umm... no.

Post #52,525 by Simon_Jester 9/20/02 3:42:53 PM Reply	umm... no. A woman stumbles on the sidewalk and a man helps her up. It just so happens she's got big tits. What are his motives? The answer to this question is......."whatever motives you feel inclined to assign to him". and again - "um....no." Motivations are a question of opinion. They always have been; they always will be. But you telling me that I can't voice my opinions is unexcusable. If someone in Columbia had a secret nuclear bomb program....we would take every measure to stamp it out. Would it then be all about "the war on drugs"? Did we take every measure to stamp out Israel's attempt to acquire the nuclear bomb? Did we take every measure to stamp out India's attempt to acquire the nuclear bomb? Did we take every measure to stamp out Pakinstan's attempt to acquire the nuclear bomb? (A sidenote: I'm more than willing to admit the issue of Iraq is more than "just oil". The question is to what percentage it is more than "just oil." 95%? 60%? 20%? 1%?)
Post #52,528 by Mike 9/20/02 4:29:40 PM Reply	How very odd. Ummmm no. Then you say what I said. >>and again - "um....no." >>Motivations are a question of opinion. They always have been; >>they always will be. Bzzzzzzzzt........that's exactly what I said. If you're gonna say "umm...no" its common practice to then disagree. You're saying that because we allowed the situation with Pakistan/India/Israel we would do so also with Columbia? You are sorely mistaken. (But you are entitled to your opinion). >>But you telling me that I can't voice my opinions is unexcusable. Did you REALLY think I ACTUALLY meant that I believe you can't voice your opinions. Didn't think so. One word for you.......disingen... (you know the rest). -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #52,533 by Simon_Jester 9/20/02 5:18:05 PM Reply	Actually, that's what I thought you said. because...it is what you said. P.S. To those who keep droning on about it being JUST about the oil. SHADDUP!
Post #52,538 by Mike 9/20/02 5:39:51 PM Reply	Come and see the violence...... inherent in the system. Come OOOOOOOOOOOOOOON let's think it through..... "To those who keep droning on about it being JUST about the oil..... I refuse you your right to express your opinion." Just kinda ....well....its odd...isn't it? To say the least its a highly strained. What's more relavant I think is that its an interpretation of convenience for you. Strike that. Think I'll call it puerile. Can't you just hear Eric Idle screaming "Oh yes you did, you did, YOU DID threaten my rights of free speeech. Ooooooooooooooooooooooh what a give-away. Did you hear that? Help. Help. I'm being oppressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!". Look dude.......I have WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better things to do than argue with you over whether I am refusing (or attempting to) you your right to an opinion. If you genuinely think I do...I'm happy for you to go on thinking that. Here I'll write down for you: "I <Mike> hereby refuse Simon Jester the freedom to have an opinion or express it" There I said it. Okay bitch your turn. Go on hit me with your handbag. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #52,543 by Simon_Jester 9/20/02 5:53:41 PM Reply	Chuckle... actually, if you want to get technical, it reminded me of the inscessant whinning of a two-year-old having a temper tantrum. Wahhh! See, it's not about Oil! Wahhh! We really don't know the motivations of our elected officials! Wahhh! They might not be after oil! Wahhh! And if they get a little grope of oil, their motivations might've been to help someone! Waahh! And if it was Columbia, we'd be fighting the war on drugs AND STOP TELLING ME THINGS I DON'T WANT TO HEAR SHUDDUP!! WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! Sigh. Nope, you can't trample my right to speech that easily. And if you try to, a simple no should do the trick. (oh wait, I already said that, didn't I?)
Post #52,569 by Mike 9/20/02 10:59:28 PM Reply	I bow down.... ...to a superior intellect. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #52,529 by Mike 9/20/02 4:30:18 PM Reply	P.S. Read the links and comment on them please. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #52,536 by Simon_Jester 9/20/02 5:29:57 PM Reply	If you only want me to comment on the links.... don't raise hypothetical situations. If someone in Columbia had a secret nuclear bomb program....we would take every measure to stamp it out. Would it then be all about "the war on drugs"?
Post #52,541 by Mike 9/20/02 5:42:37 PM Reply	No no no no ..... naught naughty. I didn't say I ONLY want you to comment on the links. Now did I? P.S. Isn't the "obtuse" game fun? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #52,542 by Mike 9/20/02 5:46:19 PM Reply	Re: If you only want me to comment on the links.... >>don't raise hypothetical situations. I'm offended that you deny me my right to raise hypothetical situations. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #52,548 by Simon_Jester 9/20/02 6:36:03 PM Reply	Try again.. I'm offended that you deny me my right to raise hypothetical situations. Again, I didn't say you couldn't raise hypothetical situation...merely that you must expect me to comment on them if you do raise them. although I do admire the comedy. :-) However, back to business - 2 of your links are from the Nuclear Control Institute - a group I have no knowledge of. My minor research (and reading of the articles) indicates that NCI is primarily concerned with the nuclear weapons. However, the articles fail to show that Saddam Hussein has acquired nuclear weaspons. While it is true that Iraq\ufffds known nuclear facilities have been destroyed or were placed under monitoring (prior to December 1998) [...] Little is known about Iraq\ufffds efforts to enrich uranium for bombs using centrifuges, and the possibility remains that a small centrifuge cascade for this purpose is hidden somewhere in Iraq. [...] Although the IAEA recently conducted a routine investigation to confirm that these uranium stocks had not been removed, such inspections are required only once a year [...] Although it does give a lengthly argument detailing that Saddam Hussein wants the bomb. It also goes into a bit of detail regarding what it considers flaws of IAEA's inspection team. Which is all well and good. However, these arguments seem to present a conclusion that inspections should be enforced on Iraq with military might. (They also (imo) ignore the importance of chemical and biological weapons. It even quotes Hussein saying that he doesn't need the bomb because they have chemical weapons.) They are not good arguments for a regime change in Iraq. Considering the rhetoric coming from the White House and recent rumors, these links may actually enforce the concept that an invasion of Iraq to overthrow Hussein might not be linked to an attempt to prevent weapons of mass destruction.
Post #52,571 by Mike 9/20/02 11:04:54 PM Reply	Re: Try again.. >>It even quotes Hussein saying that he doesn't need the bomb because they have >>chemical weapons. And if you were reading carefully (which you weren't) you would have understood that this (its claimed) was an effort to dupe people into believing that nuclear bombs were not a priority. Seems it worked. -- William Shatner's Trousers --

Welcome to IWETHEY!