N.O.W. says Ted Kennedy guilty of "the ultimate betrayal"!!!

[Onceler]

No, it is very relevant. But YOU are acting like we would have found out for sure that Saddam did not have WMDs by simply "containing" him and letting the UN do what it had not been able to do for 12 years. Massive forces on the border or not, THIS is the point where we disagree.

I do not believe we would have found this out for sure without going in. I have no faith in the UN's ability to do so. YOU on the other hand do believe we would have found out via having mass troops on the border and the UN suddenly being able to succeed where previously they had failed.

THAT is our difference. THAT is why I think the war was inevitable, while you think that concept is ignorant.

The point Lorax, is that we are both forming our opinions based on what we THINK would have happened. I think your argument is ridiculous and simplistic and you think the same of mine. Neither of us can prove "what might have happened".

No - there is another big difference. My opinion is based on facts, yours ignores them.

Again - unfettered access. Inspections were working. There is no way around that. War was never inevitable. I don't THINK inspections were finally working; they were. I don't THINK they would have found out what we now know about WMD's...they would have, had they been allowed to continue.

That's the big difference between me & you, apologist. I would laugh hysterically at your continued claims that "war was inevitable....if there was a threat....but there was no way to find out if there was a threat.....even though inspections were working....yada, yada, yada," if your misguided "opinion" wasn't so tragic.

You're like an Abbott & Costello routine: we had to go to war because of the threat that Saddam would have posed. What threat? The threat that we believed, but had no means to prove. What about inspections? They weren't working. But they were, and would have shown us that he wasn't a threat? Sure, we know that now, but we didn't then. So why did we go to war? Because of the threat Saddam would have posed.

 

[Litmus]

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No - there is another big difference. My opinion is based on facts, yours ignores them.

Again - unfettered access. Inspections were working. There is no way around that. War was never inevitable. I don't THINK inspections were finally working; they were. I don't THINK they would have found out what we now know abotu WMD's...they would have, had they been allowed to continue.

That's the big difference between me & you, apologist. I would laugh hysterically at your continued claims that "war was inevitable....if there was a threat....but there was no way to find out if there was a threat.....even though inspections were working....yada, yada, yada."

You're like an Abbott & Costello routine: we had to go to war because of the threat that Saddam would have posed. What threat? The threat that we believed, but had no means to prove. What about inspections? They weren't working. But they were, and would have shown us that he wasn't a threat? Sure, we know that now, but we didn't then. So why did we go to war? Because of the threat Saddam would have posed.

Again, you are full of shit....

1) You ASSUME the unfettered access would continue indefinitely. You have NO "facts" that support your assessment that the inspections would have ended up showing no WMDs. You have three months of apparent cooperation from Saddam to my 12 years of failure by the UN. Yet somehow you have managed to dupe yourself into believing that those three months are somehow more relevant than the preceeding 12 years. THAT IS OPINION. NOT FACT.

2) Please show us your evidence that proves your assertion that "I don't THINK they would have found out what we now know abotu WMD's...they would have, had they been allowed to continue."

I'll wait for you to realize that it is indeed just your OPINION that they would have worked and that you have no FACTS to back that up. Again, your opinion might indeed have been correct, then again it might not have been. There is no way to know Lorax and you are too intelligent to continue to pretend otherwise. Just because YOU WANT to believe your opinion is correct doesn't make it a fact.

3) and back we come again to your "apologist" crap. A sure sign you have nothing to support your argument. So please, shout from the top of the mountains as loud as your little lungs can "Bush apologist"...then run like the fucking Cypress coward and claim like you somehow won this argument.

Nothing you say will change the fact that it is one opinion vs another. Nothing. Because there is no way to prove "what might have been".

I never would have taken you for a complete hack. But apparently I was wrong. You are. You think YOUR opinions are somehow facts.... how pathetic of you.

 

[Cancel7]

You have NO "facts" that support your assessment that the inspections would have ended up showing no WMDs

Well, he has history. There weren't none there when we showed up.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You have NO "facts" that support your assessment that the inspections would have ended up showing no WMDs

Well, he has history. There weren't none there when we showed up.

No, he does not have history. Because you cannot say with any certainty that the inspections would have led us to that knowledge. You do not know that. There are no facts to support that. It is purely his opinion. One that could be correct or wrong. We will never know for sure because as I stated, we cannot prove one way or the other "what might have been". It is impossible.

Saddam could have just as easily tossed the UN inspectors back out. Requiring the use of force. Again, pure conjecture on my part and in my opinion based on 12 years of UN failures the more likely of the two.