Iraq solution.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Comrade, And then you proceeded to say, "Hah! So you admit it was all for the oil!" Give me a break. Zeebadee, can you read? Bush even read his speech, can you hear? Yeah, and I could say you should use some more haughty faux-indignation.

Look at what you quoted me as saying! I never said that, did I? So, you lied.

[Comrade]

Oh no!

The sentiment was the same, stop complaining about semantics.

(before you post that I'm doing the same, re-read the part about sentiment)

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Comrade, Oh no! The sentiment was the same, stop complaining about semantics. (before you post that I'm doing the same, re-read the part about sentiment)

Deliberately misquoting someone is hardly "semantics"! You flat out lied, and you're not even man enough to admit it.

[Comrade]

You people throw around insults and accusations of lying a bunch.

I embellished your statements. Why are you avoiding the topic at hand?

[Zeebadee]

The topic at hand currently is your lying. The proof is right in your post. Deny it if you want, but everyone can see it. You're not allowed to "embellish" quotes.

[Comrade]

"Hah! So you admit it was all for the oil!"

"So, you finally admit that this war is about Iraq's oil."

Just for reference.

Hmm, I added "hah!" "finally" omitted "that", replaced this war with "it" and replaced "is about Iraq's oil" with "all for the oil."

Really huge difference, despite the fact that both statements say the exact same thing.

You left out the obligatory charge of me being either a Nazi or a Brownshirt.

[Zeebadee]

Both statements do not say the same thing. And that's not the point anyway. The point is that quotes should be accurate. You lied.

[Comrade]

I also think its pretty funny that you say that you aren't allowed to embellish quotes, while at the same time saying Bush said Saddam was an immediate threat.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Comrade, I also think its pretty funny that you say that you aren't allowed to embellish quotes, while at the same time saying Bush said Saddam was an immediate threat.

What does this have to do with you lying?

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, I have never said that Bush was the only one to come to this conclusion. But he WAS the only one to start a war over it!!!

Actually you're wrong again. Tony Blair, the PM from Austrailia and 40 someodd other countries were along for the ride too.

[Zeebadee]

And, by the way, I never said that Bush said saddam was an immediate threat, did I?

[Comrade]

They don't say the same thing?

The first one says that I admitted the war was about oil.

The second ones says that I admitted that the war was about oil.

[Comrade]

".. I didn't say he was currently producing them,..." Then how was he any immediate threat??

Well, this means to me that you think SOMEONE told you that Saddam was supposed to be an immediate threat, and person most often misquoted on this is Bush.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Zeebadee, I have never said that Bush was the only one to come to this conclusion. But he WAS the only one to start a war over it!!!

Actually you're wrong again. Tony Blair, the PM from Austrailia and 40 someodd other countries were along for the ride too.[/b][/quote]

The U.S. was the first to start the war:

"The war against Iraq begins 5:30 a.m. Baghdad time (9:30 p.m. EST, March 19), when the U.S. launches Operation Iraqi Freedom." (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/0/9/0/8/7/9/A0908792.html"

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, The U.S. was the first to start the war: "The war against Iraq begins 5:30 a.m. Baghdad time (9:30 p.m. EST, March 19), when the U.S. launches Operation Iraqi Freedom." (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/0/9/0/8/7/9/A0908792.html"

This means what? That nobody else did? Where is the logic there?

Or maybe you are saying that the people with the most potent military shouldn't go first?

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Comrade, ".. I didn't say he was currently producing them,..." Then how was he any immediate threat?? Well, this means to me that you think SOMEONE told you that Saddam was supposed to be an immediate threat, and person most often misquoted on this is Bush.

No, it was a question that meant only what it said. And you still haven't apologized for your lie.

[Comrade]

My lie, haha. Now I think I understand the reasoning behind "Bush lied!"

Tell me, have you ever had a conversation with someone who mimicked something you said back to you?

Apparantly not, and if you did, I doubt they talked to you again afterwards.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Comrade,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Zeebadee, The U.S. was the first to start the war: "The war against Iraq begins 5:30 a.m. Baghdad time (9:30 p.m. EST, March 19), when the U.S. launches Operation Iraqi Freedom."  (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/0/9/0/8/7/9/A0908792.html"

This means what? That nobody else did? Where is the logic there?

Or maybe you are saying that the people with the most potent military shouldn't go first?[/b][/quote]

It means just what it says: The U.S. started the war at 5:30 Baghdad time. Are you really having trouble reading? How much logic is required to read that?

[Comrade]

So did you just state a fact for no purpose, to support no arguement?
Not even the arguement that you just made against Dieval?

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Comrade, My lie, haha. Now I think I understand the reasoning behind "Bush lied!" Tell me, have you ever had a conversation with someone who mimicked something you said back to you? Apparantly not, and if you did, I doubt they talked to you again afterwards.

Still trying to avoid admitting you lied??