namelesstavern.net

by **Martrae** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:32 am

Wow...the same old argument again on NT....who'd ever have thunk it.

by **Zanchief** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:33 am

Harrison wrote:It's impossible to move inanimate objects.

Life's engine doesn't allow such things. It's in beta right now.

Cool, Fin found proof of WMDs.

by **Harrison** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:35 am

Well it's not proof until we're done beta testing it.

I almost dropped my glass under the world geometry the other day. Maybe Iraq figured this whole moving beta test out before the Canadians did *shrug*.

by **Zanchief** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:42 am

All this time the UN was looking in Iraq when they should have been looking in Fin's moms basement.

by **Langston** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:11 am

Whether or not you guys like or respect the UN is impertinent to the discussion. Whether or not they found WMDs after the fact is also impertinent to the discussion.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to point out that Lumpy is right in this case: Refusal to facilitate the UN Inspections per the Surrender and Cease Fire agreement was not only suspicious but also grounds for military action.

You may not like it. You may not agree with it. It doesn't matter. They broke the rules, they paid for it. You can cry for those poor "innocent" Iraqis all day long - it won't change the immutable fact that they violated the terms. Period.

by **Zanchief** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:14 am

...but then YOU ignore the UN...

by **Harrison** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:18 am

We're not under sanctions placed on us by the U.N....

Are we now...?

I didn't think so.

by **Zanchief** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:22 am

I think there's on little nugget of information you are forgetting. The UN was right. You were wrong.

by **Langston** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:24 am

The UN was right about what?

by **Zanchief** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:27 am

Are there any WMDs in Iraq?

by **Harrison** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:30 am

That quite frankly remains to be seen. And their existence INSIDE of Iraq's borders currently is irrelevent to this discussion.

Please do continue to vomit up worthless bits of information that is impertinent to the topic though...it sure does help you with credibility.

by **Langston** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:31 am

Langston wrote:Whether or not you guys like or respect the UN is impertinent to the discussion. Whether or not they found WMDs after the fact is also impertinent to the discussion.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

by **Zanchief** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:34 am

Harrison wrote:That quite frankly remains to be seen. And their existence INSIDE of Iraq's borders currently is irrelevent to this discussion.

Please do continue to vomit up worthless bits of information that is impertinent to the topic though...it sure does help you with credibility.

I thought we were talking about the UN being a corrupt piece of shit organization.

Shit, maybe that was another thread...let me check what moron wrote that.

by **Langston** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:35 am

Langston wrote:
Langston wrote:Whether or not you guys like or respect the UN is impertinent to the discussion. Whether or not they found WMDs after the fact is also impertinent to the discussion.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

by **Zanchief** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:35 am

Langston wrote:
Langston wrote:Whether or not you guys like or respect the UN is impertinent to the discussion. Whether or not they found WMDs after the fact is also impertinent to the discussion.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

but that isn't true, despite it being said twice.

by **Zanchief** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:36 am

3 times now.

by **mappatazee** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:40 am

Invading Iraq is for a military footprint. We're going to need it if we're to compete with China (and India) for the world's remaining oil. Just look at what China is doing lately.

by **Harrison** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:48 am

Fucking like rabbits and fucking up video game fun for the rest of the world?

by **xaoshaen** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:49 am

Langston wrote:
xaoshaen wrote:Iraq didn't violate the terms of the cease fire established at the end of the Gulf War.

Iraq didn't open fire on American servicemembers.

Increased oil prices drive demand even higher, allowing the oil companies to "pass on all costs to the consumer" and "clean up".

There are five lights!

You conveniently left out their refusal to submit to UN inspections - which IS part of the terms of their surrender in the first Gulf War.

Stop trying to make it out that Iraq is innocent... it's foolish to even attempt to portray them as such.

Ugz, you're dangerously close to forfeiting any further use of reading comprehension barbs.

by **Langston** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:56 am

I admit, I must have missed something - because I've read it now a half dozen times and I still don't see your point.

by **Langston** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:57 am

Zanchief wrote:
Langston wrote:
Langston wrote:Whether or not you guys like or respect the UN is impertinent to the discussion. Whether or not they found WMDs after the fact is also impertinent to the discussion.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

but that isn't true, despite it being said twice.

It most certainly IS true. Playing Monday morning quarterback is really easy - even a Canadian can do it.

by **Zanchief** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:58 am

He was sarcastic, for one.

by **xaoshaen** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:01 am

Langston wrote:I admit, I must have missed something - because I've read it now a half dozen times and I still don't see your point.

Did Iraq abide by the terms of the cease fire?

Did Iraq allow US military personnel to perform their legally obligated duties?

Do higher prices increase demand?

Were there five lights?

by **Langston** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:01 am

Zanchief wrote:He was sarcastic, for one.

I admit, I missed it.

by **10sun** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:04 am

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/

namelesstavern.net

Oil prices hit 65/barrel

Who is online