I told you so
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Saturday, July 1, 2006 01:06
VIEWED: 11164
PAGE 13 of 15
SignyM
I was poking him with a stick, but he's not moving anymore. Did I poke too hard?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, and the fact that we were bombing communcations centers, radar installations and other targets MONTHS in advance of chasing out Blix.
The evidence says to me that the only forgone conclusion was the invasion.
I agree. I took one look at Bill Clinton and said 'now there's a man out to invade Iraq' and sure enough from his first moment in office he was making with the bombing Iraq. Bush was merely forced to continue to a logical conclusion the 8 years of military provocation under Bill Clinton. My favorite was 1998 when Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors and Clinton bombed them for 30 days straight before admitting he had sex with Monica and thus allowing Saddam to get away with violating the 1991 cease fire.
Clinton many a forgone conclusions about the War on Terror are sitting in his library.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, double posted...must mean my post was meant to be twice as convincing.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Zero,
You're babbling again.Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What Zero fails to address is Bush's own demand that Hussein and cohorts leave Iraq as the only way to avoid war. Complying with the UN wasn't enough.Quote:
Originally posted by zero:
It was never a consideration until it was issued, days before the war. Saddam could have complied, but chose not to. When the ultimatum was issued, we'd reached the point were compliance was no longer an option.
Kinda thought this one was easy. We issued the ultimatum a couple days before the war. By then it was a forgone conclusion. Until then it wasn't.
If you recall the same sort of ultimatum was given to the Taliban (turn over Bin Ladden) in 2001 and Saddam (leave Kuwait now) in 1991. A final ultimatum (surrender the ship/castle/town/princess) is kinda a tradition in both war and peace.
H
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Hero- what was that WMD evidence again???
This time, can you restrict yourself to
(a) the subject, and
(b) the evidence?
So tell me, Hero, when you stand in front of the jury to make a case against a defedent, do you drag Clinton into it then too? Man I REALLY feel sorry for your city! Whatever they're paying you, it's too much!
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Hero- what was that WMD evidence again???
This time, can you restrict yourself to
(a) the subject, and
(b) the evidence?
So tell me, Hero, when you stand in front of the jury to make a case against a defedent, do you drag Clinton into it then too? Man I REALLY feel sorry for your city! Whatever they're paying you, it's too much!
If your going to talk about the prewar bombing of Iraq, how can you ignore Clinton. Bush bombed Iraq for a couple years, Clinton for eight. The Clinton policy was not effective, so in 2003 Bush changed America's military stance towards Iraq by demanding their compliance with UN Resolutions, Iraq refused to comply, so we demanded Saddam's unconditional surrender, he did not surrender, so we invaded. Clinton's policy was to demand compliance with UN Resolutions, Saddam refused, Clinton would drop some bombs and then start over by demanding compliance.
As for the WMDs, you keep asking "what evidence" I keep sayin "here's what we found" and you keep asking "what evidence". We found what we found, you see it one way, I see it another, but there's tons of prohibited materials and talk all you want you can't get around it. Chemical weapons, enriched uranium, nuclear materials, biolgical weapons componants, delivery systems, medium range missiles, componants to build medium range missiles, a mobile chem labe that had been stipped of equipment, chemical warefare suits...on and on and so forth and not one thing that you are capable of accepting because you put the conclusion first and the evidence last.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You haven't clearly stated cause and effect. Until then, your post is meaningless.
Quote:
We issued the ultimatum a couple days before the war. By then it was a forgone conclusion. Until then it wasn't.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And here's what we found:
Quote:1988 vintage, everything except mustard gas degraded
Chemical weapons
Quote:which was allowed and monitored
enriched uranium
Quote:ditto
nuclear materials
Quote:NO. there were some old stuff that UNSCOM found back in- oh 1996 or so. There may have been one or two found after the 2003 invasion that dated to pre-1991. If you're referring to anything else, be specific
biolgical weapons componants
Quote:of...? Are you referring to the missiles that you mention again (and again) in your list?
delivery systems
Quote:Medium range missiles are from 600-2000 miles. Saddam didn't have "medium range missiles" He was allowed was short range missiles for defensive purposes, and what he had was short-range battlefield missiles (Al Samoud 2) that on occasion exceeded the permitted 90 miles by less than 20 miles. www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0227nomissiles.
medium range missiles
htm to build medium range missiles
NO.
Quote:NO. They found what they thought was was a mobile BIO lab, which turned out not to be the case
Oh, a mobile chem lab that had been stipped of equipment
Quote:Hey WE have chemical warfare suits! They CAN be used for defensive purposes you know.
chemical warefare suits
If fact, we have everything that Saddam is said to have had! And it's all proveable, unlike the allegations against Saddam. On that basis, should WE be invaded? Here's an index of the issues. www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/weapindex.htm
Your so-called evidence doesn't show beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam was a imminent WMD threat. In fact you haven't even been able to show a preponderance of evidence that he had an active WMD program at all. If you're trying to say that Saddam was not a man to be trusted, I agree with you. But he didn't have chemical weapons deployed around Bagdhad and Tikrit, he didn't have even a nascent nuclear weapons program, he didn't have even a nascent bioweapons program. He had dual-use items (like chlorine production facilities) but those capabilities are part of any modern economy (eg for water chlorination).
It all boils down the the point that if Saddam had WMD that represented such an imminent threat to whomever such that it required immediate invasion don't you think we would have found SOME evidence of deployed weapons or active programs? Yeah, I would think so too.
As far as I can tell, this discussion is closed.
And on a purely personal note- from the way you argue here on the board you're apparently more interesting in winning than you are in the truth. You'll even lie outright when the facts aren't twisty enough. And you LOVE having power. You'd really put me off on the whole profession if I wasn't working with our own Prosecutors who are so much more honorable. The ones I know- they actually do try and figure out what is going on.
Just a couple words of advice-
(1) You have already probably wrongly convicted quite a number of people. That's great for the conviction rate... too bad it means the real criminals went free
(2) Sooner or later you'll tangle with someone who has enough money to take you and your City to the cleaners. Like crooked cops and crooked investigators, you may look good in the short run but in the long run you're going to be a huge liability for your City. I'd buy umbrella liability insurance if I were you.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zero,
Quote:SignyM addressed all of these conclusively.
As for the WMDs, you keep asking "what evidence" I keep sayin "here's what we found" and you keep asking "what evidence". We found what we found, you see it one way, I see it another, but there's tons of prohibited materials and talk all you want you can't get around it. Chemical weapons, enriched uranium, nuclear materials, biolgical weapons componants, delivery systems, medium range missiles, componants to build medium range missiles, a mobile chem labe that had been stipped of equipment, chemical warefare suits...on and on and so forth and not one thing that you are capable of accepting because you put the conclusion first and the evidence last.
But off the specifics of the topic - do you not know when you've lost the debate? AND the audience? Perceptiveness must be an asset in your job, but you seem to have none.
And I agree with SignyM's personal comments.
I know that conviction rates are another step on the political ladder. And your job choice, 'debate' style and comments show you to be nothing more than an opportunist, with all the negatives that implies. But give it a rest, if you can. (I suspect you can't. I suspect a deep personality flaw that you try to think of as a positive trait. Contact me personally and I'll tell you what that is.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because it couldn't stand on its own!
Originally posted by Hero:
Wow, double posted...must mean my post was meant to be twice as convincing.
H
Sayin' it twice twice don't make it no smarter smarter.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME