Poor BILLO he is getting testier by the day. Did Angela hangup on you when you tried to have phone sex with her tonight BILLO? That must have been a shocker after all the nice things she said about CW.
O'Reilly rippin mad
- Thread starter Connecticut Stud
- Start date
Poor BILLO he is getting testier by the day. Did Angela hangup on you when you tried to have phone sex with her tonight BILLO? That must have been a shocker after all the nice things she said about CW.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You know, shit-for-brains, the little BillO thing was cute the first time you did it, and some people might have missed your clever wit the first few times, but after that, it got annoying really fast, now it's just plain stupid. Apparently, you can't find a more creative way to insult me, than to compare me with a best-selling author and notable personality. Ooo, I'm so crushed!
So, tell me, what exactly do expect me to do here? Do you want me to be outraged and indignant? Do you want me to demand you stop calling me BillO? Should I get upset and threaten to leave the board forever? What exactly is it, that you hope to accomplish by continuing to act like a complete and total retard, with the Bill Oreilly shit?
Maybe you think it bothers me to be compared to a multi-million dollar celebrity? Maybe you think your incessant and persistent theme is going to bug me? Like I've not been called every name in the book here! How fucking old are you? 14? 13? Because the only people I know, who are so retarded as to continue with something so juvenile, are still in middle school.
That's it? Inspections were working, and had they been allowed to continue, we would have found out peacefully what we now know: Saddam did not have WMD's & was never a threat to us.
But you put your hands on your hips, stomp your foot, say Saddam had thumbed his nose at it for too long & condone everything that has happened since?
Do you realize how many people have died & suffered as a result of this war?
That's despicable.
Interesting argument appealing to the emotion. Do we know how many would have died without intervention? Would there be less in total because we intervene now than when Udai took hold of the nation? Would there have been larger mass graves in Saddam's name?
We cannot know these things, this is ambiguous and emotive, it can even be effective, but it definitely is an Appeal to Emotion and fallacious.
Emotion is always involved when deaths are involved. Damo, you sound like a typical apologist. That's an absurd argument you are making to justify what some (I think even Buchanan) have called our worst foreign policy blunder in modern history.
No, we don't know how many "would have died." We only know (with rough approximation), how many HAVE died, and how the war has indeed made us LESS safe. The British reported this morning a sharp upsurge in homegrown terror plots in the UK in the past few years; 30 plots, 200 cells, 1,600 individuals. The damaging effects of this war go far beyond immediate deaths & injury. We will be feeling its ramifications long into the future.
It's like saying that Waco was justified because we don't know how many lives Koresh would have ruined without action. It's absurd.
Only if you believe that the D'alai Lama's assertion that the end result may prove that the war was good is absurd.
We may know that currently more are dying now than would under Saddam, but we do not know how many may be saved in the future. Emotion is always involved. I didn't say you were wrong, only that it is fallacious logic to say, "This many died..." It is equally an appeal to the emotion as "If it could only save one life!" and really not salient to discussion.
There are about a million reasons one can come up with for not going into Iraq that are better than an appeal to emotion, but none quite so effective. Hence the reason slogans and negative advertising works in politics.
I can agree with a lot of that. My "this many has died" was not geared so much toward conclusively proving the war was wrong (though it helps), as much as it was geared toward Dixie's innane callousness and expression that the war may not have been necessary, since inspections were finally working, but that we had simply "had enough," which is why we ended up invading.
It IS emotional. I have kids; if anyone ever sends those kids to war not as a last resort, but as an expression of exasperation, even when an alternative course is finally working, I feel anger. Dixie's justification was completely ridiculous, given the human cost.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie's justification was completely ridiculous, given the human cost.
My justification is multi-faceted, which is something you've never understood. I simply replied to the remark about Saddam allowing unfettered access. That was the "ridiculous" statement here, because it's like saying... this bank robber, who had shot 5 police, and led them on a high speed chase across town, was finally pinned down in an alley, where he raised his gun and took aim at a cop, and just as he said "okay, I give up!" and started to lower the gun, a sniper pops him... you are arguing that the police used unnecessary force, and the perp was contained, and there was no reason to shoot him.
Saddam had 12 years to comply with the UN, and he failed to do so, until 150,000 troops were poised to invade his country. We know from past experience, had we fallen for his 11th-hour appeal, he would have temporarily allowed limited access and continued to hide things and make inspectors jobs difficult. If you are too ignorantly stupid to figure that out, I can't help you, the retardation is too profound.
My justification is multi-faceted, which is something you've never understood. I simply replied to the remark about Saddam allowing unfettered access. That was the "ridiculous" statement here, because it's like saying... this bank robber, who had shot 5 police, and led them on a high speed chase across town, was finally pinned down in an alley, where he raised his gun and took aim at a cop, and just as he said "okay, I give up!" and started to lower the gun, a sniper pops him... you are arguing that the police used unnecessary force, and the perp was contained, and there was no reason to shoot him.
Saddam had 12 years to comply with the UN, and he failed to do so, until 150,000 troops were poised to invade his country. We know from past experience, had we fallen for his 11th-hour appeal, he would have temporarily allowed limited access and continued to hide things and make inspectors jobs difficult. If you are too ignorantly stupid to figure that out, I can't help you, the retardation is too profound.
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
lol, what a bunch a shitbricks! still crying the war is illegal, there were no wmd's, we invaded for oil, and all the other shitbrick cries. When you f*cking morons wake up and realize that the list of violations were a bit more involved than wmd's, when the issues date back to damn near to the fifties with iraq, then perhaps the realization that iraq would never come into compliance unless someone had finally done something about it. I know its the democratic way to let somebody else do the dirty work and then cry foul because no backbone lies on that side of the fence works well for ya, but now that the ball in your court I can barely wait to see the miracle turn around that's in wait.
WHAT A BUNCH OF SHITBRICKS!
WHAT A BUNCH OF SHITBRICKS!
What things, BILLO, he had nothing to hide. That is the conclusion of two different intelligence reports based on 3 full years of questioning numerous scientists and scouring the countryside for WMD for most of three years. There was no there there! So this is just more obfuscation BILLO. Sound and Fury signifying nothing!
maineman
Banned
actually, you didn't KNOW any such thing. YOu ASSUMED such a thing. Making such an assumption is what got you guys in trouble with the electorate. As it turns out, he didn't HAVE any WMD's to threaten us with, and he had absolutely no reason to give them to islamic extremists even if hd DID have any. I say again: having Saddam in power in Iraq TODAY would mean (1)no islamic extremists in Iraq, (2)no sectarian violence in Iraq and a (3)neighbor of Iran with a track record of effectively controlling Iranian hegemony. We jumped the gun and invaded Iraq and now we all three of those situations are ones we are incapable of controlling. Saddam was not a nice guy, but he was a hell of a lot more effective at those situations than the US has been. Imagine how much safer America would be TODAY if we had all those squandered resources to use in making our ports and borders safe, and in fighting islamic extremism effectively instead of flushing all of it down the toilet in Iraq.
Aw Bullshit, what is a half a trillion dollars more or less; nothing, I tell you chicken scratch. Nothing at all. We can still do everything and pay for the long term care of over 20,000 seriously wounded veterans. Bush says so...or at least spends like he thinks so...