Oops Saddam didn't hide all of the WMDs afterall

[Crayola]

Atleast you admit it.

 

[ledhed]

Sadammy the despot cooperating ? When he wasnt throwing the UN out or shooting at the planes patrolling the nofly zones or raping killing gassing or just drinking coffeee with his two lovely sons ..you must have been doing some great drugs to reinvent history like that..I say we put him back in charge ! He's not too busy these days. Lets also try not to ignore the whole regions jihadist who came to Iraq to roast or kill thier very own American..unless they are invisible. better yet we should send them over to hang out with you ! They can play with your crayons and re color the whole region in thier Image ! That would be soooo great. Maybe you can share your stash with them and they can convince themselves that killing inocent people is a bad thing.

 

[Crayola]

What the hell? Do you know why its called a no-fly zone? Because you're not meant to fly in it, perhaps? Why do you think the Jihadists came to iraq? Maybe for the beaches and for the women? I dont know... I think your version of history seems to have been blurred substantially. Prior to the US invasion, worldwide news sources (Maybe you guys had like the censored version where the WMDs were flying around left right and centre...) reported that the Iraqi administration had allowed the UN inspectors into the country. Remember that guy Hans Blicks? Yeh, remember how he couldnt find any WMDs? Maybe not...

 

[Kent]

I'm guessing you guys are considering it "cooperation" when saddam has military personel follow inspectors to each and every place, all the while bearing arms and enforcing when and where the inspectors can look.

And don't act like that wasn't the case, we saw it on tv... video footage, not rumor or hear-say, actual video footage of Iraqi military personel controlling when and what inspectors were allowed to see and find.

Anyway, ...
Just wanted to remind the reasonable people here that saddam did what he wanted, not what was required by international law.

 

[Danoff]

Are you stupid? Thats besides the point.

The phrase is, "beside the point". There is no "s" after beside. Also, you need an apostrophe to form a contraction between "that" and "is".

The Iraqis were co-operating with the UN to dispose of the WMDs they had.

Cooperating is one word.

As you can see they have infact done so.

"Infact" is actually two words. You should include a comma after the introductory phrase "as you can see," to set off the rest of the sentence. Also, you should always ensure that you are on logically sound footing when you draw conclusions. That is not the case with this statement.

There have been, upto no only 2 shells found.

"Upto" is two words. This statement should read:

"There have been, up to now, only two shells found."

Notice the extra comma after the "now" which bounds the aside.

The Bush administration didn't care whether Iraq was co-operating, he was going to send the troops in regardlessly.

First of all, this is a run-on sentence. Secondly, "regardlessly" is not a word and makes you sound like a five-year-old. Cooperating is still one word. And, once again, you should make sure that you are on sound logical footing before you draw conclusions. At the very least, when you draw a conclusion that you know many people disagree with, you should support that conclusion with strong evidence against which people cannot argue. Providing evidence is just proper argument technique.

If he had let there co-operate no american soldiers would have died.

This, of course, (<-- notice the closing comma) should read:

"If he had let them cooperate, no American soliders would have died."

Notice the comma after cooperate and the capitilization of "American". Again, you draw another conlusion that is on weak logical footing. This one is actually not possible to prove because it forecasts the future. Let's pretend you had said:

"Sally will not have to buy apples in the future because she does not like them."

Now hang on just a moment. I know this is all very abstract, so I'm going to walk you through it. Sally is "American soldiers" in this example, and not having to buy apples is not dying. Also, Sally's not liking apples is the reasoning behind the conclusion that she won't buy apples. This is parallel to your statement, "If [Bush] had let there co-operate" [sic].

Now, you might think that this is a logically sound argument. Perhaps you think that Sally will not have to buy apples in the future because she does not like them. However, the future is something that's (<-- notice the contraction here with an apostrophe) very difficult to predict. Perhaps Sally will have to buy apples for a friend who does like them. The parallel here is that American soldiers may have died in the future if Saddam had been allowed to do his thing.

So, in the future, (<-- notice the comma closing off the aside) try to proof-read your posts a little bit so that you don't have a grammar mistake in every line. It's an easy way to prevent people fom judging you by something other than the lack of quality of your arguments.

 

[ledhed]

No fly zones where set up to prevent THE IRAQIS from using thier airforce to bomb and gas the kurds and the Shiites in the south. As to the rest of your post the fact that you seem to be so ill informed precludes me from even trying to interpret your delusions..you need to go read a book or do some research or something and stay out of the fairy tale section.

 

[phattboy]

Thank you for noticing and taking the time with that danoff. That was nice of you to help him out there.

I, on the other hand, should have but didn't. I have enough of a time just getting my own kids to structure their sentences and thought processes properly let alone, someone else's kids.

I suppose some of it is because I am still adjusting to 14 year old kids calling me "stupid". The whole internet communication thing certainly throws some things "out the window".

phattboy

 

[ledhed]

Its hard when you have to take into account that for alot of people history only go's back 5 years or so without having to memorize a lesson or actually read a book or two. sometimes just having lived through things can't be underestimated. although the downside is you have to get slowly decrepified and have 14 year olds tell you how stupid you are. But at least you can buy beer and say screw it.

 

[phattboy]

Yeah... What he ^^^^ said

phattboy

 

[Crayola]

Originally posted by GoKents
I'm guessing you guys are considering it "cooperation" when saddam has military personel follow inspectors to each and every place, all the while bearing arms and enforcing when and where the inspectors can look.

And don't act like that wasn't the case, we saw it on tv... video footage, not rumor or hear-say, actual video footage of Iraqi military personel controlling when and what inspectors were allowed to see and find.

Anyway, ...
Just wanted to remind the reasonable people here that saddam did what he wanted, not what was required by international law.

So? America didn't follow international law by going into Iraq. What's with the double standards? More so, why doesn't America have to allow weapons inspectors in or destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction? I'm sure the bush government wouldn't let the weapons inspectors wander around on their own in America.

 

[Crayola]

Originally posted by danoff
The phrase is, "beside the point". There is no "s" after beside. Also, you need an apostrophe to form a contraction between "that" and "is".



Cooperating is one word.



"Infact" is actually two words. You should include a comma after the introductory phrase "as you can see," to set off the rest of the sentence. Also, you should always ensure that you are on logically sound footing when you draw conclusions. That is not the case with this statement.



"Upto" is two words. This statement should read:

"There have been, up to now, only two shells found."

Notice the extra comma after the "now" which bounds the aside.



First of all, this is a run-on sentence. Secondly, "regardlessly" is not a word and makes you sound like a five-year-old. Cooperating is still one word. And, once again, you should make sure that you are on sound logical footing before you draw conclusions. At the very least, when you draw a conclusion that you know many people disagree with, you should support that conclusion with strong evidence against which people cannot argue. Providing evidence is just proper argument technique.



This, of course, (<-- notice the closing comma) should read:

"If he had let them cooperate, no American soliders would have died."

Notice the comma after cooperate and the capitilization of "American". Again, you draw another conlusion that is on weak logical footing. This one is actually not possible to prove because it forecasts the future. Let's pretend you had said:

"Sally will not have to buy apples in the future because she does not like them."

Now hang on just a moment. I know this is all very abstract, so I'm going to walk you through it. Sally is "American soldiers" in this example, and not having to buy apples is not dying. Also, Sally's not liking apples is the reasoning behind the conclusion that she won't buy apples. This is parallel to your statement, "If [Bush] had let there co-operate" [sic].

Now, you might think that this is a logically sound argument. Perhaps you think that Sally will not have to buy apples in the future because she does not like them. However, the future is something that's (<-- notice the contraction here with an apostrophe) very difficult to predict. Perhaps Sally will have to buy apples for a friend who does like them. The parallel here is that American soldiers may have died in the future if Saddam had been allowed to do his thing.

So, in the future, (<-- notice the comma closing off the aside) try to proof-read your posts a little bit so that you don't have a grammar mistake in every line. It's an easy way to prevent people fom judging you by something other than the lack of quality of your arguments.

For ****s sake, I know how to use a comma, retard. I honestly can't be bothered going over every post I make, however, if you look at the majority of my posts, I do edit them if I realise I've made a mistake.

 

[Solid Fro]

Originally posted by Crayola
So? America didn't follow international law by going into Iraq. What's with the double standards? More so, why doesn't America have to allow weapons inspectors in or destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction? I'm sure the bush government wouldn't let the weapons inspectors wander around on their own in America.

Yeah, that's the normal Anti-American statement. Try something more... thoughtful next time.

The United States and it's allies had every right to remove Iraq's weapons in their failure of obeying 17 United Nation resolutions of disarmament.

Oh, you want weapon inspectors in the US? Then we should send inspectors to Japan, and China, Germany, France, the UK, India, Canada, Russia, Israel, and just maybe even Australia, for all of their 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' they have as well.

 

[Crayola]

I agree, every country should dis-arm themselves of WMDs.
I'm not anti-american, but why can America dis-obey the UN just because Iraq is? 2 wrongs don't make a right, that's street justice and its not how international conflicts should unfold.

 

[Solid Fro]

It's funny how you keep attacking America. You know there are over 30 other countries, including yours, helping to bring peace and democracy in Iraq. You're Anti-American, just admit it.

I'll repeat again, the United States and it's allies had every right to remove Iraq's weapons because it disobeyed the UN, even though the UN would not enforce their own resolutions.

 

[phattboy]

Originally posted by Crayola
For ****s sake, I know how to use a comma, retard. I honestly can't be bothered going over every post I make, however, if you look at the majority of my posts, I do edit them if I realise I've made a mistake.

Actually... The problem is that you don't. For instance, in the above statement you misspelled the word "realize" by spelling it "realise". What happens when you do this is that intelligent folks see this and recognize that while you might be agressive in your posts and in your opinions, the validity of those opinions in your posts is diminished and you aren't taken seriously. That is all that danoff was trying to help you with.

In addition, in the above statement, you called danoff a retard. Again, if you want people to take you seriously or you want your opinions to count for something, you should try to refrain from doing that. The reason is simple. To call someone by that description (retard) is to express the concept that real people who have some form of mental handicap such as Downs Syndrome are lessor people than yourself and to be used as comparative examples when you wish to belittle someone else.

In the first place, just the act of belittling others is offensive in and of itself. It makes it extremely offensive that you do it this manner. I happen to have a little sister who has Downs Syndrome and for folks like you to make fun of her mental retardation by using that terminology in derogatory remarks is infuriating to say the least.

I understand the buffer of the internet gives you the feeling of safety and therefore feel courageous enough to speak in the manner that you do. However, if you want people to listen to what you have to say even while using that medium, you are going about it in the wrong way. You should try to at least be civil.

After all, isn't the point you are really trying to make here is the US doesn't respect the rights of Iraq? That we carry double standards? Your manner of expressing this is the "pot calling the kettle black" in that you obviously don't respect others rights as human beings. That lack of showing respect on your part is a prime example of carrying your own form of double standard.

phattboy

 

[Danoff]

I honestly can't be bothered going over every post I make, however, if you look at the majority of my posts, I do edit them if I realise I've made a mistake.

Obviously not.

I can't be bothered to read or respond to your posts if you can't be bothered to make them clear. I'm not going to try to interpret what you've said just because you couldn't be bothered to say it well.


Edit:

Nobody makes as many mistakes as you do when they know proper grammar. These are not slip-ups they're ignorance. I don't know who taught you how to write, but they should not have been paid.

 

[vat_man]

...or alternatively, you could spray each other with vitriol, bile and spittle. It's all good - whatever.

 

[Kent]

Originally posted by Viper Zero
It's funny how you keep attacking America. You know there are over 30 other countries, including yours, helping to bring peace and democracy in Iraq. You're Anti-American, just admit it.

I'll repeat again, the United States and it's allies had every right to remove Iraq's weapons because it disobeyed the UN, even though the UN would not enforce their own resolutions.

This says everything pretty darn well.
👍

Originally posted by Crayola
I agree, every country should dis-arm themselves of WMDs.
I'm not anti-american, but why can America dis-obey the UN just because Iraq is? 2 wrongs don't make a right, that's street justice and its not how international conflicts should unfold.

This does not say anything well (imo).
America has not dis-obeyed (sp?) the UN... In fact, the United States did what the UN was supposed to do. In this case, the US was one of the few nations (if you could call 30 nations a few ) that actually held strong to their word when the UN didn't.

If you ask me, the UN is a joke.
Between their lacking presence in the areas of the world that really needed their help and thier corruption in programs such as the "oil for food" program, I find that the UN only represents the left overs of what began as a noble idea.

It should also be noted that many of the nations who opposed the use of force in Iraq were also nations that were owed debt by Saddam's regime. Many of those nations had been, until very recently, selling Saddam technology for use in warfare. This includes the sale of french mirage fighter jets, and russian gps jammers.

Personally, I find the UN to be a joke, one big fat corrupt joke of an organizaton. The really sad part about that is what the UN was intended to be when created .vs. what the UN is today.

Fact is, the UN decided to do exactly what the US did, but when it came time to follow through with their/ our decision, the UN backed out.

Btw, if acting on your word is considered street justice, then I think we need more street justice in this world.

 

[High-Test]

/\/\/\/\/\/\ what he said.


The UN is almost too bureaucratic for their own good. I think that they suck.

 

[5LiterRiceEater]

Originally posted by menglan

The UN is almost too bureaucratic for their own good. I think that they suck.

Right on!!👍

 

[High-Test]

France sucks too. so do the royals. And the raiders. Why? Because I said so.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by Crayola
I don't like the use of the word terrorist when talking about the rebels in Iraq. I think its rediuclous that someone fighting in their own country can be called a terrorist. It's hardly surprising they're fighting a guerilla war seeing as they have no heavy artillery support or supply lines etc. The way the Bush administration throws a round the word terrorist is just a method of tricking people into thinking the War was justified.
...
The Iraqis aren't using terrorism to fight for ideological reasons, they simply object to the Americans being in their country.

I also think its ridiculous that people who blow up children on the way to school, assassinate their own leaders, attempt to use chemical weapons in their own cities and cut the heads off non-combatant civilians, should be made out to be decent people fighting for a moral cause or something.

The insurgents in Iraq do not speak for Iraqi people. They don't fight for the Iraqi people. Most of them are former Baathists seeking to seize power or foreigners seeking to destabilize the country so that their own governments can influence course of the events in Iraq.

Calling these people rebels would ignore the fact that they are cold-blooded killers with their own agenda: to rule Iraq under a new despotic government.


M

 

[87chevy]

what ///M-Spec, menglan, 5LRE, GoKents, Viper Zero, and phattboy said. 👍 👍

I would agree with danoff, in fact i do most of the time, and i do understand the point he was making about the grammar. However I do find it annoying sometimes how anal some of you are about grammar.GTP members should try their best to be clear and grammatically correct. But we all aren't English majors. Let's just keep that in mind.

 

[High-Test]

/\/\ Amen. actually, I have a C in english right now....

 

[Danoff]

I would agree with danoff, in fact i do most of the time, and i do understand the point he was making about the grammar. However I do find it annoying sometimes how anal some of you are about grammar.GTP members should try their best to be clear and grammatically correct. But we all aren't English majors. Let's just keep that in mind.

I don't usually harp on grammar, but this was an exceptionally bad case - that and lack of attention to grammar was only a symptom of a bigger problem.

 

[87chevy]

^ok, well as long as we are clear.

 

[Duke]

Here's a few images that might be interesting: to date, between 30 and 40 Iraqi combat aircraft such as this MiG 25 fighter-bomber have been found buried in the Iraqi desert. So, as the saying goes: Absence of proof does not necessarily equal proof of absence.

But of course, ol' peace-loving Saddam was only interested in peace and love. That's why he buried all those bad bad airplanes where they couldn't ever hurt anybody again...