egafd.com

Sometimes I am wrong, though not in discussion with you.

You're unbelievable.

You want me to say I'm wrong to claim Saddam used chemical weapons, or invaded Kuwait because there has been no judgement passed in an international court, but you want to claim the Iraq war was illegal without bothering with a judgement in an international court.

Seems you've a dilemma to sort, David. Using this tactic might score you a few points, but it also backs up my own main point -the point that started this whole discussion- that you were wrong in calling the Iraq war illegal when no one has been put on trial. You really can't have it both ways.

What do you do? You cannot attempt to bring me down without carrying out Suppuku.

"You want me to say I'm wrong to claim Saddam used chemical weapons, or invaded Kuwait because there has been no judgement passed in an international court, but you want to claim the Iraq war was illegal without bothering with a judgement in an international court"

You completely and utterly miss the point. I am turning YOUR OWN ARGUMENT AGAINST YOU in order to prove the illogicality of your view.

Re-read the thread and you might eventually get it.

Okay? Got it now? Blimey.....

Hello!

[quote]You completely and utterly miss the point. I am turning YOUR OWN ARGUMENT AGAINST YOU in order to prove the illogicality of your view. [/quote]

Oh.....I haven't missed the point at all. You was wrong calling the Iraq war illegal and know you're wrong. After trying to justify your false allegations, and failing, you then try and pull the discussion along and argue against further points surrounding the matter. A diversion to cover up your initial error.

Once you admit you were wrong, we can move on to the other subjects and later points we both made.

I find your "you must agree with me that you are wrong, otherwise I will not discuss this with you" line even more tedious now than I did three months ago.

Bit like Miliband asking Cameron a question and Cameron sits down, has a hissy fit and refuses to speak and answer any more questions until Miliband agrees that he, Cameron was right all along.

Do leave off.

[quote]I find your "you must agree with me that you are wrong, otherwise I will not discuss this with you" line even more tedious now than I did three months ago.[/quote]

Or you're pissed off I won't let you take control of the argument, having your own way and taking it down alleys that ignore the main point........the point I got you bang to rights on.

Come back when you can man up and admit you were wrong. I've no time for you otherwise.

"Come back when you can man up and admit you were wrong. I've no time for you otherwise."

I know. You always go into hiding when you have lost an argument. You did the same when we discussed your favourite politician, Nick Clegg's performance post-election. How wonderful he turned out to be.

No doubt you are equally delighted by the amazing success of the Libyan intervention, one of your many favourite Western interventions.

"When you can man up".

You are the one having a hissy fit when I refuse to agree with you.

Going back into hiding now are you?

Now now.......I debated Nick Clegg with you for the best part of 2 years. It came to the point where that's all I came here to do. You expected me to be here at your beck and call to answer questions about Nick Clegg. 2 years, remember. Even defendants in murder trials rarely have to answer so many questions for so long. It was stupid.

It's similar here. You blatantly stated something as if it was fact, I pulled you up on it and rather than hold your hands up and reword your original false statement you tried to pull the conversation round the houses in the hope of diverting attention from your original mistake.

I've asked you time and time again to admit you were wrong so we can move on with other parts of the discussion but you refuse. If you refuse then what can I do other than remove myself from the debate? I've told you I'll answer any questions you have after you admit you were wrong to call the Iraq war illegal, given no international court has deemed it so. That's give and take. I'm meeting you half way. I think that's fair. You, on the other hand, want it all your own way. You want me to ignore your major gaffe and just sit answering your questions. Refusing to play into your hands isn't running away, David. It's realising I'm debating with someone who doesn't really care about the topic at hand but only their own pride.

This attitude of yours here does you no favours.

Sam,

Your line on this continues to be hilarious.

As I have argued I believe that the Iraq War was illegal based on the views of Kofi Annan, the head of the UN

You then wriggle hilariously as you try over a number of posts to come up with all sorts of reasons why the Iraq War was legal. I undermine them all basically because you have not spotted they are in all cases years after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Do I have a hissy fit? No. Do I leave the forum in disgust because you are being nasty to me and wasting my time by not agreeing with me? No I don't. Do I demand that you should agree with me or I will never answer any of your questions? No I do not.

Do grow up a little, please?

I'll be away. I'll leave an X on a note in a bottle outside and they can fight among themselves for it.