WMD lies now confirmed by Cia

Zardon · Oct 4, 2003, 02:52 PM

hey guys lets keep it to debating and less of the personal attacks, it doesnt really lead anywhere......

GOG · Oct 4, 2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
I'm not surprised either. Israel is a liberal democracy. Iran and Korea are headed by tyrannical despots.

When you can understand the difference between democracy and tyranny --moral and immoral-- then you will understand why many Americans abhorr the United Nations. The United Nations is a joke to us, for the prescise reason you're illustrating. In the UN, there is no moral compass -- people in the UN can't tell the difference between America's Bush and Iraq's Saddam Hussein. This is why Libya heads the Human Rights Committee. The UN is morally bankrupt. When you can see that, you will understand. Until then, you will dwell in your bizarre world of amorality -- where Libya and America both respect human rights equally.

Give me a break.

Come on now JavaFox, Germany in the 30's was a democracy too. You can't sit here and say that Israel is the raw model for a sane society, and they sure don't have any respect for human rights. Turkey is another fine example of one of your allies that respect human rights, they're still torturing people in their prisons, that's why we don't want them as a part of the EU. And now YOU are going to help them track down and "eliminate kurdish terrorism" in northern Iraq. You're going to hunt down and kill your allies in the war against Saddam Hussein. Don't talk to us about moral...

JavaFox · Oct 4, 2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
Come on now JavaFox, Germany in the 30's was a democracy too. You can't sit here and say that Israel is the raw model for a sane society, and they sure don't have any respect for human rights. Turkey is another fine example of one of your allies that respect human rights, they're still torturing people in their prisons, that's why we don't want them as a part of the EU. And now YOU are going to help them track down and "eliminate kurdish terrorism" in northern Iraq. You're going to hunt down and kill your allies in the war against Saddam Hussein. Don't talk to us about moral...

The UN cannot differentiate between countires like Libya and France -- they view them as both equally fit to head the Human Rights Committee. The only two nations held to a different standard in the UN are the United States and Israel. Everyone else is an equal, a "member-state."

God forbid we pass any judgement on a fellow member-state, am I right?

JavaFox · Oct 4, 2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
Come on now JavaFox, Germany in the 30's was a democracy too. You can't sit here and say that Israel is the raw model for a sane society, and they sure don't have any respect for human rights.

So Israel and Iran are on the same level?

Sharon and Kim Jung Il are the same?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Israel is such a violator of human rights! That's why they immediately granted the inhabitants of the Gaza district citizenship after they annexed it, despite the fact that the previous occupiers --the Egpytians-- had denied this for NINETEEN YEARS.

Wow, those Jews are really just like Saddam, aren't they? We should invade Israel -- right, GOG?

GOG · Oct 4, 2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
So Israel and Iran are on the same level?

Sharon and Kim Jung Il are the same?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Israel is such a violator of human rights! That's why they immediately granted the inhabitants of the Gaza district citizenship after they annexed it, despite the fact that the previous occupiers --the Egpytians-- had denied this for NINETEEN YEARS.

Wow, those Jews are really just like Saddam, aren't they? We should invade Israel -- right, GOG?

I would say that Sharon is worse than Kim Jung II, Kim Jung doesn't "annex" as you so nicely put it, in other words "invades/occupies" territories that doesn't belong to him. Hitler also "annexed" territories, he called it Lebensraum. The only difference is that the he didn't stop.

Today Israel is building Berlin Wall II, to protect their inhabitants from suicide bombers. This wall is built on non Israeli ground on some places. The Israeli inhabitants on this ground got their land after the original inhabitants was driven away with soldiers and bulldozers. Geesh, wonder why they want to blow them up? There's only reason why these people run around with explosives inside their clothes, they have no big "peaceloving" country to provide them with sofisticated arms.

And btw, wasn't Sharon classified as a terrorist some years ago?

~~bluelight~~ · Oct 4, 2003, 04:55 PM

Well in that case...

Godbye and and have as pleasant time insulting people Javafox.

You are good at it..

Im not posting at a board where moderators insults members.

I also suggest that everyone else that is being insulted by Javafox leave Cause..its not..gonna stop.

He thinks he is moderating The national board of Republicans of America where only faithful come.

He obviously also thinks it is a good idea to insult people personally when defending that board and his (in his mind) 100 percent Republican nation.

He has attacked me on a personal level one to many times.

Bluelight

GOG · Oct 4, 2003, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
The UN cannot differentiate between countires like Libya and France -- they view them as both equally fit to head the Human Rights Committee. The only two nations held to a different standard in the UN are the United States and Israel. Everyone else is an equal, a "member-state."

God forbid we pass any judgement on a fellow member-state, am I right?

Lol, you keep referring to a certain resolution where a big majority in the UN was pro, as I recall Iraq was and still is a member of the UN. I would say that resolution was a pretty good judgement of the Iraqi government.

Do you consider your own country as fit for head of the human rights comittee? In my point of view a country that still applies capital punishment isn't.

***Veridian3*** · Oct 4, 2003, 05:17 PM

Guys, on topic discussion please. Everyone has different opinions - let them express them. Dont bring it down to a personal level or it will be end of discussion as it gets us nowhere.

Stu

JavaFox · Oct 5, 2003, 02:51 AM

So long as you maintain that Sharon is worse than Kim Jung Il and that the US is just as bad as Libya when it comes to human rights, there is obviously no reasoning with you.

GOG · Oct 5, 2003, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
So long as you maintain that Sharon is worse than Kim Jung Il and that the US is just as bad as Libya when it comes to human rights, there is obviously no reasoning with you.

Do a search in your favorite search engine with these four words: "sabra shatila massacre sharon", then come back here and say that this man isn't a cold blooded murderer, a war criminal or a terrorist. I didn't say that USA is as bad as Libya, I said that a country that kills people as revenge has nothing to do with human rights.

JavaFox · Oct 5, 2003, 04:18 AM

I am not participating in this discussion so long as extremity pervades the conversation.

Falstaff · Oct 5, 2003, 06:23 AM

Sharon could be viewed by many as a peace maker or a terrorist or a liberator...the definition is really moot.
If Sharon and Arafat embraced and lived in the same house and shared the same meals...a large contingent of vengeful and persistent Israeli's and Palestinians would continue to pursue a war against each other.

On a more serious note....had Saddam used nerve gas during the first gulf war on any allied troops...I can say with certainty that low yield tactical nukes would have been used from surface and sub surface platforms to eliminate that threat..we use an equally destructive weapon made with gasoline instead..Our ships carried sensitive equipment built to detect the presence of nerve agents...Ironic isn't it
Had he used Nerve agents on us, that we would have used nukes on him...

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 5, 2003, 01:13 PM

"I'd hardly call that running over the american people considering . 75% of the americans were FOR the war so i doubt you could say much there....

wha? no mention a couple of the parts/told needed to make nukes,
small traning amoutof serin ....
enough RPG's to arm every man,woman and child not to mention the guns...
or about the barrels of unenriched uranium (complete with un inspection labels),
terrorist camps, mobile chemical weapons labs. um, also location loaded to with weapons that the un had just recently searched... why are you not mentioning any of this and more hmmm?"

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Adress the issue ...or ...dont bother replying.Read a newspaper...listen to the news your reply is irrelevant.You could waltz around with those arguments one week ago but no longer thanks to the Cia ....TELLING THE TRUTH.....Furter more...the moronic statement that Blix is an idiot...speaks for itself.

Bluelight

um those were FACTS! i stated all found during and after the "main" war.....

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
The one reason ypou write that is because im Swedish and you try to offend me by it...well forget it..Its just a moronic statment nothing else.
Bluelight [/B]

has nothing to do with you... i just think he's an idiot ..... or a collaberator

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
The one question now......is..

Did Cia lie to him about the WMD´s. to Bush..or....did people in Bush government lie about the info they got from Cia?

Well since you are a democracy.....we will eventually get the answer to that one too.

I know what the answer will be...and i will be back celebrating when it is official.

Soon very soon...we will get the result from the same issue in Britain...and...everyone capable of reading a newspaper no matter what political direction it has......knows in what direction that issue is going.......
Bluelight [/B]

it is looking bad for bush... but you forget if we didn't find even a sling shot... we we more than justifyed in going in while the un sat on thie rumps and did next nothing.... eveyone can talk but few have the curage to acualy act......

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight

Is it or isnt ir crystal clear that these so called evidence were the direct reason given for the necessity of an immidiet attack that did not allow for the UN inspections to finish?

Bluelight

REMBER YOUR OWN WORDS (in short form you said) "the weapons inspectors aren't looking for weapons. Tthe iraqy's are supoosed to lead them to it/delare it"

UN inspections were a crock and you know it... other wise the uranuim (unenriched dirt bomb grade but could have been enriched to a form to make nukes) with UN inspecation labels on it would never of been there.

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Sure and who is doing the killing at the moment in Iraq?

The Japanese?

Bluelight

anymore the only one seeming to be couseing deaths are TEROIST GRUOPS LIKE AL QUIDA that you even denied that were even possably there ... and saddam loyalists/people paid by saddam to do so....

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
This is why Libya heads the Human Rights Committee. The UN is morally bankrupt. When you can see that, you will understand. Until then, you will dwell in your bizarre world of amorality -- where Libya and America both respect human rights equally.

Give me a break.

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Why do you constantly resign to slinging mud on a personal level?

Bluelight

why are you so in a defensive mood Bluelight ? I didn't see no persoal attacks unless you take it out of context. it is a fact in you live in a world where Libya heads the UN Human Rights Committee, and iraq on the Committee(inchage of disarming themselfs etc .. very bizzar) for that matter so do we...

i hope i made sence here for some reson reading this thread has envoked a headace

~~bluelight~~ · Oct 5, 2003, 01:33 PM

No of course you dont...since you would gladly sign to the MODERATORS post saying i:

dwell in a bizaree world of imorality....

The worst is....
He is wrong and he cant give an excuse for it...

I have passed limits....and i have had the decency to excuse myself...but obviously Java fox still thinks i dwell in a BIZARRE WORLD OF IMMORALITY!

Have a nice time with these dudes Jeff .....

I shouldnt have come back.That is for sure.

Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 5, 2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
No of course you dont...since you would gladly sign to the MODERATORS post saying i:

dwell in a bizaree world of imorality....

The worst is....
He is wrong and he cant give an excuse for it...

I have passed limits....and i have had the decency to excuse myself...but obviously Java fox still thinks i dwell in a BIZARRE WORLD OF IMMORALITY!

Have a nice time with these dudes Jeff .....

I shouldnt have come back.That is for sure.

Bluelight

well you leave me clueless here as to what your talking about....dwell in a bizaree world of imorality....we all do...this world is loaded with it.

Please, I'm not attacking you here i'm trying to see were your comeing from. Are you thinking he ment you live in your own little bizaree world of imorality or what?. If so then i' would aree with you that he oversteped his bounds. but in context it seems innocent enough.. but i havent been active in the Political Debate forums for quite a while. mabe i'm missing something?..

FuNsTeR · Oct 5, 2003, 07:21 PM

let it go Neon .......

we all need to take a deep breath and chill out for a bit till tempers are cooled down

i include myself in that as well

JavaFox · Oct 5, 2003, 08:46 PM

I did not call anybody in this forum immoral, and I never said anybody dwelled in a world of "immorality." I realize that word is offensive, and that's why I chose not to use it.

I said "ammoral" and the difference is huge. "Immoral" means you are repulisve; it means your morals are bad. "Amoral" means you lack morality.

I wasn't calling you bad, I was calling you confused. Surely we can call each other confused?

~~bluelight~~ · Oct 5, 2003, 09:20 PM

Funny................i remember clearly that i copied and pasted the sentence in its whole...twice.

Well i might be wrong.........i might have copied and edited it although i have problems seeing why i should have....and...i did not know of the existance of the world amoral..

The below though...does not change the content of what you wrote.Specifically if you pair it with bizarre.

One entry found for amoral.

Main Entry: amor·al
Pronunciation: (")A-'mor-&l, (")a-, -'mär-
Function: adjective
Date: 1882
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically :
lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral -- W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals

But by all means...drop it....im amoral....to the point of bizarre....

In that case i figure that goes for you to.

Bluelight

JavaFox · Oct 6, 2003, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
But by all means...drop it....im amoral....to the point of bizarre....

In that case i figure that goes for you to.

Nope. I am either moral or immoral, but nobody can make the case that I am amoral. I have a consistent sense of what is good and bad. So if you disagree with my morals, then I am immoral to you. But don't put me in the same amoral camp, because I am not.

~~bluelight~~ · Oct 6, 2003, 08:06 AM

Funny .....really funny......

You have the right to label me when it comes to moral ....But you dont accept me doing the exact same thing when it comes to you.

That means you are insulting me.And you even insist on it.

Tell you somnething more.........Moral has NOTHING to do with left or right.
It has more to do with respect for people.

Something that you in your role as moderator here lack completly.

Thanks for the clarifications and goodbye.

Bluelight

Smoothdrive · Oct 6, 2003, 09:39 AM

So we all agree the world is overcrowded and as a result humans can't stand each other anymore ?

People..instead of debating this in a constructive manner you are demonstrating very nicely why wars get started.

Respect each other, each other's opinion and be open for new facts and ideas.

If not..why discuss anything at all

FuNsTeR · Oct 6, 2003, 03:02 PM

ffs cool it

just agree to disagree the both of yous , yer like dogs fighting over a bone

JavaFox · Oct 6, 2003, 03:19 PM

I'm not fighting, and I have no interest in fighting. But at any rate, I am going to close this thread because the conversation seems to be over.

Smoothdrive · Oct 6, 2003, 04:49 PM

It was over before it started IMO

SD-[Inc] · Oct 13, 2003, 05:23 AM

Friday, February 7, 2003

Quote:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Falstaff · Oct 13, 2003, 07:50 AM

yes, I recall that one...very well

Malus · Oct 13, 2003, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
I'm not fighting, and I have no interest in fighting. But at any rate, I am going to close this thread because the conversation seems to be over.

Every thread in the political forum ends before it starts. No matter what, if you post a topic, the first reply will always be off-topic. Unfortuneately, this makes the Political Forum about as enjoyable as a colonoscopy.

~~bluelight~~ · Oct 15, 2003, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SD-[Inc]
Friday, February 7, 2003

Please send me the proof that Powell presented in the UN to all the world , that the WMDs that were the direct and immidiet reason given to the UN by the Us government as to why they would attack Iraq........before the UN had finished its ongoing weapon inspections.

I gather you have these proof available now.Feel free to send me info about them as a pm if you wish.

Bluelight

drakesteakn · Oct 20, 2003, 07:17 AM

I haven't been in this post but i read thru. The CIA may have lied, but we are still there. Anything can come up. I support the war in all intentions, I have friends in iraq. They all say that their life is a lot better. They are now able to trade freely in the streets, get water, sewage, and electricty. Though its not fully restored in all places we are working to do so. I still say there is possiblity for anything. After reconstruction we will be able to dock at naval ports. We will have the concentrated naval power. With this ability we can maintain the peace in the middle east. Just because we didn't have UN support we also had support from over 20 other countries. Just because we didn't have support from the big names of the UN (France, Russia, Germany). And now the UN is going to sign the new resolution presented by the US. This gives us power to reconstruct with UN support but without their complete say. Iraq used chemical weapons on their own citizens. Is this any bit inhumane? Im sorry but i think we have done more good than bad.

Falstaff · Oct 20, 2003, 08:32 AM

for the most part, I believe that we will find and have found evidence of weapons programs, but like the planes that were buried in the sand. much lies beneath the shifting dunes.
Whether we find anything or not, Saddam is gone..the issue is moot from my point of view, we must rebuild and get the hell out of IRAQ.
on a side note, get the MAC address checked for the router and you might find your trouble, Neon Cowboy can help ya I think, I am exhausted, lol...wow, what a party, hee hee..

Oct 4, 2003, 04:55 PM	Thread Starter #36
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Well in that case... Godbye and and have as pleasant time insulting people Javafox. You are good at it.. Im not posting at a board where moderators insults members. I also suggest that everyone else that is being insulted by Javafox leave Cause..its not..gonna stop. He thinks he is moderating The national board of Republicans of America where only faithful come. He obviously also thinks it is a good idea to insult people personally when defending that board and his (in his mind) 100 percent Republican nation. He has attacked me on a personal level one to many times. Bluelight Last edited by bluelight; Oct 4, 2003 at 06:54 PM.

Oct 5, 2003, 06:23 AM	#42
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,047 Rep Power: 206	Sharon could be viewed by many as a peace maker or a terrorist or a liberator...the definition is really moot. If Sharon and Arafat embraced and lived in the same house and shared the same meals...a large contingent of vengeful and persistent Israeli's and Palestinians would continue to pursue a war against each other. On a more serious note....had Saddam used nerve gas during the first gulf war on any allied troops...I can say with certainty that low yield tactical nukes would have been used from surface and sub surface platforms to eliminate that threat..we use an equally destructive weapon made with gasoline instead..Our ships carried sensitive equipment built to detect the presence of nerve agents...Ironic isn't it Had he used Nerve agents on us, that we would have used nukes on him... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor." Last edited by fallang_jeff; Oct 5, 2003 at 06:30 AM.

Oct 5, 2003, 07:21 PM	#46
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,268 Rep Power: 76 System Specs	let it go Neon ....... we all need to take a deep breath and chill out for a bit till tempers are cooled down i include myself in that as well __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Oct 6, 2003, 08:06 AM	Thread Starter #50
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Funny .....really funny...... You have the right to label me when it comes to moral ....But you dont accept me doing the exact same thing when it comes to you. That means you are insulting me.And you even insist on it. Tell you somnething more.........Moral has NOTHING to do with left or right. It has more to do with respect for people. Something that you in your role as moderator here lack completly. Thanks for the clarifications and goodbye. Bluelight Last edited by bluelight; Oct 6, 2003 at 08:18 AM.

Oct 6, 2003, 09:39 AM	#51
Smoothdrive Foolish Genius Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 455 Rep Power: 0	So we all agree the world is overcrowded and as a result humans can't stand each other anymore ? People..instead of debating this in a constructive manner you are demonstrating very nicely why wars get started. Respect each other, each other's opinion and be open for new facts and ideas. If not..why discuss anything at all __________________ GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

Oct 4, 2003, 02:52 PM	#31
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 177	hey guys lets keep it to debating and less of the personal attacks, it doesnt really lead anywhere......

Oct 4, 2003, 05:17 PM	#38
*Veridian3* Administrator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cloaked Posts: 4,835 Rep Power: 174	Guys, on topic discussion please. Everyone has different opinions - let them express them. Dont bring it down to a personal level or it will be end of discussion as it gets us nowhere. Stu

Oct 5, 2003, 02:51 AM	#39
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	So long as you maintain that Sharon is worse than Kim Jung Il and that the US is just as bad as Libya when it comes to human rights, there is obviously no reasoning with you.

Oct 5, 2003, 04:18 AM	#41
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	I am not participating in this discussion so long as extremity pervades the conversation.

Oct 5, 2003, 01:33 PM	Thread Starter #44
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	No of course you dont...since you would gladly sign to the MODERATORS post saying i: dwell in a bizaree world of imorality.... The worst is.... He is wrong and he cant give an excuse for it... I have passed limits....and i have had the decency to excuse myself...but obviously Java fox still thinks i dwell in a BIZARRE WORLD OF IMMORALITY! Have a nice time with these dudes Jeff ..... I shouldnt have come back.That is for sure. Bluelight

Oct 5, 2003, 08:46 PM	#47
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	I did not call anybody in this forum immoral, and I never said anybody dwelled in a world of "immorality." I realize that word is offensive, and that's why I chose not to use it. I said "ammoral" and the difference is huge. "Immoral" means you are repulisve; it means your morals are bad. "Amoral" means you lack morality. I wasn't calling you bad, I was calling you confused. Surely we can call each other confused?

Oct 5, 2003, 09:20 PM	Thread Starter #48
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Funny................i remember clearly that i copied and pasted the sentence in its whole...twice. Well i might be wrong.........i might have copied and edited it although i have problems seeing why i should have....and...i did not know of the existance of the world amoral.. The below though...does not change the content of what you wrote.Specifically if you pair it with bizarre. One entry found for amoral. Main Entry: amor·al Pronunciation: (")A-'mor-&l, (")a-, -'mär- Function: adjective Date: 1882 1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral -- W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral> 2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals But by all means...drop it....im amoral....to the point of bizarre.... In that case i figure that goes for you to. Bluelight

Oct 6, 2003, 03:02 PM	#52
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,268 Rep Power: 76 System Specs	ffs cool it just agree to disagree the both of yous , yer like dogs fighting over a bone __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Oct 6, 2003, 03:19 PM	#53
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	I'm not fighting, and I have no interest in fighting. But at any rate, I am going to close this thread because the conversation seems to be over.

Oct 6, 2003, 04:49 PM	#54
Smoothdrive Foolish Genius Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 455 Rep Power: 0	It was over before it started IMO __________________ GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

Oct 13, 2003, 07:50 AM	#56
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,047 Rep Power: 206	yes, I recall that one...very well __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Oct 20, 2003, 07:17 AM	#59
drakesteakn boo!!!! Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Ft. Meyers, FL Posts: 2,041 Rep Power: 57	I haven't been in this post but i read thru. The CIA may have lied, but we are still there. Anything can come up. I support the war in all intentions, I have friends in iraq. They all say that their life is a lot better. They are now able to trade freely in the streets, get water, sewage, and electricty. Though its not fully restored in all places we are working to do so. I still say there is possiblity for anything. After reconstruction we will be able to dock at naval ports. We will have the concentrated naval power. With this ability we can maintain the peace in the middle east. Just because we didn't have UN support we also had support from over 20 other countries. Just because we didn't have support from the big names of the UN (France, Russia, Germany). And now the UN is going to sign the new resolution presented by the US. This gives us power to reconstruct with UN support but without their complete say. Iraq used chemical weapons on their own citizens. Is this any bit inhumane? Im sorry but i think we have done more good than bad.

Oct 20, 2003, 08:32 AM	#60
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,047 Rep Power: 206	for the most part, I believe that we will find and have found evidence of weapons programs, but like the planes that were buried in the sand. much lies beneath the shifting dunes. Whether we find anything or not, Saddam is gone..the issue is moot from my point of view, we must rebuild and get the hell out of IRAQ. on a side note, get the MAC address checked for the router and you might find your trouble, Neon Cowboy can help ya I think, I am exhausted, lol...wow, what a party, hee hee.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."