John McGoldwater admits Iraq was a war for oil

Superfreak said:
Go back to roasting nuts. It is not "nitpicky" to correct someone who states that inspectors were there four years crawling all over Iraq when in fact there were NO inspectors in the country AT ALL.
Click to expand...

They were back though before we invaded and had found nothing yet. Bush gave them an unrealistic deadline to complete their inpsections....
 
uscitizen said:
They were back though before we invaded and had found nothing yet. Bush gave them an unrealistic deadline to complete their inpsections....
Click to expand...

Again... for the senile and those who lack reading comprehension skills....

The above idiocy from US does not change the fact that he was wrong with regards to the inspectors "crawling all over Iraq" during Clintons two terms.

As for expectations... 12 years seems an adequate amount of time. Though I do agree Bush should have waited until Afghanistan was done.
 
uscitizen said:
How was the above from USC idiocy ? Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

You said I was nitpicking when I corrected BAC on his position of the UN inspectors having been in Iraq. I reiterated that point to you when you suggested such.

Then your next response was the same as what BAC stated... "but, but they went back in with Bush... blah blah blah." Which has NOTHING to do with the part where he was wrong.

You essentially repeated the same damn things as BAC, thus recreating (again for the senile) the same conversation. That is idiotic.
 
Superfreak said:
You said I was nitpicking when I corrected BAC on his position of the UN inspectors having been in Iraq. I reiterated that point to you when you suggested such.

Then your next response was the same as what BAC stated... "but, but they went back in with Bush... blah blah blah." Which has NOTHING to do with the part where he was wrong.

You essentially repeated the same damn things as BAC, thus recreating (again for the senile) the same conversation. That is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Au Contrare, It is your argument that is weak, fuzzy and flawed.
You keep seeing simple answers for complex problems. It usually does not work that way.
 
uscitizen said:
Au Contrare, It is your argument that is weak, fuzzy and flawed.
You keep seeing simple answers for complex problems. It usually does not work that way.
Click to expand...

Do elaborate then.... what part of what I have stated with regards to the inspectors is incorrect?

Are you asserting that they were indeed swarming in Iraq from 1998-2001?

Put up or shut up. Point out the errors.
 
No I am not stating that. I am stating that you are fixating on their absence for a time to try to justify your belief in Bush and his war.
I stated that they were back in place before the invasion and basically nothing they reported before the invasion has been proven to be wrong.
imho bush gave them an unreasonably short timeframe to finish their inspection becuase he knew his rhetoric about WMD's and the yellowcake mushroom clouds to be a lie and could not wait on their report because it would show him to be a liar as all the evidence has thus far.
 
uscitizen said:
No I am not stating that. I am stating that you are fixating on their absence for a time to try to justify your belief in Bush and his war.
I stated that they were back in place before the invasion and basically nothing they reported before the invasion has been proven to be wrong.
imho bush gave them an unreasonably short timeframe to finish their inspection becuase he knew his rhetoric about WMD's and the yellowcake mushroom clouds to be a lie and could not wait on their report because it would show him to be a liar as all the evidence has thus far.
Click to expand...

which is complete stupidity on your part. No where did I state any such thing. I pointed out where BAC was incorrect. Then he tried this same bullshit as what you just posted. Trying to spin it into something about Bush.
 
No you did not state it, you have pointedly avoided it because it invalidates your stance , and nitpicked on other issues as an attempted diversion.
 
uscitizen said:
No you did not state it, you have pointedly avoided it because it invalidates your stance , and nitpicked on other issues as an attempted diversion.
Click to expand...

Do try to go back and read the thread US. I did not "avoid" inspectors going back into Iraq after Bush put more troops on the border. I discussed that as well. But again, THAT has NOTHING to do with the fact that his statement was WRONG.

What part of that is so friggin hard for you to understand?

Inspectors WERE NOT IN IRAQ from 1998-2001. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top