old europe wrote:Key words:
Brandon9000 wrote:left unchecked
There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq in 2003.
I claimed only that Clinton believed that Iraq was a threat. I then proved it. Period. How like liberals, terrified to address the contents of a post, to focus only on the poster.
How pathetic you are, Brandon. Truly.
I bet when you read this article you couldn't wait to come here and trumpet it around, as if it validates your position in any fashion.
Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000 wrote:old europe wrote:Key words:
Brandon9000 wrote:left unchecked
There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq in 2003.
I claimed only that Clinton believed that Iraq was a threat. I then proved it. Period.
You showed that Clinton said he believed that Iraq, if left unchecked, would become a threat.
However, Iraq wasn't left unchecked.
Brandon9000 wrote:How like liberals, terrified to address the contents of a post, to focus only on the poster.
Cute.
The whole world is not with Bush nor the invisible successor.
Majority of the humanity pays much attention about the barbaric, banal, abysmal, uncompassionate, non-christian war without anyreasons.
Unless the approved, selected, elected president mention the faulty steps under BUSH were nonsense, USA has no chance to lead US.
I can cut and paste umpteen american intellectuals who vouchsafe my critical views.
V R watching you with rapt attention
Cycloptichorn wrote:How pathetic you are, Brandon. Truly.
I bet when you read this article you couldn't wait to come here and trumpet it around, as if it validates your position in any fashion.
Cycloptichorn
Name calling, the mark of maturity. I made no claims whatever about this article. I merely posted it.
old europe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:old europe wrote:Key words:
Brandon9000 wrote:left unchecked
There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq in 2003.
I claimed only that Clinton believed that Iraq was a threat. I then proved it. Period.
You showed that Clinton said he believed that Iraq, if left unchecked, would become a threat.
However, Iraq wasn't left unchecked.
Brandon9000 wrote:How like liberals, terrified to address the contents of a post, to focus only on the poster.
Cute.
That's not what he said at all. Read the quotation. He said that he believed that Saddam Hussein, if left unchecked, would USE the weapons. Please tell me why one would "check" someone who posed no threat?
Brandon9000 wrote:That's not what he said at all. Read the quotation. He said that he believed that Saddam Hussein, if left unchecked, would USE the weapons.
Yup. That was after Saddam had thrown the UNSCOM weapons inspectors out of the country. UNSCOM had been created by UN SC resolution 687 of 3 April 1991.
Brandon9000 wrote:Please tell me why one would "check" someone who posed no threat?
UNSCOM was set up to implement the non-nuclear provisions of resolution 687 and to assist the IAEA in the nuclear areas. The precise terms are laid out in paragraphs 7 to 13 of the resolution.
Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:How pathetic you are, Brandon. Truly.
I bet when you read this article you couldn't wait to come here and trumpet it around, as if it validates your position in any fashion.
Cycloptichorn
Name calling, the mark of maturity. I made no claims whatever about this article. I merely posted it.
Reading skills need improvement; I wrote a description of you, not call you a name.
You don't post for how long, show up, post, and there is no implicit or implied claim in the article? Who do you think you are kidding?
:lol
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:How pathetic you are, Brandon. Truly.
I bet when you read this article you couldn't wait to come here and trumpet it around, as if it validates your position in any fashion.
Cycloptichorn
Name calling, the mark of maturity. I made no claims whatever about this article. I merely posted it.
Reading skills need improvement; I wrote a description of you, not call you a name.
You don't post for how long, show up, post, and there is no implicit or implied claim in the article? Who do you think you are kidding?
:lol
Cycloptichorn
I posted an article without comment. I'm not responsible for your speculations about what my motives might be. Incidentally, name calling does nothing to lend your opinions credibilty.
old europe wrote:And with a bit of luck, you might get another happy day in five or nine years from now...
With many sad days in between.
old europe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:That's not what he said at all. Read the quotation. He said that he believed that Saddam Hussein, if left unchecked, would USE the weapons.
Yup. That was after Saddam had thrown the UNSCOM weapons inspectors out of the country. UNSCOM had been created by UN SC resolution 687 of 3 April 1991.
Brandon9000 wrote:Please tell me why one would "check" someone who posed no threat?
UNSCOM was set up to implement the non-nuclear provisions of resolution 687 and to assist the IAEA in the nuclear areas. The precise terms are laid out in paragraphs 7 to 13 of the resolution.
I said that Clinton believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and then I proved it. I don't quite see the relevance of your comments to my claim or my evidence.
Cycloptichorn wrote:How pathetic you are, Brandon. Truly.
I bet when you read this article you couldn't wait to come here and trumpet it around, as if it validates your position in any fashion.
Cycloptichorn
Tsk, tsk. Your anger at the poster is showing, Cyclops.
Come now ... let's see some of that vaunted leftist tolerance I hear so much about.
Brandon9000 wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Any idiot could see Iraq was not a threat to the USA.
Apparently, millions and millions of idiots did not, including Bill Clinton. Interesting that Saddam Hussein was deliberately trying to create the impresssion that his former WMD programs were still extant. Also, how typical that you make this statement without the tiniest particle of supporting argument.
To quote you, nobody that disagrees with you has ever had a particle of evidence. Yet, it matters not whom you quote to buttress your dumb argument, most people knew better and many who went along with Bush were stampeded by the public hysteria, of which Bush contributed muchly to create.
Your claim, which was, incidentally, not in response to any previous comment of mine in this post was that any idiot could see that Iraq was no threat to the US. You don't have a particle of evidence to support that position for the simple reason that you didn't even attempt to offer any support for it. No big surprise there. I would, indeed, expect you to do just this - "prove" your opinions with evidence like "any idiot could see."
I have witnessed many posters present you with evidence in many threads. Your one response: That's not evidence. It's a merry-go-round I don't care to get on.
Brandon9000 wrote:I said that Clinton believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat,
You did.
Brandon9000 wrote:and then I proved it.
You didn't. There's a difference between saying "He is a threat" and saying "If left unchecked, he will become a threat."
Brandon9000 wrote:I don't quite see the relevance of your comments to my claim or my evidence.
That's the crux, isn't it?
Ticomaya wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:How pathetic you are, Brandon. Truly.
I bet when you read this article you couldn't wait to come here and trumpet it around, as if it validates your position in any fashion.
Cycloptichorn
Tsk, tsk. Your anger at the poster is showing, Cyclops.
Come now ... let's see some of that vaunted leftist tolerance I hear so much about.
One would think that an intelligent poster such as yourself could tell the difference between anger and disdain, but apparently not.
Double
Cycloptiochorn
Iraq had nukes. Bill said so.
Edgarblythe thinks Bill is an idiot.
Carry on.
I had raised a point to ponder over
about the banal quick fix bigmag justice in Iraq.
I detest Saddam and his funny corporate criminals.
By corporate criminals, I mean those who had made business with that untouchable( but qualified) criminal.
Saddam Hussain is not Rama Fuchs .
