paulsol the Righteous wrote:
Its funny how us tree huggers were right about so many things concerning Iraq tho, even tho we didnt have all the apparatus of the intelligence agencies and experts and advisors that the aggressors had.
I guess what we did have was some COMMON FUCKING SENSE.
It also helps to leave your position vague and then make adjustments after the fact...
See, cause while I heard a lot of "I don't believe Iraq has WMDs!!!" statements from you "tree huggers", I don't really recall anyone specifying that this meant that this was restricted to only new built WMDs in workable condition. Oh, and dual use materials don't count, hidden designs and plans don't count, attempts to purchase uranium on the black market don't count, and new long range missile delivery systems (in violation of the terms from 1991) don't count either...
Oh. And weapons that we found that were usable when they signed the agreement to destroy their WMDs but aren't now because they've been successfully hidden for the last 15 years? Those don't count either.
Lol! Gee. You guys nailed that one, didn't you!
Quote:
Oh yeah....You may want to believe that the barest minimum of civilian casualties have been caused in the pursuit of 'freedom' for the iraqis, but I gotta say that you were wrong about most everyting else.
No. I wasn't. See. That's what you're not getting. You're trying to claim that because you've narrowed the meaning of "WMDs" after the fact to match only what you claimed, that this makes you right, and therefore magically more likely to be right about something else completely unrelated to the first thing. Um... Sure...
Also, I never once argued that Iraq had succeeded in building new completely fabricated, assembled and ready to be used biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons during the time period between 1991 and 2003. Not once. Get it?
That's the only thing that "wasn't true" about the claims regarding Iraq's WMDs. They *did* have left over weapons from the pre-1991 period that they had managed to hide for over 11 years. They *did* have dual use materials in country. They *did* have concealed documents and plans involving their WMD programs that they didn't declare or destroy. They *did* do everything they could to retain anything they could about their WMDs programs and to acquire new materials to resume those programs at some future date.
All of these things are in violation of the agreement they signed in 1991. You can quibble over the one thing they didn't do (build brand new weapons after 1991), but that's hardly the entire issue is it? It hardly makes you "right". It just means that you've raised the bar as to what "WMDs" are so high that the only way Iraq could be in violation was if they actually had newly constructed weapons.
Oh. And I'm pretty sure if we'd found labs with those exact weapons in them, you'd be arguing that since they weren't loaded into warheads, they didn't count. And if we'd found those weapons materials loaded into usable warheads? You'd have argued that since those warheads weren't placed into missiles or rockets that they didn't count. And if we'd found them loaded into warheads and atop missiles or rockets, you'd have argued that they weren't fueled and ready to use, so they didn't constitute an "imminent threat".
All you've done is keep moving the goalposts until the facts didn't match and then claiming that you knew all along that the case for war wasn't right. Which makes your "rightness" pretty darn irrelevant IMO.
Oh. And absolutely none of that makes this latest bogus claim about Iraqi deaths "right" either. I am curious though, were exactly did the extra 750,000 bodies go?
Edited, Feb 4th 2008 6:05pm by gbaji
