Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatboy
Are you chemically imbalanced? You find the quote and I'll eat my monitor and never show up here ever again. I will take out a full page ad in the New York Times telling the world that I was wrong and Swamp-thing was right. Find the quote.
|
From the start:
"
I don't think it's a trivial point. What would it take to justify an invasion? I know we've had this discussion before but now we have a valid, real-life example. Would the intelligence have to be 100%? The weapon verified visually by two, unrelated sources? Could it only be one source, albeit a trustworthy one? Under no circumstances would an invasion be called for?"
"Wich country?" i asked.
"Any country that is unwilling or unable to pursue these terrorists within their borders."
"There are other ways of taking someone out. And if ALL the nations of the world were as committed to eradicating terrorism as they should be, invasions wouldn't be necessary."
In this above part, you are defending the invasion of any country harboring terrorists.
Now we go into the denial part:
"I only ask because, although it's quite clear that I haven't offered up any solutions ".
"I have clearly supported another plan; and have REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU THAT I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY THAT INVASION WAS A GOOD IDEA!"
I hope you enjoy your monitor sandwich. And since you pledged to post something on the NY Times, i expect you to be true to your word. You also said you would leave and never show your face again, wich although i´m inclined to agree you should, i won´t hold you to it.
Perhaps you can be a bit more carefull with what you post, so as to not fall in contradictions.
This concludes today´s class. Do you want ketchup with that monitor? Or a beer to push it down?
@Startup:
Since when do invasions take place without dropping bombs?
Fatboy is advocating invasion for any "rogue" state since we´ve met back in SR. The fact that he somehow "forgot" about it is not my business.