livendive 8 #126 May 13, 2004 QuoteIt may have been one of 26 reasons, but I'd argue removing SH from power was the primary reason. Finding WMDs, ending abuses etc were objectives once SH had been removed, but those were secondary as they could not have been carried out until SH had been removed first. Therefore, removing SH from power had to be the primary reason. I get it...kind of like removing my truck's drain plug is my primary reason for crawling underneath the truck every 3000 miles. Changing my oil is only a secondary objective because I can't do that till after I remove the plug. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #127 May 13, 2004 >It may have been one of 26 reasons, but I'd argue removing >SH from power was the primary reason. It may well have been your primary reason, but it was not the stated reason. So either it wasn't the primary reason, or the administration deceived the US by claiming that WMD's were the primary reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #128 May 13, 2004 QuoteI guess that depends on what you consider to be a reason. I'm sure that was a significant internal reason of the current government. Unfortunately, since "removing guys we don't like from power" is Quotepretty low on the acceptable-reasons list in the world community, it's not one that they publicized. I disagree. Evidenced by the removal of Noriega and Milosovic. The primary reason for invading was to remove them from power. QuoteWho else do they want to remove from power? I can think of a few. Quote And what are we justified in doing to make that happen? Depends on how much of a threat we precieve them to be. Quote I hope the answer to that second one isn't "whatever we damn well please" Me too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #129 May 13, 2004 Noriega....put on the US payroll by GB, Sr. as CIA director. Graduate of the School of the Americas. Taken off the payroll by Carter. Put back on by Reagan. Indicted by DEA after the Iran-Contra scandal breaks. Invasion by US forces and installation of sympathetic gov't 10 days before scheduled return of the Panama Canal zone. Invasion of Nicaragua condemned by the Organization of American States in a vote of 20-1, guess who the 1 was. In other words, it was not acceptable in the world community. Milosevic was voted out of power and then indicted for war crimes. We didn't remove him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,170 #130 May 13, 2004 QuoteNoriega....put on the US payroll by GB, Sr. as CIA director. Graduate of the School of the Americas Hey -- he might have been an ugly baby, but he was OUR ugly baby Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #131 May 13, 2004 Quote>It may have been one of 26 reasons, but I'd argue removing >SH from power was the primary reason. It may well have been your primary reason, but it was not the stated reason. So either it wasn't the primary reason, or the administration deceived the US by claiming that WMD's were the primary reason. Are you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Are you really saying it wasn't the stated reason??? I remember a lot of Senators and Congresspeople saying "Saddam has got to go". This was mutually agreed upon before we invaded from almost everywhere in Govt. If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to arrest you first. Once you had been taken down, they would search for illegal weapon, drugs etc. Their primary goal, however would be to remove you from society. At the time, did you think we would leave him in power if we didn't find the WMDs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #132 May 13, 2004 So what was the primary reason for invading Panama and Bosnia? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #133 May 13, 2004 QuoteQuote>It may have been one of 26 reasons, but I'd argue removing >SH from power was the primary reason. It may well have been your primary reason, but it was not the stated reason. So either it wasn't the primary reason, or the administration deceived the US by claiming that WMD's were the primary reason. Are you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Are you really saying it wasn't the stated reason??? I remember a lot of Senators and Congresspeople saying "Saddam has got to go". This was mutually agreed upon before we invaded from almost everywhere in Govt. If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to arrest you first. Once you had been taken down, they would search for illegal weapon, drugs etc. Their primary goal, however would be to remove you from society. At the time, did you think we would leave him in power if we didn't find the WMDs? Amazing how different the story was 14 months ago. You should go back in the archives and see what you Bush apologists were writing then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #134 May 13, 2004 QuoteAre you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Of course it was. It just wasn't the stated reason. In other words, the administration lied about their reason. Was it implied that SH would be removed? Yes. And why did he need to be removed? To stop his WMD program. If there wasn't one, then that justification goes out the window. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #135 May 13, 2004 QuoteSo what was the primary reason for invading Panama and Bosnia? Panama....to install a friendly puppet government prior to our lease on the Panama Canal expiring, and to silence critics of the US policy of supporting Noriega's drug empire in the wake of Iran/Contra. Bosnia....to protect the Albanians from the Serbian troops. Milosevic was not removed by us. He remained in power until a new president was elected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #136 May 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteAre you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Of course it was. It just wasn't the stated reason. In other words, the administration lied about their reason. Was it implied that SH would be removed? Yes. And why did he need to be removed? To stop his WMD program. If there wasn't one, then that justification goes out the window. Not getting into an endless debate about whether Bush lied but other than that, I agree with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #137 May 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Of course it was. It just wasn't the stated reason. In other words, the administration lied about their reason. Was it implied that SH would be removed? Yes. And why did he need to be removed? To stop his WMD program. If there wasn't one, then that justification goes out the window. Not getting into an endless debate about whether Bush lied but other than that, I agree with you. Hey, it's easy to fess up. Even Vinny the Anvil has finally admitted that Bush is either a liar or very ignorant.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #138 May 13, 2004 I'm not talking about lying about WMD, even if they were there, the reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq was to remove SH from power. But, he never gave that as his reason. Even if the WMD were there, it still wasn't the reason Bush wanted to invade. Either way he lied. You said yourself that the reason was to remove SH. I agree, that was the reason. But Bush never said that was the reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,471 #139 May 14, 2004 >Are you really saying it wasn't the stated reason??? I remember a lot > of Senators and Congresspeople saying "Saddam has got to go". > This was mutually agreed upon before we invaded from almost > everywhere in Govt. It was agreed upon by the PNAC, but the party line up until that point was "Saddam must disarm." We invaded because he would not disarm (according to the administration) not because 'he must go.' >If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought > you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to > arrest you first. Ah! But if they arrested you on suspicion of drug possession, searched your house and found nothing, would the proper response to be to keep you in jail the rest of your life? >Once you had been taken down, they would search for illegal > weapon, drugs etc. Their primary goal, however would be to remove > you from society. Nope! That is not the police's role. They enforce the law; they do not interpret it and decide who is a threat to society. When police arrest a bunch of black kids in a bad neighborhood just because they're black and likely to commit a crime, then they (rightly) get all sorts of flak. Now, once they commit a crime, they can be charged with it and arrested. But you have to arrest them for a crime they've actually committed, not one they didn't commit. >At the time, did you think we would leave him in power if we didn't >find the WMDs? It is clear at this point that Bush wanted a regime change, and was making up the WMD thing. Even if he had created some so he could turn them over to us, WMD's we would have invaded anyway. That would have been very politicially inconvenient, because Bush would have had to admit he was basically lying about his motivations. "Well, we were worried about WMD's and his links to 9/11. There were no links, and we got his weapons, but we're going to take him out anyway." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #140 May 14, 2004 >If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought > you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to > arrest you first. QuoteAh! But if they arrested you on suspicion of drug possession, searched your house and found nothing, would the proper response to be to keep you in jail the rest of your life? Now you are changing what I said, .....again I said if the police "knew" you had committed various crimes, they might go to a judge and convince him you had illegal weapons. The police could get a warrant based on some pretty flimsy evidence if you had a history of breaking the law. Even if the police were wrong and you didn't have the weapons they had obtained the warrant for, they could still charge you with the crimes they did have evidence on. Plus if there happened to be a very large pile of cocaine in your basement, you'd really be screwed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #141 May 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Of course it was. It just wasn't the stated reason. In other words, the administration lied about their reason. Was it implied that SH would be removed? Yes. And why did he need to be removed? To stop his WMD program. If there wasn't one, then that justification goes out the window. Not getting into an endless debate about whether Bush lied but other than that, I agree with you. Hey, it's easy to fess up. Even Vinny the Anvil has finally admitted that Bush is either a liar or very ignorant. Not fessing up to anything Kallend, read it again. Tell you what. When you can show me absolute proof of what happened to the WMDs we knew he had, I'll fess up. Until then, I have no intention of engaging in a protracted debate that goes nowhere. Fair enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #142 May 14, 2004 Quote Not fessing up to anything Kallend, read it again. Tell you what. When you can show me absolute proof of what happened to the WMDs we knew he had, I'll fess up. Until then, I have no intention of engaging in a protracted debate that goes nowhere. Fair enough? What did you have for dinner February 3 this year?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #143 May 14, 2004 QuoteQuote Not fessing up to anything Kallend, read it again. Tell you what. When you can show me absolute proof of what happened to the WMDs we knew he had, I'll fess up. Until then, I have no intention of engaging in a protracted debate that goes nowhere. Fair enough? What did you have for dinner February 3 this year? Are you inferring SH doesn't know what he did with his WMDs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #144 May 14, 2004 Not to put too fine a point on things but, I imply, you infer. Anyway, no, what I'm implying is that it's entirely possible that SH destroyed, used, sold or otherwise got rid of his WMD, but didn't get a receipt for the boys in accounting.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #145 May 14, 2004 QuoteNot to put too fine a point on things but, I imply, you infer. Anyway, no, what I'm implying is that it's entirely possible that SH destroyed, used, sold or otherwise got rid of his WMD, but didn't get a receipt for the boys in accounting. Thank you for the grammar correction. I'll return the favor sometime. Don't you think it's a real stretch to claim nobody in Iraq remembers what happened to the WMDs? I mean really Quade, thats quite a stretch even for you. BTW I've been meaning to tell you that one of the funniest spelling errors I've seen on here in a long time is someone mistakenly calling Al Qaeda..Al Quada. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #146 May 14, 2004 Oh, I'm NOT saying that nobody remembers, only that nobody can -prove- what happened.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #147 May 14, 2004 Quote>If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought > you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to > arrest you first. QuoteAh! But if they arrested you on suspicion of drug possession, searched your house and found nothing, would the proper response to be to keep you in jail the rest of your life? Now you are changing what I said, .....again I said if the police "knew" you had committed various crimes, they might go to a judge and convince him you had illegal weapons. The police could get a warrant based on some pretty flimsy evidence if you had a history of breaking the law. Even if the police were wrong and you didn't have the weapons they had obtained the warrant for, they could still charge you with the crimes they did have evidence on. Plus if there happened to be a very large pile of cocaine in your basement, you'd really be screwed. Every cloud has a silver lining. I happen to believe that the invasion of Iraq was premised on a lie, and have been on record since January 2003 with that opinion. We should have devoted 100% of our efforts to terrorism and not gotten sidetracked by Bush's vendetta. But the removal of Saddham was the silver lining. He was no doubt an evil dictator. I do not think it was our business to remove him, but what's done is done. What is apparent NOW is that the US/UK presence has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We need to get out ASAP for the benefit of everyone, ourselves included.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,471 #148 May 14, 2004 >I said if the police "knew" you had committed various crimes, they >might go to a judge and convince him you had illegal weapons. Yes! Exactly. And if the judge agreed, you could go in and search. If the judge disagreed - the judiciary, not the police force, is the final word. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,471 #149 May 14, 2004 >Don't you think it's a real stretch to claim nobody in Iraq remembers >what happened to the WMDs? I don't think we've asked everybody. Also, keep in mind that we spent several years doing our best (from the air) to destroy every military installation and kill anyone in it. If you kill most of the people in the military, and then say "Hey, no one in the military seems to know anything!" - that's a pretty foolish thing to base conclusions on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #150 May 17, 2004 I attended the commissioning of a bunch of new 2nd Lieutenants and Ensigns over the weekend. I have done this each year for some 15 years now. Always there is a senior officer (this year an Admiral) who gives the address. Always the speaker emphasizes that an officer is responsible and accountable for everything that happens in his or her unit. And that such responsibility applies at every level. And that message was given again this year to the newly made officers. It will be a travesty if a bunch of enlisteds are made the fall guys for this.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 6 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
PhillyKev 0 #129 May 13, 2004 Noriega....put on the US payroll by GB, Sr. as CIA director. Graduate of the School of the Americas. Taken off the payroll by Carter. Put back on by Reagan. Indicted by DEA after the Iran-Contra scandal breaks. Invasion by US forces and installation of sympathetic gov't 10 days before scheduled return of the Panama Canal zone. Invasion of Nicaragua condemned by the Organization of American States in a vote of 20-1, guess who the 1 was. In other words, it was not acceptable in the world community. Milosevic was voted out of power and then indicted for war crimes. We didn't remove him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,170 #130 May 13, 2004 QuoteNoriega....put on the US payroll by GB, Sr. as CIA director. Graduate of the School of the Americas Hey -- he might have been an ugly baby, but he was OUR ugly baby Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #131 May 13, 2004 Quote>It may have been one of 26 reasons, but I'd argue removing >SH from power was the primary reason. It may well have been your primary reason, but it was not the stated reason. So either it wasn't the primary reason, or the administration deceived the US by claiming that WMD's were the primary reason. Are you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Are you really saying it wasn't the stated reason??? I remember a lot of Senators and Congresspeople saying "Saddam has got to go". This was mutually agreed upon before we invaded from almost everywhere in Govt. If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to arrest you first. Once you had been taken down, they would search for illegal weapon, drugs etc. Their primary goal, however would be to remove you from society. At the time, did you think we would leave him in power if we didn't find the WMDs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #132 May 13, 2004 So what was the primary reason for invading Panama and Bosnia? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #133 May 13, 2004 QuoteQuote>It may have been one of 26 reasons, but I'd argue removing >SH from power was the primary reason. It may well have been your primary reason, but it was not the stated reason. So either it wasn't the primary reason, or the administration deceived the US by claiming that WMD's were the primary reason. Are you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Are you really saying it wasn't the stated reason??? I remember a lot of Senators and Congresspeople saying "Saddam has got to go". This was mutually agreed upon before we invaded from almost everywhere in Govt. If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to arrest you first. Once you had been taken down, they would search for illegal weapon, drugs etc. Their primary goal, however would be to remove you from society. At the time, did you think we would leave him in power if we didn't find the WMDs? Amazing how different the story was 14 months ago. You should go back in the archives and see what you Bush apologists were writing then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #134 May 13, 2004 QuoteAre you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Of course it was. It just wasn't the stated reason. In other words, the administration lied about their reason. Was it implied that SH would be removed? Yes. And why did he need to be removed? To stop his WMD program. If there wasn't one, then that justification goes out the window. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #135 May 13, 2004 QuoteSo what was the primary reason for invading Panama and Bosnia? Panama....to install a friendly puppet government prior to our lease on the Panama Canal expiring, and to silence critics of the US policy of supporting Noriega's drug empire in the wake of Iran/Contra. Bosnia....to protect the Albanians from the Serbian troops. Milosevic was not removed by us. He remained in power until a new president was elected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #136 May 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteAre you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Of course it was. It just wasn't the stated reason. In other words, the administration lied about their reason. Was it implied that SH would be removed? Yes. And why did he need to be removed? To stop his WMD program. If there wasn't one, then that justification goes out the window. Not getting into an endless debate about whether Bush lied but other than that, I agree with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #137 May 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Of course it was. It just wasn't the stated reason. In other words, the administration lied about their reason. Was it implied that SH would be removed? Yes. And why did he need to be removed? To stop his WMD program. If there wasn't one, then that justification goes out the window. Not getting into an endless debate about whether Bush lied but other than that, I agree with you. Hey, it's easy to fess up. Even Vinny the Anvil has finally admitted that Bush is either a liar or very ignorant.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #138 May 13, 2004 I'm not talking about lying about WMD, even if they were there, the reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq was to remove SH from power. But, he never gave that as his reason. Even if the WMD were there, it still wasn't the reason Bush wanted to invade. Either way he lied. You said yourself that the reason was to remove SH. I agree, that was the reason. But Bush never said that was the reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #139 May 14, 2004 >Are you really saying it wasn't the stated reason??? I remember a lot > of Senators and Congresspeople saying "Saddam has got to go". > This was mutually agreed upon before we invaded from almost > everywhere in Govt. It was agreed upon by the PNAC, but the party line up until that point was "Saddam must disarm." We invaded because he would not disarm (according to the administration) not because 'he must go.' >If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought > you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to > arrest you first. Ah! But if they arrested you on suspicion of drug possession, searched your house and found nothing, would the proper response to be to keep you in jail the rest of your life? >Once you had been taken down, they would search for illegal > weapon, drugs etc. Their primary goal, however would be to remove > you from society. Nope! That is not the police's role. They enforce the law; they do not interpret it and decide who is a threat to society. When police arrest a bunch of black kids in a bad neighborhood just because they're black and likely to commit a crime, then they (rightly) get all sorts of flak. Now, once they commit a crime, they can be charged with it and arrested. But you have to arrest them for a crime they've actually committed, not one they didn't commit. >At the time, did you think we would leave him in power if we didn't >find the WMDs? It is clear at this point that Bush wanted a regime change, and was making up the WMD thing. Even if he had created some so he could turn them over to us, WMD's we would have invaded anyway. That would have been very politicially inconvenient, because Bush would have had to admit he was basically lying about his motivations. "Well, we were worried about WMD's and his links to 9/11. There were no links, and we got his weapons, but we're going to take him out anyway." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #140 May 14, 2004 >If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought > you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to > arrest you first. QuoteAh! But if they arrested you on suspicion of drug possession, searched your house and found nothing, would the proper response to be to keep you in jail the rest of your life? Now you are changing what I said, .....again I said if the police "knew" you had committed various crimes, they might go to a judge and convince him you had illegal weapons. The police could get a warrant based on some pretty flimsy evidence if you had a history of breaking the law. Even if the police were wrong and you didn't have the weapons they had obtained the warrant for, they could still charge you with the crimes they did have evidence on. Plus if there happened to be a very large pile of cocaine in your basement, you'd really be screwed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #141 May 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you really saying removing SH from power wasn't the primary reason for invading Iraq? Seriously???? Of course it was. It just wasn't the stated reason. In other words, the administration lied about their reason. Was it implied that SH would be removed? Yes. And why did he need to be removed? To stop his WMD program. If there wasn't one, then that justification goes out the window. Not getting into an endless debate about whether Bush lied but other than that, I agree with you. Hey, it's easy to fess up. Even Vinny the Anvil has finally admitted that Bush is either a liar or very ignorant. Not fessing up to anything Kallend, read it again. Tell you what. When you can show me absolute proof of what happened to the WMDs we knew he had, I'll fess up. Until then, I have no intention of engaging in a protracted debate that goes nowhere. Fair enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #142 May 14, 2004 Quote Not fessing up to anything Kallend, read it again. Tell you what. When you can show me absolute proof of what happened to the WMDs we knew he had, I'll fess up. Until then, I have no intention of engaging in a protracted debate that goes nowhere. Fair enough? What did you have for dinner February 3 this year?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #143 May 14, 2004 QuoteQuote Not fessing up to anything Kallend, read it again. Tell you what. When you can show me absolute proof of what happened to the WMDs we knew he had, I'll fess up. Until then, I have no intention of engaging in a protracted debate that goes nowhere. Fair enough? What did you have for dinner February 3 this year? Are you inferring SH doesn't know what he did with his WMDs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #144 May 14, 2004 Not to put too fine a point on things but, I imply, you infer. Anyway, no, what I'm implying is that it's entirely possible that SH destroyed, used, sold or otherwise got rid of his WMD, but didn't get a receipt for the boys in accounting.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #145 May 14, 2004 QuoteNot to put too fine a point on things but, I imply, you infer. Anyway, no, what I'm implying is that it's entirely possible that SH destroyed, used, sold or otherwise got rid of his WMD, but didn't get a receipt for the boys in accounting. Thank you for the grammar correction. I'll return the favor sometime. Don't you think it's a real stretch to claim nobody in Iraq remembers what happened to the WMDs? I mean really Quade, thats quite a stretch even for you. BTW I've been meaning to tell you that one of the funniest spelling errors I've seen on here in a long time is someone mistakenly calling Al Qaeda..Al Quada. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #146 May 14, 2004 Oh, I'm NOT saying that nobody remembers, only that nobody can -prove- what happened.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #147 May 14, 2004 Quote>If the police knew you had committed various crimes and thought > you also had illegal weapons in your home, their goal would be to > arrest you first. QuoteAh! But if they arrested you on suspicion of drug possession, searched your house and found nothing, would the proper response to be to keep you in jail the rest of your life? Now you are changing what I said, .....again I said if the police "knew" you had committed various crimes, they might go to a judge and convince him you had illegal weapons. The police could get a warrant based on some pretty flimsy evidence if you had a history of breaking the law. Even if the police were wrong and you didn't have the weapons they had obtained the warrant for, they could still charge you with the crimes they did have evidence on. Plus if there happened to be a very large pile of cocaine in your basement, you'd really be screwed. Every cloud has a silver lining. I happen to believe that the invasion of Iraq was premised on a lie, and have been on record since January 2003 with that opinion. We should have devoted 100% of our efforts to terrorism and not gotten sidetracked by Bush's vendetta. But the removal of Saddham was the silver lining. He was no doubt an evil dictator. I do not think it was our business to remove him, but what's done is done. What is apparent NOW is that the US/UK presence has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We need to get out ASAP for the benefit of everyone, ourselves included.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #148 May 14, 2004 >I said if the police "knew" you had committed various crimes, they >might go to a judge and convince him you had illegal weapons. Yes! Exactly. And if the judge agreed, you could go in and search. If the judge disagreed - the judiciary, not the police force, is the final word. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #149 May 14, 2004 >Don't you think it's a real stretch to claim nobody in Iraq remembers >what happened to the WMDs? I don't think we've asked everybody. Also, keep in mind that we spent several years doing our best (from the air) to destroy every military installation and kill anyone in it. If you kill most of the people in the military, and then say "Hey, no one in the military seems to know anything!" - that's a pretty foolish thing to base conclusions on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #150 May 17, 2004 I attended the commissioning of a bunch of new 2nd Lieutenants and Ensigns over the weekend. I have done this each year for some 15 years now. Always there is a senior officer (this year an Admiral) who gives the address. Always the speaker emphasizes that an officer is responsible and accountable for everything that happens in his or her unit. And that such responsibility applies at every level. And that message was given again this year to the newly made officers. It will be a travesty if a bunch of enlisteds are made the fall guys for this.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)