Resolution to pull out of Iraq by 2006 - lead by Republican

Hindsight being 20/20 hindsight gives the , liberals a free pass to say whatever they know is accurate today.

So, given that, since you seem to have all the knowledge, whta would be the status of the region if the US did what you suggest today which is leae Saddam in power and forget about all the UN Resolution violations?

0 Replies

Don't need any hindesight; we had UN inspectors looking for WMDs that Bush chased out to start his war.

0 Replies

Give it a rest C.I. They had 12 years to inspect and failed to bring Saddam under compliance. The only reason they were allowed in prior to the war was because of the coalition build up of forces on Saddam's borders.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't need any hindesight; we had UN inspectors looking for WMDs that Bush chased out to start his war.

Correct. You need FORESIGHT and INTELLIGENCE, CI.

0 Replies

Give it a rest? Not on your life. As long as you bozos continue to misinform what really happened, I'm gonna continue to correct your errors and omissions. I'm sure others on a2k will join me in this challenge.

0 Replies

You can't have foresight and intelligence without understanding the basic truths/facts.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Give it a rest? Not on your life. As long as you bozos continue to misinform what really happened, I'm gonna continue to correct your errors and omissions. I'm sure others on a2k will join me in this challenge.

What misinformation C.I.?

Please point out where you have done anything of the sort you have just described.

0 Replies

Your most recent post that implies something it doesn't.

"parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

Did I say "might"? Apparrently you are not understanding me correctly.

OK, then you think he WAS a threat. Based on what? How was he a specific threat? Since "MIGHT" is not part of the threat situtation give us absolutes of how he was a threat.

You can read all about it here."

0 Replies

Powell's speech to the UN has long been disputed. That's what I call misrepresentation, error and omissions of the facts. Leaving out important information that transpired subsequently to Powell's speech is worthless.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You can't have foresight and intelligence without understanding the basic truths/facts.

And therein "lies" your problem.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your most recent post that implies something it doesn't.

"parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

Did I say "might"? Apparrently you are not understanding me correctly.

OK, then you think he WAS a threat. Based on what? How was he a specific threat? Since "MIGHT" is not part of the threat situtation give us absolutes of how he was a threat.

You can read all about it here."

Were those not the reasons we went into Iraq? Are you suggesting I made up the whole account of Powell going to the UN? Are you suggesting I hacked into the Whitehouse website, planted a huge account of Powell's speech?

Where exactly is the misinformation C.I.? Where is the error or omission?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Powell's speech to the UN has long been disputed. That's what I call misrepresentation, error and omissions of the facts. Leaving out important information that transpired subsequently to Powell's speech is worthless.

Do you even bother to read what gets posted?

"OK, then you think he WAS a threat. Based on what? How was he a specific threat? Since "MIGHT" is not part of the threat situtation give us absolutes of how he was a threat. "

Can you please tell me what that asks for in your own words?

0 Replies

The misinformation that Powell provided the UN to justify this war, and your obsession with using his speech to support your case for this war.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Hindsight being 20/20 hindsight gives the , liberals a free pass to say whatever they know is accurate today.

So, given that, since you seem to have all the knowledge, whta would be the status of the region if the US did what you suggest today which is leae Saddam in power and forget about all the UN Resolution violations?

woiyo - you are the one that said the following

woiyo wrote:

WRONG. The inspectors never found anything of substance and could not determine what happened to them. That was the problem.

Your statement was factually false now and factually false in 1999. There is no hindsight needed. You do NOT get a free pass to say whatever you want. There was no evidence of any large piles of WMD in 1999 or 2003 or today. We SPECULATED he probably had them. That is quite different from your statement of "we never found anything of substance" We found lots of substance, we destroyed lots of substance. There were questions about a very small number of items compared to what was actually found and destroyed.

Again, you change facts by suggesting that our position was to leave Saddam in power and not enforce UN resolutions. The UN resolution was to confirm that Saddam didn't have any WMD. That UN resolution was being enforced by the inspectors.

There were 2 possible solutions. Invade or continue inspections. (A third solution was to forget the inspections and not invade. It was not a valid solution.) Both of the possible solutions had upsides and downsides to them. Bush chose the one that had the biggest downsides in my estimation at the time. Unfortunately some of those downsides have been realized. Fortunately some have not. We were probably lucky that the WMD didn't exist or they would probably have ended up right where the invasion was meant to stop them from going.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Your most recent post that implies something it doesn't.

"parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

Did I say "might"? Apparrently you are not understanding me correctly.

OK, then you think he WAS a threat. Based on what? How was he a specific threat? Since "MIGHT" is not part of the threat situtation give us absolutes of how he was a threat.

You can read all about it here."

Were those not the reasons we went into Iraq? Are you suggesting I made up the whole account of Powell going to the UN? Are you suggesting I hacked into the Whitehouse website, planted a huge account of Powell's speech?

Where exactly is the misinformation C.I.? Where is the error or omission?

You said there was no "MIGHT" in your argument McG.. the only argument you referenced INCLUDES "might" and "estimates" and a lot of other qualifiers. Is it your suggestion that Saddam was a threat simply because Powell spoke at the UN or are you promoting his arguments there as yours? I assumed the second.

0 Replies

"Your statement was factually false now and factually false in 1999. There is no hindsight needed. You do NOT get a free pass to say whatever you want."

Then I join the best compnay of people who doubted the word of Saddam as well.

Apparently ONLY YOU had the knowledge at that time. Wow...I am impressed.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"Your statement was factually false now and factually false in 1999. There is no hindsight needed. You do NOT get a free pass to say whatever you want."

Then I join the best compnay of people who doubted the word of Saddam as well.

Apparently ONLY YOU had the knowledge at that time. Wow...I am impressed.

Oh? who said that inspectors had never found anything of substance. I don't know anyone that said that at that time.

There is a HUGE difference from your claim that nothing of substance was found to doubting Saddam's word.

0 Replies

All of us join in that group that doubted the word of Saddam. Why do you think the UN inspectors were looking for those WMDs? Get with the program.

0 Replies

woiyo,

Inspectors were in Iraq because we doubted Saddam's word.
Sanctions were in place because we doubted Saddam's word.
US planes patrolled the no fly zones because we doubted Saddam's word.
8 UN resolutions were passed because we doubted Saddam's word.

It is rewriting history to claim that anyone that didn't support the invasion trusted Saddam.

There is a difference however between doubting Saddam's word and declaring that "there is no doubt that Iraq has WMD." You seem to want to claim that there were absolutes in 2003 that were obviously not there, then when anyone points to your errors you attack them for "trusting Saddam." Your defensiveness is the only thing that is responding from hindsight here. I posted the 1999 UNSCOM report, the same report that Powell referenced. There is doubt in that report. That same doubt is in Powell's UN presentation. There are not absolutes. Powell laid out a circumstancial case at the time. A case that had some points of it refuted by those actually on the ground in Iraq and other knowledgable sources.

The problem I had with the case is it was built toward the goal. There seemed to be no reasonable look at other possible solutions and what the possible outcomes could be. That is where the argument failed then and why I still think it failed today.

0 Replies

On another thread woiyo wrote. (It seems more appropriate to the ongoing discussion here.)

woiyo wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo, YOu continue to insiste we trusted Saddam. Why do you think we had UN inspectors in Iraq? Can't you put two and two together? Or is that too difficult for you?

According to the posts by PArados, he insisted that Saddam should be trusted.

WE (I presume you mean the US) did NOT have UN Inspectors. the UN had the inspectors in their.

Do you have anything else that may be of value to share with us besides your silly commentary?

Care to point out where I said Saddam could be trusted?

The fact is you claimed that nothing substantial had been found or dealt with by inspectors. I pointed out the error in that statement. Your response seems to be to attack me rather than admit you made an error.

You claimed I was doing this in hindsight. I pointed to SPECIFIC published UNSCOM reports from 1999.

Do you have anything you want to bring to the table here to discuss that can support your position?

There were US citizens that were members of UNSCOM inspection teams. The US supported the inspections for most of the time frame that they occurred. The US voted for the UN resolutions that put inspectors in Iraq.

0 Replies

Resolution to pull out of Iraq by 2006 - lead by Republican

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know