FoFa said:
Actually lack of proof is not proof he didn't.
It mystifies me how strongly you hold onto this terrible logic. Bush made claims about Iraq and used them to justify a war. The burden of proof lies in proving the claims are true. Lack of any evidence to suggest the claims are true is proof enough that they are false.
To parallel your logic in the justice system, your way goes something like this:
Your neighbor calls the police and says you killed someone. The police investigate, find no evidence whatsoever that you did so, but you are tired, foudn guilty, and sent to prison because... they couldn't prove you
didn't kill someone.
FoFa said:
What do you want, to invade Sudan to prove it?
What does invading the Sudan have to do with anything?
FoFa said:
Kraj said:
I hate Bush so I am going to continue with this retoric even if it is not true!
Would you care to direct me to where I said that? Nevermind. A simple search of the forums reveals that I've never said that, even in jest.
Pulling that kind of crap is unacceptable.
FoFa said:
Sorry, I explained how it didn't work, and you pretty much said "Nuh uh".
Actually, you didn't explain how, you just said it didn't and gave a vague reference to UN directives. I didn't "pretty much say 'Nuh uh'", I said you were wrong and gave reasons. If you could show why my reasons were wrong, then we have a discussion. But you didn't, you just contradicted without anything to back it up.