1  |   Order by index

Mar 11, 2003, 5:44am

sw chris <chrisw10 at skywalkeronline.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e6d64b3 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> All of my arguements are factually based. Yours are not. Guess who would
> win in a debate?
Well, as I see it , the problems is the lack of proofs. Maybe you can
present something that US goverment cannot ?
I seriously doubt us debating will change anything. What I would like to see
is a debate between Saddam and George, but one of them is too chicken for
that.
>
> 1. I'm not racist. So I can't be a Nazi. References available upon
> request.
I guess you will be happy to know that there is a Nazistic group in Sweden
that is against racism. To me a nazi is more a person who tries to inforce
his "right" on other people. We are attacking your coutry for your own best
( like Poland)

> 2. I personally think Bush should ease off of Iraq and concentrate on
Iran.
> In light of recent news, a nuclear Iran could sweep in and usurp a
> militarily weakened Iraq. But since policy can't be changed that quickly,
> and Saddam is still a credible threat (i.e. Better safe than sorry), I
> support military action. I do not support my government's actions or
their
> motives 100%. You want an example? I just gave you one.

Well, I am glad there is atleast a little bit critizism in you :) Maybe you
some day will stop and wonder if all they say on CNN is true or not also.

> 3. Saddam's had 12 years. I'm not trigger happy. I'm sick of the UN's
> endless resolutions and sympathetic to a country's exiles who are crying
out
> and asking for someone to do something about Saddam. This whole situation
> reminds me of Rwanda, which also asked for help, but the UN did nothing.

Yes Rwanda was a disaster. I also agree UN should have more guts. But the
situation in Iraque is not similar to Rwanda. I just think Blix should be
allowed to finish his work. IF he finds something, then we are infront of a
new situation. You say Saddam has been there for 12 years, so I do not see
what one or two more months would change so dramatically.

> 4. Ignorant? Perhaps it is you that is that. I can back up my arguments
> with facts. Can you?

Maybe I am yes, I have never said I am not. Not sure what facts you would
like to have? USA (you) are claiming they have this and that, I say they
have not found this and that,, not quite sure how either of us could back
that up without going there, and even if we did, we might not be any wiser.

> 5. Paranoid? Better safe than sorry. If you call that paranoid, then I
> say to you that you need a finer command of the English language. :) I'm
> prudent.

I think paranoid is a quite good word for seeing the boogieman allover :-)

> 6. Stupid? Again, my arguements are factually based.

I have nothing against stupid people and want not any disrespect towards
them. It is just a feature like talented, artistic or nearsighted. I might
be stupid for not beliving in everything goverments say, then again you
might be because you belive their propaganda. I guess if we continue this
discussion in 5 years we will know who was more stupid.
>
> Chris

Drac
>
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index