WMD's

[Guest Capn Crunch]

Whatever happened to the Weapons of Mass Destruction that people like Jaguar promised us? We have 2000 dead troops killed because of a lie. Can you sleep with that as an american citizen?

[John Prezioso]

You are funny. I should go to bed, but I am so amused by you!

[Guest Capn Crunch]

Don't go to bed sweety, the night is young and so am I...

[John Prezioso]

I never would have guessed you were young, what with the utter brilliance and maturity of your posts! Your are truly wise beyond your years...

[Guest Capn Crunch]

thank you

[Guest Capn Crunch]

Anyone with an intelligent response for the lack of WMD's?

[teknocack]

You need to begin with it first before it can be reciprocated.

[Guest Capn Crunch]

Well, your president began with it. Are you saying the LORD BUSH GOD SUPREME WAS WRONG?

[LostInSpace]

Oh boy! From California I see.

[Guest $iLk]

They didn't exist. Condi Rice and Colin Powell stated as much pre-9/11

[John Prezioso]

They stated they BELIEVED as much priior to 9/11.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

They stated they BELIEVED as much priior to 9/11.

---

Yeah - I guess the 'intelligence' sang a different tune once 9/11 happened. God knows they didn't have 8 years of prior intelligence to look at.

[John Prezioso]

Now you are misrepresenting facts. There was a great deal of intelligence that said Iraq either could have or did have WMD. Only believing the half that supports your own argument is fine for Mr. Silk, but it is not a luxury the President of the United States could have afforded to take.

The fact that the majority of intelligence showing WMD in Iraq was outdated or just plain wrong only became apparent once the invasion was complete.

At worst, this makes Bush wrong, not accomplice in some evil plot.

[Guest $iLk]

Had 9/11 not occurred, I think you (having to be honest with yourself) realize that we would not have invaded Iraq.

It wasn't a luxury that needed to be taken. Iraq had never attacked the United States. Iraq had never threatened to attack the United States. Iraq did not have the capability to attack the United States.

That's all that needs to be said in determining that Iraq was probably not the best country to be blowing a half trillion dollars on in setting up a puppet-regime.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

Had 9/11 not occurred, I think you (having to be honest with yourself) realize that we would not have invaded Iraq.

---

Oh I agree we probably wouldn't have touched Iraq. But even you must realize that a great many things changed on 9/11. It DID happen, in case you missed it or forgot it in your rage..

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

Oh I agree we probably wouldn't have touched Iraq. But even you must realize that a great many things changed on 9/11. It DID happen, in case you missed it or forgot it in your rage..

---

So basically Iraq wasn't a threat until 9/11 happened?

Did planes flying into the Pentagon drop off loads of chemical munitions in Iraq on their way to slam into the building?

Iraq was no threat. 9/11 didn't change that. 9/11 just changed the equation of political capital Bush and the neo-cons in the White House had to spend. That's all.

[John Prezioso]

No, but priorities change. Why don't you stop bouncing around like a umpa-lumpa on speed and DEBATE?

[Guest $iLk]

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade.if I had that much capital, Im not going to waste it. Im going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and Im going to have a successful presidency."

- George W. Bush (May 1999)

Priorities never changed...

[John Prezioso]

And your problem with is, what?

A reason to invade was given. Would you like me to explain it, so that you might try to learn why someone else disagrees with you, or are you going to continue bouncing around? Heh, you're probably three threads away already while I post this.

[Guest $iLk]

A reason to invade was given. Hitler gave a reason to invade Poland as well.

Doesn't make it right.

[John Prezioso]

And this "logic" is what you would have me answer? As well try to argue with Ted Kennedy. Anyway, I'll take that as a no. It is a small man indeed who can not be bothered to consider the viewpoints of others.

[Guest $iLk]

Thank goodness Hitler pre-empted those Godless commie-pinkos in Poland. They were going to invade the Reich!

[John Prezioso]

Yes, you ARE indeed going off the deep end, my friend. Any time you want to take a breath and engage someone on ideas, you just let me know. You aren't afraid, are you?

[Guest $iLk]

I'm still waiting... this is like 8 - 10 posts where you haven't offered anything but being whiny.

[John Prezioso]

What is it you would like me to reply to, Silk?

-Your comparing Bush to Hitler?

-Your assertion that we invaded an innocent country?

-Your likening Iraq to the Nazi invasion of Poland

-Or your off-hand dismissal of anything I say?

Tell me what you are interested in hearing. So far, you've yet to prove you are worth answering.

PM or email me for a real discussion. [email protected]