Ummcan you provide us with this literature?
We're not convinced... and you can't "prove us wrong" in an argument till you do that (unless mathimatically).
I mean the american explinations for war changed so much that it was laughable at times.
There were no WMD's found
It's VERY hard to move WMD's without detection, or leaving evidence... even during a war.
There's still no sadam to al-queda link... not unless you believe that SCO has nothing to do with microsoft and it owns all linux software ever made and that can fesably ever be though of :)
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:22,
archived)
We're not convinced... and you can't "prove us wrong" in an argument till you do that (unless mathimatically).
I mean the american explinations for war changed so much that it was laughable at times.
There were no WMD's found
It's VERY hard to move WMD's without detection, or leaving evidence... even during a war.
There's still no sadam to al-queda link... not unless you believe that SCO has nothing to do with microsoft and it owns all linux software ever made and that can fesably ever be though of :)
Sorry mate,but when the argument consists of "The Americans only ever gave ONE reason for the invasion of Iraq", then it is indeed mathematically possible to prove it wrong -- simply by proving that there was more than one reason. QED.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:35,
archived)
Actually, as mentioned above,They only presented one LEGAL reason for invasion to the UN, and it wasn't true.
Take your QED elsewhere (especially considering that this was originally an argument about the separation of church and state). You've proven nothing.
(Take your QED elsewhere (especially considering that this was originally an argument about the separation of church and state). You've proven nothing.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:38,
archived)