Ion

This idiocy comes to my eyes, from Lynchburg, Virginia:
"To deny the responsibility of all the involved parties and place the blame solely on the United States is both inaccurate and illogical."

should read instead:

"To acknowledge the responsibility of all the involved parties and place the blame solely on the Bush's United States -which fabricated evidence in order to steal Iraq's oil-, is both accurate and logical."

Now you are all set, debater10:

pursue your endeavors here, after my correction to your errors.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Considering your comments are rather idiotic, the ad hominems aren't really so much to discredit you as your own words are.
Good thing I WASN'T drinking at the time I read this
So, in other words, on the eve of battle against an nigh-unstoppable foe, you rid yourself of the only weapon that can harm it. You ARE an idiot.
This is moronic. People fight in defense of their homes, the lives, their future. Guess what these people were trying to protect?
No, you weren't. You were trying to make GW look good, while making France and Germany look bad.

debater10

...sigh...

Always with the Hitler references... it's ashame.

At any rate, to clarify ONCE MORE for the people who still have not caught on, I disagree with the course of action that the US took inregards to Iraq in a moral sense. I think that other options were available but not used. At the same time, I also consider The intentional delay of action by Germany and France to be morally suspicious. And you cannot begin to say that Saddam's regime was of a clean moral conscience, either.

Your analogy to the lock fails on many levels. Rather, imagine three people trying to rob the same bank. Though two of them may try to point the finger of blame at the other, it does not moot the fact that they were ALL there to rob the bank in the first place.

Also, the inspectors in Iraq were there, yes, but they were not allowed access to some of the military buildings in Iraq. This is, needless to say, problematic.

Ion

No kidding:

"...problematic."

Because I am talking here about more than "...problematic.":

.) Bush fabricating evidence in order to fool the U.N. and the U.S.,

.) Bush breaking up with the international monitoring ensured by the U.N. -which prevents predators to war for hidden reasons-,

.) Bush killing thousands of Iraqis and 200 U.S. soldiers, which is kinda unpatriotic, you know?;

.) Bush wasting $74 billion of taxpayer money during recession,

.) Bush giving oil contracts to Exxon, BP, Bechtel, Halliburton from U.S..

You are still in Lynchburg, Virginia, are you?

debater10

First, I would like to point out the irony in using the phrases "your comments are rather idiotic," "You ARE an idiot," and "This is moronic" without ANY supporting reasons or valid refutations when I just pointed out your Ad Hominem logical fallacies is VERY ironic.

Second, I was never trying to make Bush look good. I was trying to make him look human, along with all the other poeple involved in the conflict.

And third, the weapons they had could not have been in such a form so as to be a threat to the US. They lack ICBM capability, so they would have every reason to ditch the weapons. That is the fundamentally flawed assumtion that you are making.

The SwampThing

Why is it that all Bush drones and pro-war mongerers like to use the word "fallacy" so much???
There seems to be a strange fixation between them and this little word. One would say, almost an obssession! Sexual even!!
It�s freaky!!


and

Fallacies this, fallacies that, so much fallacy numbs the mind!

Ion

Have you considered putting the "...human,..." Bush in jail for the crimes that I mentioned in my previous post?

debater10

Ion,

Yes. All those would be problematic.
Also problematic is the human rights abuses of the Iraqi regime. And the money wasted on NATO spending for the defense of countries that hate our guts, but will accept the money without complaint (i.e. France.). And the fact that France is the only one of the five Nuclear Weapons States that still tests its weapons, but lies as to the information that they have lost during the tests, or that has been leaked.
There are problems on all fronts. Pointing them out is the first step, and I thank all of you for proving what is the true basis of my argument: War is based on the improper conduct of international relations by MULTIPLE countries.

Malachi151

Point of Info here:

Before too many "liberals" get blasted its good to note that Tony Blair is more liberal than just about any Democrat in office in America.

Please resume the investigation into how Saddam pulled the greatest pratical joke of all time (on himself no less)!

debater10

I have a feeling that the ICC would have taken care of that... but it chose not to. Odd, isn't it.


Adn by the way, The SwampThing, I highly reccomend investing in a dictionary. I believe the half-assed inuendo that you are trying to make is in reference to the word phallus. A fallacy is a flaw in argumentation. All argument must stand up to the tests of logic in order to be accepted as legitimate. If it contains a logical fallacy, it IS NOT an argument.