Bobert:

"Ninethly, how does one go about proving that don't possess something??? This is philosophically imnpossible... Deamnding it is the ultimate trick bag because it can't be done... If you don't have it then you don't have it..."

Is it any wonder that I emphasize things, when you are constantly proving you have no comprehension of basic English???


-----------------

Date: 17 Mar 09 - 06:34 AM

Bobert:

....

"And, in terms of simple logic, please spare us any answer that involves Saddam havin' to prove he didn't have something... This is basic logic here... One can never prove that one does not have something..."

Since the required proof that was demanded was the accounting for of material that Sqaddam was KNOWN to have ( by UN inspections of 1998 and earlier), there was no requirement for "proof that one does not have something" The proof was of the disposition of known material.

That is another strawman arguement that you have consistantly put in, even though you havce been told repeatedly that it was untrue.

YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. Basic Remedial Logic 001

------------------------------------------------------

Repeating a lie after being told the truth makes you a liar. Your accusations against my facts do not seem to have any support from reality: Perhgaps you should should reconsider who is making the " bald faced psychopathic ***lie***..."

You have obviously not read the UNR that you claim to have such an expert knowledge of...