[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
First, we absolutely thought we were going to be hit by WMD in 2003. We’ve determined that we were hit by them in 1991.
You’ve determined, 16 years later, that you were hit by them. Those weren’t the most efficient WMDs, were they? I’m pretty sure Japan didn’t require 16 years to ascertain that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been hit by WMDs.
I guess “mass destruction” is a flexible term. Funny how many things become extremely flexible when discussing them with you.
Remember the troops wearing gas masks? How about the Iraqi commanders wearing them? How about Bush warning the commanders not to launch them or face war crimes trials?
A) Not taking chances. B) Bluffing. C) More bluffing.
Error number one corrected.
In your dreams, sure.
Next, they shot down zero planes. Why don’t you ask the guys flying if that’s any comfort.
As opposed to actually being shot down?
So in your world, what was the purpose of shooting at them? To make a political statement?
To try and shoot them down, of course. Stop being intentionally dense.
My point is that if Saddam couldn’t even manage to shoot down one single plane in 10 years of shooting at them, while you were flying over his head, how much of a threat was he to you across 2 oceans?
Or even to allies and local interests? You keep repeating that Saddam was a clear and present threat and arguing that going in a the precise moment was really the last resort.
It’s all bullshit.
In summary, if someone is swinging at you, they are looking for a fight.
Error number two corrected.
If it’s a child swinging at you, you restrain him and send him to his room. You don’t pull out a gun and shoot him in the head.
Intelligent use of force requires you to tailor it to meet the threat encountered. Like when the inspectors were let back in: threat of force was sufficient to reach the desired goal.
I notice I just introduced the topic of behaving intelligently in our discussion. My apologies if you’ve been so far unable to follow.
Next, you still have this brain block about why the inspectors were let back in. It wasn’t magic. It didn’t just “happen” as “situations change.”
I don’t know how you even can type this. If you are trying to be a troll to get a rise out of me, please let me know.
THE INSPECTORS WERE LET BACK IN BECAUSE THE TROOPS WERE MASSING AND THE WAR DRUMS WERE BEING BEATEN.
Error number three corrected.
Well of course. That’s exactly what I’m trying to point out: A full scale invasion wasn’t required to reach the intended goal (ie, getting the inspectors back in).
You didn’t have to kill half a million civilians and spend half a trillion to reach it.
north korea has detonated a nuclear weapon. However, the two situations are vastly different. Remember how many times the north koreans have used WMD on their people and their neighbors?
Answer: Zero.
Maybe the fact that NK doesn’t have weak neighbors that can’t retaliate should be factored in here.
Just another tidbit you’re ignoring in your fantasy view of the world.
Further, the north koreans (as opposed to saddam) are extremely isolated and subject to pressure. There is a very real possibility that they can be isolated to the point (using non-military means) that they will have no choice but to comply.
If Bush decided to move against NK, you’d be here arguing that it’s impossible to isolate and pressure them enough to force them to comply.
You’re impressively transparent.
Finally, your response to the eye opening link about WMD, was PATHETIC.
Go read it again. It was THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED POUNDS OF ENRICHED URANIUM.
As I pointed out earlier, and as you could easily confirm for yourself by googling for 5 minutes, all enriched uranium is not equal.
Those 2 tons of uranium were low-enriched uranium, suitable for nuclear fuel, not nuclear weapons. At best, you might make dirty bombs from it.
Israel bombed their nuclear reactor in 1981. It’s expected that nuclear material will still be present.
Read the links I send, or don’t respond. It makes you look like an absolute FOOL.
The links you post operate the same way you do: Sift through the facts and filter out anything that contradicts the predetermined conclusion.
I purposefully do not link many sites because I don’t want your eyes to glaze over. I am very selective.
Actually, it’s because your particular form of denial, bordering on a mental illness, is relatively rare. Few sites are shameless enough to pretend that such gross distortions are anything close to the truth.
It comes up with some very interesting theories about why Bush isn’t pushing these finds harder.
You’ll love it as it accuses the Bush Administration of not securing the weaponry and now they are falling into the hands of al qaeda (See recent aborted chlorine attacks against Jordan).
Pitiful.
If you are asking me why I don’t think Bush is pushing this, I honestly do not know.
I can tell you it isn’t because things haven’t been found.
You keep finding old useless leftovers from the 80s. Old sarin shells, old nuclear material. Old crap he had for two decades before you went it. It didn’t bother you back then, when the stuff might have been useable, but you want us to believe that suddenly, in 2003, the situation is now an emergency?
Are you just pulling our leg to see how long you can draw this out before you admit you were kidding all along?
'Cause that’s what clowns do.
I’m angry that I have to do all this work.
If I was Bush, I’d have updates frequently.
It may be exactly what the link postulates (you need to read it).
Not really. Just to see you agree with it so strongly tells me that it will be full of distortions, lies, omissions and pretty light on facts. I get enough of that from you without wasting more time getting the same from someone else.
You’re my no.1 source for my daily clown fix.
The wonderful thing about the website I linked (if your brain can handle challenges to it’s preconceived notions) is that it gives a tally of the finds. It uses a variety of credible news sources.
In summary, it’s hard to dismiss. In order for it to be false, a whole lot of people with no obvious connections would have to be lying.
No, in order to be false it simply has to falsely present the information. Enriched uranium is not all the same; pretending that it is, either from ignorance or willful omission, invalidates the whole premise.
It also informs us of the intentions of the site owner. Someone who’s done that much work gathering all that information cannot have missed the facts about low-enriched uranium. That he willfully refrains from posting it with the rest of his information reveals all we really need to now about this individual and his “fans.”
He’s a bullshit artist; same as you. You’ll undoubtedly manage to convince the uninformed and lazy; but anyone who spends even a few minutes verifying your claims will find holes the size of Wyoming in all of them.
[/quote]
pookie,
Quick questions: Are dirty nuclear weapons WMD?
Second, question: How do you know the enriched uranium was from 1981?
Third question: How do you not understand that our awareness and determination to fight terrorism increased exponentially after 911?
Fourth question: If you’ve used WMD on other nations and your own people, are you more or less likely to use it again?
Fifth question: If your father or brother (or you, heaven forbid) was flying over SAM sites, would you still be as cavalier about them?
Sixth question: Are you not in the least troubled by 56 flights to Syria carrying chemical weaponerY/
Seventh question: Are you not slightly trouble by TONS of enriched uranium in the hands of saddam and his cronies?
Eighth question: Is international diplomacy always what it seems? Is it possible that Bush didn’t want to attack syria for fear of opening up another theatre before Iraq was finished?
Ninth question: Have you given any thought to anything I’ve posted?
Thanks,
JeffR