Who Lost Iraq?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

There is credible evidence that most of Saddam's WMD's were moved to Syria as has been discussed on this forum in other threads.

No, there isn't.

I mean, you have a theory, but it has zero credibility.

Cycloptichorn

I am not going to rehash the whole issue again here Cyc. You can search the forums and read the info if you like. Whether you believe it or not or find it credible or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it raises enough doubt to be credible.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

There is credible evidence that most of Saddam's WMD's were moved to Syria as has been discussed on this forum in other threads.

No, there isn't.

I mean, you have a theory, but it has zero credibility.

Cycloptichorn

I am not going to rehash the whole issue again here Cyc. You can search the forums and read the info if you like. Whether you believe it or not or find it credible or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it raises enough doubt to be credible.

No, it doesn't raise any doubt at all.

A theory that has zero evidence doesn't have any credibility at all. And you have provided exactly that to back the theory up.

I don't need to do a search at all; your complete lack of ability to provide supporting evidence or documentation for your pet theory about why you, and many others like you, were so completely and boneheadedly wrong about WMD in Iraq, and why I, and those like myself, were so completely correct, shows perfectly fine that your theory is nothing more than a balm for your bruised ego.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

There is credible evidence that most of Saddam's WMD's were moved to Syria as has been discussed on this forum in other threads.

No, there isn't.

I mean, you have a theory, but it has zero credibility.

Cycloptichorn

I am not going to rehash the whole issue again here Cyc. You can search the forums and read the info if you like. Whether you believe it or not or find it credible or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it raises enough doubt to be credible.

No, it doesn't raise any doubt at all.

A theory that has zero evidence doesn't have any credibility at all. And you have provided exactly that to back the theory up.

I don't need to do a search at all; your complete lack of ability to provide supporting evidence or documentation for your pet theory about why you, and many others like you, were so completely and boneheadedly wrong about WMD in Iraq, and why I, and those like myself, were so completely correct, shows perfectly fine that your theory is nothing more than a balm for your bruised ego.

Cycloptichorn

Uh, huh.

Setanta wrote:
A propos of the post by Heartofthesun:

Quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering



zigackly!

hots wrote-

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
A propos of the post by Heartofthesun:

Quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering



zigackly!

Yeah. He committed suicide shortly before he could be strung up by the alliance that fought for freedom and has a free press to probe into these matters which he had helped eradicate at the time that was said.

The debate at the time of the votes was lengthy and detailed and a decision was taken which was not only nearly unanimous but was pretty democratic as well. If it wasn't democratic then the free press has been got at and it doesn't look that way to me.

The two situations, Goering's and our's, are not comparable.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

There is credible evidence that most of Saddam's WMD's were moved to Syria as has been discussed on this forum in other threads.

No, there isn't.

I mean, you have a theory, but it has zero credibility.

Cycloptichorn

I am not going to rehash the whole issue again here Cyc. You can search the forums and read the info if you like. Whether you believe it or not or find it credible or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it raises enough doubt to be credible.

No, it doesn't raise any doubt at all.

A theory that has zero evidence doesn't have any credibility at all. And you have provided exactly that to back the theory up.

I don't need to do a search at all; your complete lack of ability to provide supporting evidence or documentation for your pet theory about why you, and many others like you, were so completely and boneheadedly wrong about WMD in Iraq, and why I, and those like myself, were so completely correct, shows perfectly fine that your theory is nothing more than a balm for your bruised ego.

Cycloptichorn

you, and many others like you, were so completely and boneheadedly wrong about WMD in Iraq, and why I, and those like myself, were so completely correct,

spendi wrote: Come on man. Give us a break. Would you not have dodged the draft if you had been in Mr Bush's position at that time. I think I would. I think most people I know would.


Wrong, spendi. Many young men and women served in Vietnam, because they felt it was their responsibility to fight in America's war - wrong or right. When one serves in the military, you don't have a choice when and where they send you.

Cyc, I refuse to crawl through the mud with you, sorry. If you wish to consider that a "smack down", then I hope you are happy about that. But, you couldn't refute it then, you can't refute it now and your attempt at feces flinging fails like it always has.

If you wish to join in on the current conversation, feel free.

hots wrote-

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
A propos of the post by Heartofthesun:

Quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering



zigackly!

Yeah. He committed suicide shortly before he could be strung up by the alliance that fought for freedom and has a free press to probe into these matters which he had helped eradicate at the time that was said.

The debate at the time of the votes was lengthy and detailed and a decision was taken which was not only nearly unanimous but was pretty democratic as well. If it wasn't democratic then the free press has been got at and it doesn't look that way to me.

The two situations, Goering's and our's, are not comparable.

cyclo wrote-

Quote:

you, and many others like you, were so completely and boneheadedly wrong about WMD in Iraq, and why I, and those like myself, were so completely correct,

On what basis did you come to be sure there were no WMDs at that time.

You must have had some reason to be able to state that back then. What was it?

Were you as sure about the intention to get them as well?

McGentrix wrote:

Cyc, I refuse to crawl through the mud with you, sorry. If you wish to consider that a "smack down", then I hope you are happy about that. But, you couldn't refute it then, you can't refute it now and your attempt at feces flinging fails like it always has.

If you wish to join in on the current conversation, feel free.

How do you refute nothing?

You can't refute an evidenceless theory - and one built upon poor logic, as well.

All you can do is ridicule it and those who propose it. Thus...

Cycloptichorn

Cyc, I refuse to crawl through the mud with you, sorry. If you wish to consider that a "smack down", then I hope you are happy about that. But, you couldn't refute it then, you can't refute it now and your attempt at feces flinging fails like it always has.

If you wish to join in on the current conversation, feel free.

spendius wrote:

cyclo wrote-

Quote:

you, and many others like you, were so completely and boneheadedly wrong about WMD in Iraq, and why I, and those like myself, were so completely correct,

On what basis did you come to be sure there were no WMDs at that time.

You must have had some reason to be able to state that back then. What was it?

Were you as sure about the intention to get them as well?

The weapons inspectors kept saying 'there are no WMD that we can find. Perhaps with more time we will...'

But we didn't give them that time, because Bush acted as if it was a goddamned emergency and we had to invade Iraq with no delay. But it wasn't, we didn't have to invade right then, we found nothing, and those like me who said that we wouldn't find anything from day one were absolutely correct.

As for intentions? Of course he intended to do bad things. Our governments have a responsibility to decide the best way to deal with those who wish to do bad things. Invasion was the choice that they made, I think it was an idiotic choice, did at the time too. The problem was, those in charge didn't have a clue what kind of situation they were unleashing. Those of us who have studied the actual history of the region know (knew) that the occupation would be disastrous.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cyc, I refuse to crawl through the mud with you, sorry. If you wish to consider that a "smack down", then I hope you are happy about that. But, you couldn't refute it then, you can't refute it now and your attempt at feces flinging fails like it always has.

If you wish to join in on the current conversation, feel free.

How do you refute nothing?

You can't refute an evidenceless theory - and one built upon poor logic, as well.

All you can do is ridicule it and those who propose it. Thus...

Cycloptichorn

Puffing your chest out for the new birds are you? Keep it up, maybe they will send you some fan mail.

no. go back, think again, and then return. i will be waiting.

hots wrote-

Quote:

no. go back, think again, and then return. i will be waiting.

I suggest you do. The quote has Goering saying "tell them they are being attacked".

You were attacked. On your sacred temples. The pride of Mammon twins, the Pentagon and, one supposes the downed plane was for the White House. What audacity. What cunning. What determination.

Right there on television. The nation's heart and lungs and it's brain a lucky escape.

What Goering act-alikes would have done with that doesn't bear thinking about. Try thinking about it.

The comparison was ridiculous and was actually nothing but a cheap smear.

You mean Iraq attacked us? Damn I could have sworn they were a bunch of Saudis.