[QUOTE]Originally posted by glenmore

Quote:

Originally posted by Manu how about answering those question one after the other using the little ref. numbers? I am just your typical conservative knucklehead, far from articulate, but even I can easily refute all these arguments. But why should I? As if you would change your mind? When I find the time, I'll take on the most egregious arguments. Don't try and hide behind the "I'm for peace" banner, you are pure and simply anti-American and anti-Bush.

Oh yeah? Well then answer them one by one, if you're that good and it's that easy. Just in the interest of the debate, of course. Come on, one after the other, using the little numbers.

Thanks for proving my point about not being able to answer a single one of those questions but trying to discredit the people who disagree with you, in that case by calling me anti-american.
Great application of democracy. Like it or not, I don't try to put down people I disagree with, can you claim the same? I am so much more in touch with democracy and freedom of speech than you'll ever be. Hey I got an idea, why don't you and LGB and all the other people who think like you just put all those who disagree into little working camps? That would be a great way to silence all those ungrateful tree-huggers, right? You could even exterminate them. You'd love that wouldn't you? How do you say it again? First Iraq, then France right?

As LGB said "When this happens in your homes, you'll have the right to speak blah blah" Well I would like to read your thoughts about the resolution signed by the City of New York yesterday who officially opposes a war which is not accepted by the UN.
Figures show that 75% of New Yorkers are against an unilateral action in Iraq. Where does that put people like you and LGB? You like to speak on other people behalf don't you. Cause none of you two come from NY...

As far as being anti-bush, yes I am, I believe that this man has erased decades of effort relating to nuclear disarmement, pollution, and in general understanding between the people of the world. He is a coward, deserting little twat, he was probably sipping coke somewhere in the US while the boys, (read, the poor boys) were swamping along in Vietnam...He's just the puppet of that frustrated ugly brat Condolezza Rice, which is the true actual US president...

Hey Einstein,

One last thing though: How many anti-americans do you see rolling around in 63 Impala's? Point made, you are just a pure and simple imbecile. Probably a coward too, cause you're at home typing this while the boys are out in the desert...thus proving the exact relevance of question number 28...;)

Links :

http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=50256&group=webcast

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/ny-nywar133170836mar13,0,5837419.story?coll=nyc-manheadlines-manhattan

;)

Hmmm....does it have to be in that order?

Thank you so much for proving my point. You're a nazi, or at least have the same pattern of thought. http://www.snowtroopers.ca/forumicon...use_smiley.gif


NEXT!

And you, my friend, are a self-righteous pontificating jackass who can't tell a tongue-in-cheek response from a serious one ("just a peaceful man" - yeah, right). I worked for Paribas for several years (prior to the BNP merger) and spent a fair bit of time in Paris. I have a number of French friends from those days, all of whom are intelligent, sensible people. I don't know their views on the impending war, but I know they aren't sucked in by Chirac's self-serving power play.

Like many of your apparent political persuasion you demonize anyone who disagrees with your views - by definition, they're either fools or knaves. Let me save you some time composing your posts - refer to mid-60's Vietnamese/Korean press releases for your text. I haven't been called an imperialist running dog in way too long. BTW, it's no longer fashionable in leftist circles to label people as Nazis - much too specific. "Fascist" is the generic epithet of choice.:rolleyes:

"

OK. We'll start with this easy one.

"28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?"

So non-veteran citizens have no right to decide whether their country goes to war? You think the military should have exclusive determination on whether a country should go to war?

Do you know how silly you sound?

Now, I was a little confused also when it came to light that when Bush and Rummy went to the military to wage war, the generals were not enthusiatic. Why? Isn't the military just like we saw in Dr. Strangelove? Not after Clinton got thru with the military. That is one of Clinton's legacies.

OK. Let's put the Iraqi sitiuation to a vote! Only military personnel and veterans are allowed to vote. Gee, I wonder what the vote would be?

Heated debate is fine, name callign is not. Any further name calling will result in this entire thread being deleted instead of closed.

You can discuss the issue, but don't call people names for having their own opinion that they are entitled to.

Plain and simple.

Alon