You need to wipe the Howard DEan Man chowder off your ing eyelids to see that Bush wasnt the only one to believe sadaam had weapons. ANd i repeat you big dumb trophy, that the intelligence used to prosecute the war was from the CLinton administration asshole.
Nice to see you are unaffected by hype. Well, he certainly had his chance last time didn't he? Why did he not do it then?I guess you forget the threats and the 25,000 body bags and the assessments he would use his WMD's when we invaded.That was Ari's quote, not mine -- take it up with him.I guess we should just abandon our 1998 plan for regime change because, well, it was all about the WMD's now wasn't it?
So the invasion was Clinton's idea.You need to wipe the Howard DEan Man chowder off your ing eyelids to see that Bush wasnt the only one to believe sadaam had weapons. ANd i repeat you big dumb trophy, that the intelligence used to prosecute the war was from the CLinton administration asshole.
Very sound spin.
Yeah i'm an independent too., i now have a teflon sheild to protect me from accusations that i too am partisan.
Clinton has more than his fair share of mistakes. Starting this war wasn't one of them.
Only he can answer that. But, personally, I believe it's because we caught him off guard. I believe he was assured by his corrupt cronies in France, Russia, Germany, and the U.N. that they would reign the U.S. in and that an invasion wouldn't happen.
If you remember, we started with bombing Baghdad and putting Hussein on the run and, further, cutting command and communications from any field units that may have had the WMD's to deploy.
Maybe we executed the invasion perfectly -- after all, we took Baghdad, toppled the regime, defeated the 5th largest army in the world, and overcame duststorms, severed supply line, and your poo pooing all in 21 days. By any measure the most phenomenal military operation in the history of warfare.
I think the element of surprise is why he didn't use them.
The second scenario is that he had been destroying them all along -- albeit without declaring such destruction to UNSCOM -- and was bluffing everybody, including his own military leaders who have all said they thought he had them and would use them.
Third, he moved them to another country, possibly Syria as has been suggested.
Fourth, their under the sand like those MiGs were.
I think that they never existed would be my last guess, given all the history and evidence.
So they either never existed or we let them get away and we have no idea where they are.
Mission accomplished.
Or one of the other scenarios.
And, it could be that we know exactly where they are but -- gee, maybe you and I are not in that intelligence loop. I would imagine that it would be on a need to know basis, if the weapons are no longer in Iraq.
There's only one other scenario -- that he had been destroying them all along.
1) Never had them
2) Had them but destryoed them
3) Had them and hid them, we have no idea where
Which do you believe?
^^^ YEs seeing how bush has already declared the war on terror to be over.[sarcasm] Nice try.
I believe they're in Syria...but, I'm not in a position to know. And, neither are you.
Take it up with the banner writers.
So my saying they were already destroyed is just as valid. Understood.
Regime change was accomplished and that was the mission that was accomplished.
Given what followed, I tend to agree, it was an unfortunate display but, it was a moral booster for the troops involved in the initial invasion.
^either way. We limit the production of WMD's if any of those scenarios exist. And in either way. Invasion or not, those wmd's can still be used. But we should withdraw already...right.
Sure. But, he had a duty to declare that to the U.N. and he didn't. There were tons of chemical and biological weapons he failed to account for and he was, admittedly, engaged in highly su ious activities during the period when UNSCOM was not allowed in the country. Including, regardless of what Joe Wilson says, the attempted purchase of yellowcake uranium from some country in Africa.
No, it's far too late to withdraw. And if the WMDs are still out there in the hands of those to whom we were afraid Saddam would give them -- how much safer are we?
A lot safer. Having the components of the weapons out there (maybe even in a place we know) without the infrastructure and scientific personnel to make them work -- as Saddam Hussein had -- is better than what existed in pre-invasion Iraq.
There you go with your spin again. I'm talking actual WMDs. It's so convenient to reduce them to pre-pre-precursors when you don't know where they are, and then say a shotgun is being pointed at you when you think you know where they are.
You never make up your mind, so I you lose any credibility.
I admit it, I don't know where they are.
How do you know they didn't exist? He had them, we know he had them, he was supposed to declare them and destroy them and he didn't. So, you tell me, where are they?
I choose to believe my President and all of the evidence presented by his and the previous administration. From where does your belief that he didn't have them come?
I know he had them years before the invasion. Nothing else.How do you know they didn't exist?It's nice that you are asking the same question I asked at the beginning of this thread. Flattering, really -- but I was first -- and it took you this many pages to admit you didn't know.So, you tell me, where are they?The fact we found none. I pray our administration wasn't so incompetent and criminally negligent as to ignore making the securing of WMDs a priority during the invasion after pimping it as the reason to attack in the first place. I sincerely want to believe that isn't the case, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to do so.I choose to believe my President and all of the evidence presented by his and the previous administration. From where does your belief that he didn't have them come?
That's not exactly true unless, of course, you haven't been paying attention since 1991. You also know he never disclosed the disposition of thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons as he was obligated to do under UNSC resolutions.
So, where are the thousands of tons he was known to possess and never declared?
Back to my Jimmy Hoffa example. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And, there was much more evidence pointing to Saddam Hussein having WMDs than there was that Jimmy Hoffa was murdered but, you have no problem believing he was whacked by the mob, I bet.
I think that's because it is what you want to believe.
Nothing is "exactly true" is it?That's not exactly trueWhy do you keep parrotting my questions? You seem very content in not knowing that fact. I'm not.So, where are the thousands of tons he was known to possess and never declared?Absence of evidence is absense of evidence.Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.What's the evidence? Hearsay? That was easy to believe with Saddam, wasn't it?you have no problem believing he was whacked by the mob, I bet.Quite the contrary -- I want to believe we did the right thing the right way, but I'm not going to ignore evidence to the contrary just to make myself feel better.I think that's because it is what you want to believe.
Especially that you refuse to acknowledge he possessed weapons that we know not their disposition.
I'm interested in your answer. And, no, I'm not either. I'd feel better if we knew where they were.
But, it's not evidence of absence.
Actually, I believe we have him saying he'd use them if we invaded. Of course, he also made statements that he didn't have them. Then he obstructed UNSCOM's attempts to verify one way or the other. We also have his history of using them and a whole lot of cir stantial evidence that points to his perpetuating a WMD program during the period of 1998 to 2003.
What evidence to the contrary? And, then, when you come up with that -- weigh it against the evidence that supports the decision.
I absolutely acknowledge we don't know about their disposition or current existence. I have all along. You are the one changing his view on WMDs with every post and analogy.Especially that you refuse to acknowledge he possessed weapons that we know not their disposition.You've had it several times over.I'm interested in your answer.Right, the reason to invade was Saddam said he'd use WMDs if he was invaded. You know Castro speaks alot of in his 5 hour speeches -- when does Bay of Pigs II start?Actually, I believe we have him saying he'd use them if we invaded.Your very speculation that WMDs were allowed out of the country, for one.What evidence to the contrary?The evidence we did everything right? Everything?And, then, when you come up with that -- weigh it against the evidence that supports the decision.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
