Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I stated that Saddam continually acted in a defiant manner. Here is a definition of defiance.
|
I addressed that already.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I saw his acts of defiance as a threat (fact).
|
You have to demonstrate he was being "defiant" first.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Your facts are different.
|
My conclusions are different because I'm using all of the facts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Assume you agreed that Saddam was acting in a defiant manner. Would you have done anything about it, why or why not? If so, what?
|
He was striking back against the US, but the UN situation was a lot different. I can't be defiant against you because you're not an authority. Likewise, the US is not an authority over Iraq therefore Iraq cannot be defiant agains the US any more than we can against them. If you really want to suggest that Iraq was being defiant, then you have to equally say that the US was being defiant. Which I doubt you're prepared to do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think the standard you set here is unrealistic. I think based on your standard I could find that everyone would qualify as a lier on virtually every issue they communicate to others on. Are you one of the people who are the cause of ladders needing a sticker saying that using a ladder may result in a fall?
|
You have yet to demonstrate how Saddam could have hurt the US or our allies. Should I post the dictionary definition of "threat"?