Since I know him in person, I know that your conclusion is true. At first, I told myself that I was doing this not because I thought I could convince him of anything but that it would be fun to have a spirited debate and to show people that such radicals actually exist... but I think I made my point long ago and now it's just getting tiresome. It's not like debating with you or Jack Phelps or Kendra Coleman where I often come away feeling that I've learned something or reexamining my positions. Instead I come away feeling mildly nauseous.
Re: why I bother...capt_oblivionJune 7 2006, 05:07:12 UTC
"...tiresome..." the only reason you find it tiresome is because you feel the need to respond to every single thing I say rather than picking and choosing your battles.
I find the difference between what I say, and what you think I say to be truly astounding. I never said I was taking Saddam's word for it, that's what you think I said. perhaps I should post this here
( ... )
Oh, you mean the Scott Ritter whose Iraq "documentary" was paid for BY AN IRAQI using Oil-For-Food money?
Now, if it were me, and proving that I destroyed my WMD stockpile meant that my ass wouldn't get invaded again AND economic sanctions would be lifted and I could start making lots of money and torturing people without any sort of scrutiny, wouldn't it be in MY best interests to be able to PROVE it?
Shit, I wouldn't let the damn inspectors SLEEP until they'd seen every single warhead disposed of live and in color.
But in your mind, apparently, lack of proof should be answered with, "Well, that's ok I guess, we'll leave you alone now."
Gee, that proves everything he says wrong doesn't it? NO, wait a sec, it has nothing to do with anything.
Tell you what. I'm going to make a documentary about you that will make me famous, and fund it with your money. How objective do you think I can be?
I mean, since all the evidence indicates he did not have them, and he could've avoided invasion by proving it, why didn't he? Like I said, he would have an equally difficult time proving he didn't have any pink unicorns either.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when we're talking about someone who demonstrated a willingness to use WMD.
(which isn't really an appropriate word since they didn't do anything to react to)
Twelve year's worth of 1441 violations are always swept under the rug by liberals who think they know what they're talking about.
Comments 15
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
the only reason you find it tiresome is because you feel the need to respond to every single thing I say rather than picking and choosing your battles.
Reply
Reply
Now, if it were me, and proving that I destroyed my WMD stockpile meant that my ass wouldn't get invaded again AND economic sanctions would be lifted and I could start making lots of money and torturing people without any sort of scrutiny, wouldn't it be in MY best interests to be able to PROVE it?
Shit, I wouldn't let the damn inspectors SLEEP until they'd seen every single warhead disposed of live and in color.
But in your mind, apparently, lack of proof should be answered with, "Well, that's ok I guess, we'll leave you alone now."
Reply
Reply
Tell you what. I'm going to make a documentary about you that will make me famous, and fund it with your money. How objective do you think I can be?
I mean, since all the evidence indicates he did not have them, and he could've avoided invasion by proving it, why didn't he? Like I said, he would have an equally difficult time proving he didn't have any pink unicorns either.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when we're talking about someone who demonstrated a willingness to use WMD.
(which isn't really an appropriate word since they didn't do anything to react to)
Twelve year's worth of 1441 violations are always swept under the rug by liberals who think they know what they're talking about.
Reply
Leave a comment