Leading on the last lap

Mitch_A wrote:

<snip>

Jesus christ, at least stick an {OT} in the topic so I don't
accidentally read this bull****.

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:23:23 GMT, "Mitch_A" >
wrote:

<crap snipped>

****ing hell, there's nothing worse than insane analogies. Jesus.

> How the **** did you know he was bluffing? Nobody did, except his and his
> minions. jesus freaking chrysler. if you call my house, or tell someone
> your are going to kill me, and I act on it (call police) you think they
> gonna say, aw he just bluffing!?

I guess you forgot about those years and years of UN inspectors finding
absolutely nothing, and the 18,000 page report detailing the destruction
of the weapons in accordance with UN mandates. Oh but who needs facts
when you have Fox.

> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the
> race isnt going quite as perfectly as you would have hoped?

Bad analogy, you left out the part about the fans taking pot shots at racers
with rifles and bombs.

> Difference is this WAR actually means something for the future of the USA.

Not sure if it will be good or bad.

I'm from the USA (California), and I've noticed based on our previous bad
experiences, we "cherry pick" which wars we fight. Atrocities occur in
many countries throughtout the world, but we rarely get involved.

In terms of Iraq, we picked a war we could win easily with regards to
Saddams troops, but we underestimated the near civil war that would
result once the dictatorship was ended.

It's happened before in soviet block countries where genocide was the
result of the ending of communist rule. The genocide in Rwanda between
the Tutsis and Hutus was worse, yet the UN did little to invervene.

Getting back to Iraq, in my opinion, once we got Saddam out of power
(or later captured him), we should have armed every houshold with
a weapon (pistol or rifle, sort of like living in some cities in
Arizona and/or Texas), then left and let them handle things themselves
until they begged us to come back if things didn't work out.

timmy thompson wrote:
>
> I guess you forgot about those years and years of UN inspectors finding
> absolutely nothing, and the 18,000 page report detailing the destruction
> of the weapons in accordance with UN mandates. Oh but who needs facts
> when you have Fox.

When did they have time to look?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2167933.stm

Plowboy wrote:
> Phil Newnham enlightened us with:
>> Plowboy wrote:
>>> Phil, your question if nothing other than an astonishing resume on
>>> "duh, I dunno," for yourself. And after reading it, begs the
>>> question, so it changed because the U.S. went there how EXACTLY?
>> Before the US went there, it was a vicious dictatorship (with no links
>> to Al Qaeda) with a history of bluffing lots to save face whilst at
>> the same time bowing to the UN whilst dragging its feet (also, to save
>> face).
>
> How the **** did you know he was bluffing? Nobody did, except his and his
> minions. jesus freaking chrysler. if you call my house, or tell someone
> your are going to kill me, and I act on it (call police) you think they
> gonna say, aw he just bluffing!?

You could always ask the weapons inspectors, who knew there were no
weapons, because they had been there looking for them. Or you could do
what Bush did, which was to fire the head of the weapons inspectors
because they disagreed with him, and wilfully misinterpret the
intelligence to claim that he did have weapons and they were a clear and
present danger to the security of the US and her interests.

If someone told you that there was a remote chance that I might call
your house and tell you I'm going to kill you, and you call the police,
and it turns out that someone had based their intelligence about me on
one report by one guy with no corroboration and no history of giving
them useful intel, and it turns out they were wrong and I had no
intention of doing anything, the police would tell you they were wasting
their time. Saddam did not phone up Bush and threaten to launch chemical
attacks against America. If you must use analogies try to base them on
what actually happened.

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

Dont bother the dumbass with the facts, TW...


Tim Wheatley enlightened us with:
> timmy thompson wrote:
>>
>> I guess you forgot about those years and years of UN inspectors
>> finding absolutely nothing, and the 18,000 page report detailing the
>> destruction of the weapons in accordance with UN mandates. Oh but
>> who needs facts when you have Fox.
>
> When did they have time to look?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2167933.stm

Tim Wheatley wrote:
> timmy thompson wrote:
>> I guess you forgot about those years and years of UN inspectors finding
>> absolutely nothing, and the 18,000 page report detailing the destruction
>> of the weapons in accordance with UN mandates. Oh but who needs facts
>> when you have Fox.
>
> When did they have time to look?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2167933.stm

It was entirely the fault of Bush's impatience that they only had 5
months between November and the invasion in March.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...st/2967764.stm

"The UN's chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix has criticised the
quality of intelligence provided by Britain and America, when his teams
returned to Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction.

Working on the information, the inspectors examined scores of sites.

But Hans Blix has told the BBC that only at three sites did they find
anything, and none contained weapons of mass destruction. "

So, based on the intelligence that there were weapons, they went and had
a look, and there weren't any. And then we invaded on the pretext that
there were weapons, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

The belief in the reality of WMDs in Iraq was virtually universally
held at the time of the invasion. A belief shared by the French and
British secret services, the CIA and Bill and Hillary Clinton. The
imputation that GWB deliberatey mislead the public for the sake of his
cronies in Big Oil attests to the paranoia on the Left and, if true,
would certainly make him the most evil individual in American history.
But he's too moronic for such deviousness, right?

wrote:
> The belief in the reality of WMDs in Iraq was virtually universally
> held at the time of the invasion. A belief shared by the French and
> British secret services, the CIA and Bill and Hillary Clinton. The
> imputation that GWB deliberatey mislead the public for the sake of his
> cronies in Big Oil attests to the paranoia on the Left and, if true,
> would certainly make him the most evil individual in American history.
> But he's too moronic for such deviousness, right?
>


The Bull**** Meter is pegged.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/...d-in-fall-2002

--

Fester

God Bless the USA does *not* mean
God Damn the rest of the world