Ronnys_Noomies? Please! You obviously have the answer the world has been waiting for.<br><br>[quote author=Ronnys_Noomies link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=15#17 date=04/15/03 at 20:17:34]<br><br>If WMD are ever used by Iraq or whoever in the mideast, will supporters of Bush and his war then use that to justify the need for the war? Will they admit that this aggression possibly hastened or triggered the use of these weapons, by pissing off much of the Arab world? Just wondering.[/quote]<br><br>Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. have shown themselves willing to use whatever weapons they have at their disposal in order to destroy the U.S. and Israel. As you know, my opinion is that our action in Iraq was justified; I don't need further justification than a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda because Al-Qaeda attacked my country. <br><br>Other justification exists, as you have been shown, but no amount of evidence will ever persuade you due to your self-admitted hatred of George Bush (with which, I would like to make clear, I have no personal problem, but which tends to render your arguments biased in the extreme).

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=0#13 date=04/15/03 at 16:19:04]3) If no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, hard as they may be to find, Mij will claim as fact (as he is now insinuating) that Saddam didn't have any.[/quote]<br>yes, but didn't Cheney, in the UN-council, claimed also 'as fact', that Sadam had these weapons? <br>Now, with the 'evidence' they gave back then, their 'solid information' and the fact that US/UK-troops control the country by now, it shouldn't be to hard to find some real smoking guns withing this and, lets say, 3 weeks?<br><br>Moreover, if Sadam had any, why didn't he use them?<br><br>One other extra topping on this pizza:<br>Several UN-weapon inspectors declared that the satellitepictures that were shown to the UN by the US of sites that would produce weapons of massdestruction actually had totally nothing to do with weapons productions, not in the past and not now. <br><br>Don't you think it is a bit odd to start a war on half-truths, non-truths and rumours? There still hasn't been shown any evidence of smoking guns, not before the war, and not now.<br><br>So, if you ask me wheter the US 'lied' in some sort of manner and give false pretenses to start this war: yes. <br>This is also the reason why the UN didn't vote a new resolution, not because they are just 'sheep' orso, but because the main reason Bush gave at first to attack Iraq (preemptive protection for a possible attack by weapons of massdestruction on the US by the Iraqi regime) didn't seem to be very probable.

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3415
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=15#20 date=04/16/03 at 02:21:43]<br>If you quote a part of a post by someone, and then go on by saying 'you', 'you', 'you', it is obvious that you refer to the person of the quote. <br>Same for the 'us' part[/quote]<br><br>OK, I'll make that clear once and for all. Since this is a thread about, for one part, those who agree, and the other part, those who don't, about Bush plans to go to Syria, it seemed normal for me to use the word 'you' for those who agree, and 'us' for those who don't, making it clear the position where I stand in the post. <br><br>I don't see what's wrong with that !<br><br>And reread my post : <br>"All you all, pro-Bush adorators, does that open your eyes, at least a little ? Or are you hopeless dead-brain ? "<br><br>The dead-brain are the Bush adorators. Where do you read that I'm talking directly to anyone here ? Did I name someone ?<br><br>I can't help it if some identify with it ! Now, cut the crap ! I was the first here to be quoted and adressed personnaly !<br><br>And, in a reply to someone who's been adressing me personnaly (i.e: QUOTING ME) like DiscoBoy did by saying:<br><br>"So, stop being such an arrogant asshole"<br><br>I think I have the right to respond to him the way he did to me. Right ? Since somebody began the game, I'm entitled to go on the same way with him.<br><br>Reread my post, like I just did. You'll see.<br><br>Have a nice day !

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush versus Syria
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=Mij link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=15#23 date=04/16/03 at 05:07:39]Since this is a thread about, for one part, those who agree, and the other part, those who don't, about Bush plans to go to Syria, it seemed normal for me to use the word 'you' for those who agree, and 'us' for those who don't, making it clear the position where I stand in the post. I don't see what's wrong with that ![/quote]<br>Of course that is wrong. You make a black and white thing out of it. As if everybody in here can be devised in just 2 camps. Jezus. You are as dogmatic and over-simplified as you claim Bush to be.<br><br>[quote author=Mij link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=15#23 date=04/16/03 at 05:07:39]And reread my post : <br>"All you all, pro-Bush adorators, does that open your eyes, at least a little ? Or are you hopeless dead-brain ? " The dead-brain are the Bush adorators. Where do you read that I'm talking directly to anyone here ? Did I name someone? [/quote]<br>I wasn't talking about this post, for this is a quote from your first post in this thread. I fail to see why you bring it up in your defence - it only pinpoints again the mistake you made: DB told you he was not pro-bush, he was only pro the Iraqi-war. He didn't even mention Syria. You ignored this in your reply, saying DB called himself a dead brain. You recall? In the next part of that post, you continue to use you, hence giving a very strong impression you refer to DB, for you never gave an indication that you used 'you' in 2 different ways.<br>Actually, you simply are dishonest here, because I never said you were talking directly to anyone in your first post. I said you did do so in your reply to DB.<br><br>[quote author=Mij link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=15#23 date=04/16/03 at 05:07:39]And, in a reply to someone who's been adressing me personnaly (I.E: QUOTING ME)[/quote]<br>So, here all of a sudden you admit that by quoting someone, you adress him?<br><br>[quote author=Mij link=board=general;num=1050287314;start=15#23 date=04/16/03 at 05:07:39]I think I have the right to respond to him the way he did to me. Right ? Since somebody began the game, I'm entitled to go on the same way with him.[/quote]<br>Reread the tone of your first post. The 'style' of this particular piece of text kinda provokes more violent reactions. Not?<br><br>

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group