[Dogma]

I would love to ignore some of these posts, but they can be so entertaining watch the arguments get brought around in circles by the same people time and again. Leave your "I hate the US governement and all it's apologists/ I love the US gov and all its apologists" posts for the War/Politics forum. The reason I don't go there is to avoid these conversations - unless I wanna laugh at some hardset heads.

The clip was kinda funny, but also disturbing that someone could be soooo irate at the idea that a black man may start driving in NASCAR. Not even irate, he was actually disgusted at the thought. Maybe I've been living in the city for too long, but do people like this still a) exist b) talk so openly about their racism to strangers - even if you harbour such thoughts, you're more than likely to get a good thumping if you were to voice them so vocally.

P.S. Zimphire, don't even wee man, I'm not feeding you today...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
3 sorry assed Zimphire posts in a row, does anyone even read this crap?

One of the mods must be sleeping with him or something.

I think someone has some restraint problems.

I think it would be amusing to see the percentages of your posts that are personal attacks.

Heck, just ones against me would be a high %.

Max was onto something.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Ok I have to say it...


IN BEFORE LOCK!

[docbud]

Thing is, he picked the wrong person to have this argument with. Workign at the BBC, we have all the archives we need for discussions like this.

From reading the posts from "An Alias," I hope his job at the BBC doesn't entail proofreading or typing.

[Zimphire]

To get back on topic... sorta...

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1208288.html

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by docbud:
From reading the posts from "An Alias," I hope his job at the BBC doesn't entail proofreading or typing.

Broadcast journalism rarely does, as everything is read aloud.

However, apart from teh usua lquick typin gerrors that are purely mecahnical, and a few minor punctuation decisions that are fine but might be solved differently, I find his style coherent and clear for something that was obviously typed *quickly*.

I just wish he wouldn't waste it on Zimphire.

-s*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:

I just wish he wouldn't waste it on Zimphire.

Was that feeble attempt at a personal attack supposed to hurt my feelings?

[Spheric Harlot]

No.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Was that feeble attempt at a personal attack supposed to hurt my feelings?

You have to ask?

New rule! Everyone has to reply to Zimph with a at the end!

[Zimphire]

*sigh* I tried to get it back on track. So people have no restraint.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
*sigh* I tried to get it back on track. So people have no restraint.

Nice to see you are following the rule.

[Skywalkers new Hand]

You want back on topic?

Read this!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.p...-07-26&id=3341

[docbud]

I think Zimphire is cool.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
You want back on topic?

Read this!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.p...-07-26&id=3341

Wow, people react badly when you call them *******s for no reason.

They actually spent money and did a study on this?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow, people react badly when you call them *******s for no reason.

They actually spent money and did a study on this?

Hey just look at all the time you spend to defend everything and you ain't even getting paid.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Hey just look at all the time you spend to defend everything and you ain't even getting paid.

Yes, I spend all my time defending EVERYTHING.

Why do you always feel the need to exaggerate?

Do you think it somehow makes your tantrums in this forum legit?

In your relationship, I am sure you wear the bitch pants.

[Alias]

Nevermind.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Alias:
Example #2976:
Zimphire posts a reply with no substance only to defend himself from a personal attack.

Heh, and the SWFs posts are full of substance?

Fact is, if he would stop his silliness I wouldn't have to make such posts.

But sure, blame it on me. I guess that is one way to try to blame shift.

ANd HOW DARE I DEFEND MYSELF!!!

I can't believe I have stooped SO low as to defend myself. I must need help or something.

Because defending yourself isn't a honorable thing to do. I don't know WHAT I was thinking.

What really intrigues me is, that so many people with similar nicks and low post counts have came in here to personally attack me.

Coincidence? Who knows.

Sounds more like there are a bunch of people hiding behind nicks.

[version]

I don't know, I've known quite a few journalists over the years and have seen them type like **** at times, but it's by no means an indicator of their writing style when it comes to their journalsitic work.
I actually thought the An Alias guy wrote up some very interesting questions, intriguing, and coherent.
It's a bit mental when it descends into a slanging match and the actual discussion falls away from what it originally was though.

Em, off to the Political forum it is then.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But sure, blame it on me. I guess that is one way to try to blame shift.

Actually, nobody's blaming shift, AFAICS. In fact, shift hasn't even posted here yet.

However, it should be noted that you have in no way managed to respond to the substance of An Alias's posts.

It's really odd (and please don't take this too personally; I'm just musing), but your arguments remind me a lot of my ex-girlfriend. She'd always get really REALLY worked up about stuff, shredding up stuff I'd said into little bits of irrelevancy, while *completely* ignoring the salient points.

And it took over a year to get her to finally at least accept that she couldn't get her head around what I was saying, and no amount of explaining would do. Likewise, I constantly had the feeling that she was from a different planet where natural law defied common sense in most every important way imaginable.

FWIW, she was a southern German Catholic, which is the closest we get here in Germany to those rabid Bible-thumping Christians you have in America.

-s*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
However, it should be noted that you have in no way managed to respond to the substance of An Alias's posts.

You can note that, but it wont have any effect on the truth. I responded to his claims. I told him part of what he said had truth to it. He took that truth, mixed it up with his own biased opinion and tried to sell that too off as the truth.

It's really odd (and please don't take this too personally; I'm just musing), but your arguments remind me a lot of my ex-girlfriend. She'd always get really REALLY worked up about stuff, shredding up stuff I'd said into little bits of irrelevancy, while *completely* ignoring the salient points.

Well there is were you are wrong again. I am not worked up. Not at all. He made some outlandish claims. I asked for them to be backed up. I got nothing.

And it took over a year to get her to finally at least accept that she couldn't get her head around what I was saying, and no amount of explaining would do. Likewise, I constantly had the feeling that she was from a different planet where natural law defied common sense in most every important way imaginable.

Sounds like to me, you are taking your frustration of her out on me.

FWIW, she was a southern German Catholic, which is the closest we get here in Germany to those rabid Bible-thumping Christians you have in America.

Rabid? was that used to try to project more silliness into your posts?

BTW it's to be noted that your post in here added nothing, zero, zip to the conversation. It was just one big long personal attack against how you perceived I replied to him. And how you don't agree with it. Are you that pretentious to think your opinion on how I reply matters? Or did you think making such a attack would make you feel better about yourself?

[version]

The 'other' discussion in this thread has got me interested, I had a look around the web to try and find something humourous about the war and found this.



Why We Are At War Explained
by J. Robinson


"Warmonger" explains why we are at war to "Peacenik"

PN: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?

WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over N.Y.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long-range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date, graduate-student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George B . . .

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long-range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear-weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical-Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world," I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well...there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense:

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by version:
The 'other' discussion in this thread has got me interested, I had a look around the web to try and find something humourous about the war and found this.

.

What other discussion? How is this related to the topic?

Something I also find humorous. The Anti-US/Anti-Bush folk will take any topic, and turn it into a thread to bash the US or it's leaders. Take this thread for example.

They have no restraint for the most part it seems.

It started with the first post about the "Americana" silliness.

[version]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What other discussion? How is this related to the topic?

The other discussion is the one on politics, wasn't the originalt topic about some hick? No? call me crazy, but that seems like two topics.

Something I also find humorous. The Anti-US/Anti-Bush folk will take any topic, and turn it into a thread to bash the US or it's leaders. Take this thread for example.

They have no restraint for the most part it seems.

It started with the first post about the "Americana" silliness.

A little defencive there, you shouldn't have to be the spokesman when it comes to aplogising for anti-American sentiment, remember, no nation is perfect.

BTW, In reference to your last post, you didn't ask An Alias to back up what he said with evidence, you came back at him stating the opposite of what he/she said. I thought they put across quite a number of things for you to chew on, but didn't really see much in the way of a decent reply.

[Zimphire]

Starting with this page, I suggest you re-read the posts. I know I did

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=2

Let me supply you with some quotes of me asking him to back stuff up. It all started falling apart when the anti-America zealot in him started busting through. His true nature showed. Ad he became irrational.

You honestly are trying to say we knew how Saddam would turn out, and did it on purpose? I am just asking to make sure, because that is a far fetched theory.

From which he never showed me any facts to back up his claims. Which is what I was arguing mostly with him about.

And here is me trying to ask him to back up his subjective opinions that he was treating as fact. For which he did not do. But replied with more personal attacks and chest pounding on how he was in the know, and he would learn me! Which he did none of.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If you want to discuss some facts, I am all for it.

It seems to me you want to take facts, and then add your own subjective reasoning to them, while still trying to pass it off as factual.

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

He replied with

Fact, or opinion? Listen, you want facts on anythign I've said here? For instance on the supply of arms to Saddam while the US knew they were being used on the Iraqi population, how about everythign else

No, that wasn't the facts I was asking about. He again dodged it. I replied with.

No I am talking about your broad assumption that the US knew how Saddam would turn out from the get go, and made sure he was like that on purpose. It's the irrational ideals like that, that I am referring to.

The problem here is, you are giving me facts, but then you are projecting your opinion into them and calling it the truth.

For instance. It's a fact that I use a Macintosh. What you are doing is, saying I use a Macintosh, which is fact, then you are making up thing to go with it like, I use a Macintosh, and would never use anything else because I hate every other computer.

Which I then too, never got a answer to. See that is what my beef with him was about. He seems to think the US purposely put Saddam in power knowing how things would turn out. I asked for proof. He provided none, then went into a tirade about wanting to take this in PM. Of course he did. He had no proof. And wanted to save face.

[version]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Starting with this page, I suggest you re-read the posts. I know I did

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=2

Let me supply you with some quotes of me asking him to back stuff up. It all started falling apart when the anti-America zealot in him started busting through. His true nature showed. Ad he became irrational.



From which he never showed me any facts to back up his claims. Which is what I was arguing mostly with him about.

And here is me trying to ask him to back up his subjective opinions that he was treating as fact. For which he did not do. But replied with more personal attacks and chest pounding on how he was in the know, and he would learn me! Which he did none of.



He replied with

[/b]

No, that wasn't the facts I was asking about. He again dodged it. I replied with.

[/b]

Which I then too, never got a answer to. See that is what my beef with him was about. He seems to think the US purposely put Saddam in power knowing how things would turn out. I asked for proof. He provided none, then went into a tirade about wanting to take this in PM. Of course he did. He had no proof. And wanted to save face. [/B]

I'm not going to speak for Alias, but I know for a fact that the US supplied Saddam with weapons while in full knowledge of what he was doing with them. I'll come back in a bit with some references for you, I have to search my records.

Also, I think he did reply to you in the sense that he said that the US was STILL supplying Saddam while he was nerve-gassing his own people. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm fairly sure that US inteligence is well advanced enough to know that that would be going on.

Example, if I gave you a gun, and you went out and shot someone, I could claim that I had no knowledge that you'd do such a thing; but if I was to give you another gun, and another, adn you kept on shooting people, then how could I claim no to know what you were doing with them?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by version:
I'm not going to speak for Alias, but I know for a fact that the US supplied Saddam with weapons while in full knowledge of what he was doing with them. I'll come back in a bit with some references for you, I have to search my records.

No no no , I am talking about in the LATE 80s early 90s when Saddam turned and attacked Kuwait. According to Alias we knew Saddam would do something like this from the get go. Almost like we wanted him to. I have asked him to back it up.

Also, I think he did reply to you in the sense that he said that the US was STILL supplying Saddam while he was nerve-gassing his own people. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm fairly sure that US inteligence is well advanced enough to know that that would be going on.

For one that is a assumption, not based on facts. Did they know before they supplied him that he was going to be gassing his own people? If he did, I would like to see some facts backing that up. And when I say facts, I mean something substantial. Not a web page that is hell bent on being Anti-American. But anyhow, that really wasn't what I was asking either.

Example, if I gave you a gun, and you went out and shot someone, I could claim that I had no knowledge that you'd do such a thing; but if I was to give you another gun, and another, adn you kept on shooting people, then how could I claim no to know what you were doing with them?

Again, I was speaking about them using the weapons we gave them to attack and try to take over Kuwait. What got them into trouble in the first place. He blames the US for that. Claiming they knew he would do it. Which is utter nonsense. Which is why he never backed it up, which is why he wanted to take it to pvt message.

There are very few reasons why people want to take something to PVT.

One the subject is too touchy, or against the MacNN rules.

or

Two said person is losing face in front of the forum when asked to back up their claims.

Now the one doesn't check here... soo....

[version]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No no no , I am talking about in the LATE 80s early 90s when Saddam turned and attacked Kuwait. According to Alias we knew Saddam would do something like this from the get go. Almost like we wanted him to. I have asked him to back it up.
[/b]

That is prety much common knowledge,
Zimphire. I was just watching a Channel 4 documentary on this very topic recently. I've read lots of statements from about the US wanting Saddam to invade Kuwait. If you go to your public library, and have a look at the documents pertaining to the Bush administration, and the overseas commity, you'll find all the correspondence you need. It's all public domain stuff.



[/b] For one that is a assumption, not based on facts. Did they know before they supplied him that he was going to be gassing his own people? If he did, I would like to see some facts backing that up. And when I say facts, I mean something substantial. Not a web page that is hell bent on being Anti-American. But anyhow, that really wasn't what I was asking either.

[/b][/quote]

Like I said before, the US STILL supplied him long after he used them on his own people, right up until the Gulf War. The first gassing came about in the early 80's, the US knew of this and yet continued to fund him, supply him, and support him

Again, I was speaking about them using the weapons we gave them to attack and try to take over Kuwait. What got them into trouble in the first place. He blames the US for that. Claiming they knew he would do it. Which is utter nonsense. Which is why he never backed it up, which is why he wanted to take it to pvt message.

The chemical weapons that the US sold them weren't used in the Gulf War, it was a worry since the US sold them to the Iraqis, but they never used them. They did use some of the conventional weapons, but they were still constructed in Iraq itself. there was a big outcry here when it was revealed how the UK arms industry were supplying him all throughout the 80's, AND after the Gulf War, caused quite a stir.

It's failry common knowledge of how Iraq was setup, for various reason that Alias mentioned, plus the Oil ones.
iut boils down to this, the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, which he in turn used on his own people, the US continued to supply him with them, plus more conventional ones, he continued to use them on his own people. The US has a lot to answer for in regards to just that one matter.

[version]

Zimphire, there have been quite a number of books published on thet US and its dealings wit Iraq, and a fe won the topic of the Gulf War, they all provide solid evidence for the US setting Iraq up, as well as supporting the other Iraqi attrocities.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW it's to be noted that your post in here added nothing, zero, zip to the conversation. It was just one big long personal attack against how you perceived I replied to him. And how you don't agree with it. Are you that pretentious to think your opinion on how I reply matters? Or did you think making such a attack would make you feel better about yourself?

Well, as I was saying...

You claim to know what I'm thinking, what I intend, and what I mean.

I was offering a suggestion on just why it is that your posting habits here are so obviously detestable to so many, based on a personal realization I made recently. When worlds collide and all that.

You cleanly demonstrated the accuracy of my assessment by responding to certain passages in ways that entirely side-stepped the salient points.

It is obvious that your common sense and reasoning is completely at odds with my reasoning and common sense (and a lot of others', it would seem).

end of exercise.

thank you for your time.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
[B]Let me supply you with some quotes of me asking him to back stuff up. It all started falling apart when the anti-America zealot in him started busting through. His true nature showed. Ad he became irrational.

quote:
You honestly are trying to say we knew how Saddam would turn out, and did it on purpose? I am just asking to make sure, because that is a far fetched theory.

From which he never showed me any facts to back up his claims. Which is what I was arguing mostly with him about.

Actually, he responded by saying that Saddam was, at the time you were selling him WMD, ALREADY USING them to gas his own people AS WELL AS the Iranians. That was well-known at the time, yes, even to your government.

Nothing about "how he would turn out". HE WAS ALREADY THAT WAY.

I didn't see you respond to that. In fact, you ignored it.

And here is me trying to ask him to back up his subjective opinions that he was treating as fact. For which he did not do. But replied with more personal attacks and chest pounding on how he was in the know, and he would learn me! Which he did none of.

That's funny, he learned the rest of us.

In fact, everything he claimed was not disputed by you, but merely contradicted. He then put forth his credentials and experience, which lend him a LOT more credibility than you and put quite a different light on what you call "subjective opinions". So unless you come up with anything other than "Nu-UH!", you lost the argument with An Alias about two pages ago.

The rest of your post is just a re-run of the above.

-s*

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What really intrigues me is, that so many people with similar nicks and low post counts have came in here to personally attack me.

Coincidence? Who knows.

Sounds more like there are a bunch of people hiding behind nicks.

Hiding? No. That was me. I was just dusting off an old name to see if it still worked and didn't log back in as myself.

Besides, I thought better of my post and edited it right after posting. I never had a real problem with you, other than thinking you are annoying at times, so I changed it.

[version]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
From which he never showed me any facts to back up his claims. Which is what I was arguing mostly with him about.

Actually, he responded by saying that Saddam was, at the time you were selling him WMD, ALREADY USING them to gas his own people AS WELL AS the Iranians. That was well-known at the time, yes, even to your government.

Nothing about "how he would turn out". HE WAS ALREADY THAT WAY.

I didn't see you respond to that. In fact, you ignored it.

That's funny, he learned the rest of us.

In fact, everything he claimed was not disputed by you, but merely contradicted. He then put forth his credentials and experience, which lend him a LOT more credibility than you and put quite a different light on what you call "subjective opinions". So unless you come up with anything other than "Nu-UH!", you lost the argument with An Alias about two pages ago.

The rest of your post is just a re-run of the above.

-s* [/QUOTE]

Exactly, Spheric. It's so simple that one only has to look at the US overseas supply of arms to Iraq in the 80's to know that they were funding a man who commited heinous crimes against his people. Not only that, the US kept on supplying him, and encouraging him to use them against the Iranians. I've even read a report on how the CIA was actively involved in the first gassing of the Kurds due to Saddam requesting help form the US for his 'slight' ethnic problem. Why on earth would the US supply a nation with so much chemical weapons, if they weren't to be used? What purpose does it serve?
Saddam might have been slightly mad before the 80's, but with US help, he became the megalomaniac he is, anyway, he was funded by the US in the 70's too. So there you go.

Zimphire, it shouldn't come as any surpirse to you that your government might be supplying others with chemical weapons, it was the US that di use nerve gas on the Vietnamese, and launched an atomic strike on the japanese, the only nation to ever do so.

[version]

I've not had much time to delve through all my documents on this, but here's the first thing that turned up. Taken from the Nowar campain site.

"
The U.S. expected the invasion. In June of 1990, the U.S. Army had major war games where the subject was a simulated invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had been an ally of the U.S."

I'll just add to this Zimphire. The US actaully had simulated war games during the late 80's, adn when once pressed for answers by the US media as to why the US Army were practising war manouvers on an Ally, the US declined to comment.

"
The U.S. gave Iraq the "green light" to invade Kuwait. When Saddam Hussein complained to U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie a few days before the invasion about Kuwait�s treatment of Iraq, warning that force might be necessary. Glaspie told him that "We [the State Department] have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts." Earlier, State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler told a press conference that the U.S. had no mutual defense pact with Kuwait. Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly also said in testimony before a congressional subcommittee that the U.S. had no defence treaties with Kuwait. He refused to answer Rep. Lee Hamilton when asked what the U.S. would do if Iraq invaded Kuwait. This testimony was broadcast on BBC and seen by Iraq."

In fact, Secretary of State at the time Baker is on file as saying tht Iraq had the right to protect its interests. If you're not aware of the situation at the time, the Kuwaitis were cutting off the Iraq pipelines to the Persian Gulf, and obstructing the flow of Oil form Iraq, illegal stuff by the Kuwaitis.

[Zimphire]

Ok, finally back for a response.

1. He did not answer my question as to the US knowing that Saddam would turn out the way he did.

2. He is blaming the US for Saddam's actions instead of Saddam.

I was just asking for proof of this. Now I know he can't show me any, because there is none. So he keeps on trying to dodge that part, and give me proof of OTHER things, things I didn't ask for.

My only beef with him was his insistence that it was the fault of the US. Which is nonsense.

The US did not make Saddam perform the actions he did. Every man is responsible for their own actions.

But you'll always have anti-American nuts trying to blame the US for everything.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
Hiding? No. That was me. I was just dusting off an old name to see if it still worked and didn't log back in as myself.

Besides, I thought better of my post and edited it right after posting. I never had a real problem with you, other than thinking you are annoying at times, so I changed it.

Uh - Huh.

[Demonhood]

i'd move this into the political lounge, but it has the word 'hilarious' in the title. and i think we can all agree that while the political lounge is many things, hilarious is not one of them.