Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Matthew Broderick was such a cutie.

Translation: I'm a dumbass.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Translation: I'm a dumbass.

Did you mean to quote one of Hank's posts?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Did you mean to quote one of Hank's posts?

No. I was quoting myself on purpose. Which is not to say that Hank isn't a dumbass.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
He was a threat. That's why the UN had sanctions.

How were we containing them? Wasn't there a need for 200K troops on the border for him to let inspectors in?

Despots don't attack giants who can crush them. Hussein would have sat exactly where he was, and hectored those around him and bluffed that he was going to do something dangerous to keep up his image.

But he was never going to be anything more than a goof like Khaddafi.

If it was imperative to attack a despot with supposed chemical weapons which could never reach our shore, why is it not equally as imperative that we attack Kim Jong Il?

You add all the circumstantial evidence together and Bush would be cooked in a court of law. If your best defense is that Saddam defied UN Sanctions, you'd get murdered.

You see 8000 different pieces of evidence pointing toward the cooking of intel and an early decision to go to war with Iraq no matter what Hussein said or did. In response, would you really argue "Hussein defied UN Sanctions." Come on...

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Despots don't attack giants who can crush them. Hussein would have sat exactly where he was, and hectored those around him and bluffed that he was going to do something dangerous to keep up his image.

But he was never going to be anything more than a goof like Khaddafi.

If it was imperative to attack a despot with supposed chemical weapons which could never reach our shore, why is it not equally as imperative that we attack Kim Jong Il?

You add all the circumstantial evidence together and Bush would be cooked in a court of law. If your best defense is that Saddam defied UN Sanctions, you'd get murdered.

You see 8000 different pieces of evidence pointing toward the cooking of intel and an early decision to go to war with Iraq no matter what Hussein said or did. In response, would you really argue "Hussein defied UN Sanctions." Come on...

No. I'm saying the fact of the sanctions showed that the UN BELIEVED he had the weapons. I'm speaking only to the "cooked the evidence" bit. He didn't cook anything. He just stated what everyone thought true.

And he wouldn't have openly attacked us- agreed. He might however have tried covert things like attempting to kill Presidents, or give WMDs to people who would blow them up in NYC.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No. I was quoting myself on purpose. Which is not to say that Hank isn't a dumbass.

Wow. when someone on ignore quotes themselves it comes off ignore.

[sgtclub]

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...d-watches.html

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. I'm saying the fact of the sanctions showed that the UN BELIEVED he had the weapons. I'm speaking only to the "cooked the evidence" bit. He didn't cook anything. He just stated what everyone thought true.

The UN didn't use that belief as a justificaton for invasion. Different standard. And if you don't believe the WMD threat was exaggerated, you're just being willfully blind. Even a partisan hack like Louffa O'Relly can admit this now.

And he wouldn't have openly attacked us- agreed. He might however have tried covert things like attempting to kill Presidents, or give WMDs to people who would blow them up in NYC.

Or he might have made a sandwich. Or he might have gone to the movies. Or he might have . . .

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Gatti, I propose that we start the gang of 2.

I think I invented this gang. I'm not against the idea of SDI, but I am against the idea of writing a blank check to military contractors (no offense to those of you who may be employed by the MIC).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. I'm saying the fact of the sanctions showed that the UN BELIEVED he had the weapons. I'm speaking only to the "cooked the evidence" bit. He didn't cook anything. He just stated what everyone thought true.

And he wouldn't have openly attacked us- agreed. He might however have tried covert things like attempting to kill Presidents, or give WMDs to people who would blow them up in NYC.

And I'm saying the UN didn't really believe Hussein had WMD. It was just going along with a policy pushed by us and the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. If the UN had any inkling of a suspicion its lazy acquiesence would provide a pretext for war later, I'm sure it wouldn't have been so quick to get behind those resolutions. But nobody can tell the future. And the UN couldn't say after the fact, "Well, we didn't really think he was a serious threat... We just figured, 'Why fuck with the justification for a solid policy of containment.'" Bush cleverly pushed the UN into a corner.

Syria harbors thousands of terrorists who plot to kill Bush and plant bombs in NYC. We didn't attack Syria. For years, we said Khaddafi was sponsoring terrorism against US citizens (and we pretty much proved his govt assisted in the killing of a planeload of American college students). yet we didn't attack him. In 2002, we knew Kim Jong Il had nuclear material, and desperately needed money. We knew he'd sell it if he could, to someone who could use it in a "dirty bomb" against us. None of these "threats," equal or greater than the danger posed by Hussein, caused our govt to go to war. Why?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Or he might have made a sandwich. Or he might have gone to the movies. Or he might have . . .

good point! lots of the film we have of Osama Bin Ladin he's just eating and sitting, talking and smiling. Is that why Clinton thought he should ignore Al Queda? They had regular lunch breaks?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And he wouldn't have openly attacked us- agreed. He might however have tried covert things like attempting to kill Presidents, or give WMDs to people who would blow them up in NYC.

He did try to kill Bush I.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think I invented this gang.

Good. That helps get stuff like gang colors, bylaws and membership dues out of the way.

The color's not lavender, like your last gang, was it?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
good point! lots of the film we have of Osama Bin Ladin he's just eating and sitting, talking and smiling. Is that why Clinton thought he should ignore Al Queda? They had regular lunch breaks?

There you go, confusing OBL with SH again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The UN didn't use that belief as a justificaton for invasion. Different standard. And if you don't believe the WMD threat was exaggerated, you're just being willfully blind. Even a partisan hack like Louffa O'Relly can admit this now.

Or he might have made a sandwich. Or he might have gone to the movies. Or he might have . . .

The funny thing with this debate is if you say "He lied," the defense is "No, he exagerrated." OK. An exagerration is a lie. Its not as bold as a full on fabrication, but its a lie nonetheless. You've misrepresented the gravity of something. In this case, a standard had to be met. To go to war, we had to prove an imminent threat existed. Well, Hussein was a potential threat. Remote, unlikely, but neverthless technically potential. So somebody exaggerated his danger to the level of "imminent." And based on that exagerration, we went to war. Now, how is that exagerration not a lie? If Bush had just bald faced made up a pile of facts and we went to war on those, how would the result have been any different than what he achieved with his "exaggeration"? A lie is a lie is a lie. The degree of the deception is immaterial in this case.