There is no sense arguing with an idiot people.

There is no sense arguing with a troll either.

8/31/2007 6:47:39 PM

...


We are not having a discussion on whether Saddam had chemical weapons. This is a discussion that's been held thousands of times over the past four years. The resounding conclusion is that the reports over WMDs, chemical weapons, and nuclear capabilities were at best grossly overstated and at worst completely and totally inaccurate.


Holy crap... hello and welcome to THREE FUCKING YEARS AGO.

8/31/2007 6:56:45 PM

I happen to think they moved them to Syria before the inspections

What exactly are you trying to add to the discussion? That since we haven't found them he didn't have them? Cause thats already been said ad nauseum

8/31/2007 7:05:10 PM

People are tired of your lunacy. So offer up a slightly less retarded sounding comment in order to suck them back in. Its right out of the TreeTwista school of trolling internet nerds!

Some things never change.

8/31/2007 7:12:00 PM

i like how you of all people, tww's biggest troll, said theres no sense arguing with a troll...i got a chuckle out of that one

8/31/2007 7:13:54 PM

Yea, some stoner pot head said I am the biggest troll, all 3 posts a day of me, so it must be true!

Have you won an argument in this section...ever?

8/31/2007 7:16:20 PM

3 posts a day, huh?

did you revert back to your "nobody knows I'm state409c/typegay/baldhate/partisanfag" mentality?

8/31/2007 7:17:31 PM

Umm, I didn't revert to anything. You however are still your old retardo troll the soap box self you have been for a very long time!

8/31/2007 7:21:01 PM

but you claimed you werent the biggest troll and that you only had a 3 posts/day count

i figured you forgot that everyone knew who you were, but i guess i was giving you too much credit

edit:

and of course you did revert to one thing...the wolf web...after having your 4th (at least) account suspended.....for trolling

[Edited on August 31, 2007 at 7:23 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2007 7:22:22 PM

If you think I am the biggest troll, then you have a sick sort of fascination with me. I think you want to be me!

8/31/2007 7:23:49 PM

nice job of changing the subject when you get pwnt again and again...you already exhausted the "pothead" and "retard" arguments so now you're acting like you don't care

oh well whatever makes you stop posting...nothing though, as history would tell us...not even multiple suspensions! cause you'll just pay 5 more of your parents dollars for another account!

[Edited on August 31, 2007 at 7:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2007 7:24:33 PM

5 more of my parents dollars? Have you smoked yourself stupid? I make more than my parents





































combined.

8/31/2007 7:27:28 PM

just the other week (under a different one of your aliases) you were saying how you got paid by your parents not to work...oh well, i guess thats what i get for believing anything you say

8/31/2007 7:28:50 PM

What?

8/31/2007 7:30:23 PM

meh...with some other people i might try to be reasonable but i dont really need to convince anybody in TSB that youre just a worthless bald troll...they all realize that

8/31/2007 7:32:55 PM

Based on what I have seen in this section in the past couple months, I don't think anyone gives a shit either way. So you can't win or lose. ** shrug **

8/31/2007 7:33:59 PM

Quote :

"you can't win "

8/31/2007 7:35:25 PM

If iraq had WMD...there would be a lot more dead american soldiers in 2003.

8/31/2007 7:39:23 PM

agreed...i guess the UN charade at least prevented additional american casualties...i just HOPE that they didnt move them to syria

8/31/2007 7:40:33 PM

my point is they don't have them...they did during the Iraq and Iran war and i wouldn't be surprised if they used their whole US stash on that war.

[Edited on August 31, 2007 at 8:04 PM. Reason : w]

8/31/2007 8:04:35 PM

perhaps...but i also wouldnt be surprised that, if they were willing to get them and use them on their own people in the first place....and then ran out of them in the iraq/iran war...that they might pursue their own program as a means to re-arm themselves

8/31/2007 8:11:03 PM

Why wouldn't the pursue a program to get them again? Way to lose terribly in your "they have them but moved them" argument to something completely different and utterly pointless.

8/31/2007 9:16:38 PM

It's very revealing that the foamies chose to focus on rehashing old condemnations in the WMD debate. I knew you would do just that, so I demonstrated that even Bill Clinton believed Iraq possessed WMDs. Why didn't you focus on the UN blunder described in my initial post? The answer, of course, is self-evident.

Here is the quotation at issue again:

Quote :

"2. This is just sloppy work by UN officials. I mean, these are potentially dangerous chemicals--removed from Iraq during an inspection--and they just toss them in an office somewhere and forget about them?"

Are any of you actually defending this?

9/1/2007 1:36:21 AM

Quote :

" The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission."

End thread.

9/1/2007 8:22:39 AM

Quote :

"It's very revealing that the foamies chose to focus on rehashing old condemnations in the WMD debate."

Do you mean old condemnations like:

We ain't found shit?



Or do you mean old condemnations like there has been no publicly presented evidence that WMDs were moved to Syria or elsewhere?

Quote :

"Here is the quotation at issue again: [...blah blah blah...]"

That is the quotation at issue? HAHAHA...classic hooksaw maneuver: when you lose at one thing, pretend that you were talking about something else.

If sloppy UN work was your 'point', then why did you mention Saddam at all? Why did you mention WMDs? Why is it number two on your list of 'points'?

9/1/2007 8:24:42 AM

What worries me is the number of people who dislike the UN solely because it doesn't always give them what they want. He doesn't have any problem with how the organization functions, he's just pissy it didn't find what he thinks it should have.

9/1/2007 5:07:11 PM

im glad i went away for the summer, this place has gone to shit

9/2/2007 4:08:59 PM

why has no one posted this yet

Quote :

"Fooled again. Chemicals discovered in the United Nations' Manhattan offices - feared to be a toxic agent produced by Saddam Hussein's regime a decade ago - may be nothing worse than a cleaning solvent, sources said yesterday. Preliminary tests show the substance, which was found Aug. 24, was not the potentially fatal phosgene, sources said. "It's not phosgene, and it tested negative for all other chemical warfare agents. It's not dangerous, and it's not what they thought they had," a law enforcement source said."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/05/2007-09-05_chemical_wmd_found_at_un_may_be_little_m.html

9/7/2007 12:31:42 PM

HAHAHA--WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU NOW, HOOKSAW?

9/7/2007 3:53:55 PM

It took the UN a week to do tests on cleaning chemicals? They sure are on top of things as usual!

9/7/2007 4:01:32 PM

Quote :

"Tests at a military facility in Maryland identified the substance as a nontoxic commercial solvent, said Paul J. Brown, deputy commissioner of the New York City Police Department."

shut the fuck up treetwister

9/7/2007 4:09:07 PM

ok? what does that have to do with the UN being incompetent as shit? nothing, idiot

9/7/2007 4:10:12 PM

you want to try to make the point that the UN is "incompetent as shit" by referencing the fact that it took a week to conduct the tests on the chemical....


when the UN had nothing to do with conducting the tests....


who's incompetent?

9/7/2007 4:12:02 PM

Quote :

"The material 'could be potentially hazardous', but did not pose any immediate risk, a UN spokeswoman said"

the UN had something to do with that

Quote :

"who's incompetent?"

the UN

man that Oil-For-Food program was awesome! The UN is the greatest!

[Edited on September 7, 2007 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2007 4:12:59 PM

You don't make any sense.

9/7/2007 6:34:41 PM

Quote :

"HAHAHA--WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU NOW, HOOKSAW?"

A Tarzansanus

I'M RIGHT HERE, DIPSHIT!

Quote :

"The material 'could be potentially hazardous', but did not pose any immediate risk, a UN spokeswoman said. UN deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said the substances had been secured by experts at the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic)."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6971232.stm

1. The UN spokeswoman said that the material "could be potentially hazardous," not me.

2. The UN spokeswoman said that the "substances had been secured by experts at the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic)." So, these "experts" couldn't immediately distinguish between phosgene and cleaning solvent and you somehow find that comforting?

3. The United Nations cannot manage to catalog materials in its surrounding offices in such a manner that cleaning solvent will not be confused with truly dangerous chemicals collected from a rogue state? This is not incompetence? Had a member of the Bush administration done such a thing, you and the other members of your left-wing circle jerk would be jumping up and down and howling "ain't it awful!"

So, just why are you and your cohorts claiming some sort of "gotcha" moment again? Oh, it's because you're idiots. These UN "experts" have managed to "secure" some Spic and Span. GG!

[Edited on September 7, 2007 at 11:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2007 10:57:38 PM

Quote :

"So, these "experts" couldn't immediately distinguish between phosgene and cleaning solvent and you somehow find that comforting?"

Since you seem to know so much, what is it about phosgene that should make it immediately distinguishable from cleaning solvent that these bunch of inept so called experts couldn't detect? Talk about a strawman argument. But thats what you are known for around here, right?

9/7/2007 11:29:23 PM

^^

Good lord... someone get me my crayons...

Quote :

"1. The UN spokeswoman said that the material "could be potentially hazardous," not me. 2. The UN spokeswoman said that the "substances had been secured by experts at the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic)." So, these "experts" couldn't immediately distinguish between phosgene and cleaning solvent and you somehow find that comforting? 3. The United Nations cannot manage to catalog materials in its surrounding offices in such a manner that cleaning solvent will not be confused with truly dangerous chemicals collected from a rogue state? This is not incompetence? Had a member of the Bush administration done such a thing, you and the other members of your left-wing circle jerk would be jumping up and down and howling "ain't it awful!" So, just why are you and your cohorts claiming some sort of "gotcha" moment again? Oh, it's because you're idiots. These UN "experts" have managed to "secure" some Spic and Span. GG! "

1) Doesn't change the fact that these substances are not "evidence of concealed WMDs from Iraq"

2) No one here is basing our assertions solely on the findings of the UN. Congratulations, you've proven that the UN is a political nut-house. Impressive... really.

3) UN incompetence does not justify Bush's incompetence. Last I checked only one of the two started a war with the WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY.


And for the record, we're all fully aware that even liberals and liberal-minded institutions can be corrupt, stupid, partisan, and utterly incompetant. THIS IS NOT NEWS, and it does not justify the stupid, corrupt, partisan, and utterly incompetant things that everyone else does. I reject idiocy in all forms, from all people, and from all ideologies.

9/8/2007 1:38:39 AM

"incompetant"

9/8/2007 4:49:47 AM

Quote :

"you and your cohorts"

Sweet, I have cohorts. Now, all I need is a couple of henchmen and I'll be ready to take over the world!

9/8/2007 8:54:42 AM

^^ Awesome, want a cookie?


This thread is nothing but your latest lame attempt to resurrect tired, old, factually devoid talking points about the Iraq war. Your case consists of stringing together a few vaguely relevant news articles and playing connect-the-dots. I've seen more coherent arguments put forth by conspiracy theorists.

Quote :

"It's very revealing that the foamies chose to focus on rehashing old condemnations in the WMD debate. I knew you would do just that, so I demonstrated that even Bill Clinton believed Iraq possessed WMDs."

Yes Clinton did think they had WMDs. He was also smart enough to know that, despite this, Iraq was not worth invading. Dick Cheney said precisely that back in 1992, 1994, and 1996. Why? B/c Iraq was never an imminent threat to the US.


Now shut the fuck up.

[Edited on September 9, 2007 at 1:43 AM. Reason : bg]

9/9/2007 1:41:19 AM

word, son.

9/9/2007 1:54:08 AM

^^^ You're dumb, A Tarzansanus.

cohort: "a companion or associate."

^^ and ^ Fuck you and the left-wing circle jerk you rode in on.

9/9/2007 4:21:58 AM

No, you're dumb!!!11!!!!!1!!


dipshit: "a stupid or incompetent person"












[Edited on September 9, 2007 at 8:36 AM. Reason : Seriously, why did you feel the need to define cohort?]

9/9/2007 8:35:22 AM

^^ Haha well we've reduced him to lame jokes and pathetic references to foamies and circle jerks...

Face the facts... let this thread die... b/c you're dead fucking wrong on this issue.

9/9/2007 12:57:32 PM

^^^i think he was referring to Roman Cohorts.

9/9/2007 4:49:26 PM

^^^ Um. . .because you obviously didn't know the meaning of the word at issue. But now that I've educated you, you have a better understanding of it.

^^ and ^ SEE IT NOW: THE LEFT-WING CIRCLE JERK IN ACTION!

9/9/2007 7:25:11 PM

Please ol' sage one, tell me how I misused cohorts.

9/9/2007 7:28:54 PM

Respond to my rebuttals of your pathetically lame argument... I dare you...


Otherwise, stfu

9/9/2007 9:59:06 PM

^^ No problem: Clearly, you attached a negative connotation to "cohorts" when none was indicated. In contrast, despite the etymology of the word, "henchmen" carries a generally accepted negative connotation.

For example, one might say, "Hillary Clinton and her cohorts have arrived," with no negative connotation associated with the sentence. But one certainly would not say, "Hillary Clinton and her henchmen have arrived," without a clearly negative connotation being indicated. QED.

Once again, you have been schooled.

Quote :

"^ Fuck you and the left-wing circle jerk you rode in on."

9/10/2007 2:01:05 AM