liberals....

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again, you are just wrong. SH submitted all those docs and the CD's of them and it was proven they were the same stuff he sent before. Then he started his "my palaces are exempt" schpeel when it was determined his palaces were more than just residences. Do you not remember that? That is what I am talking about. Moreover, he could lead Hans Blix all over the country and take him to tea, that does not mean he met his burden of proving he destroyed the WMD. To do that he had to produce the destroyes stuff, pictures of it, etc. He did not do that. Instead, once again, he said to the inspectors, you can go here go here go here. That was NOT meeting his burden. Why are you so willing to let him off on that?

Again, your previous statement is an outright lie. I know you like to spin, but this is getting absurd. He NEVER played the "you can go here but not here" game leading up to the invasion. You lied, simply put.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

When an ally of the US is attacked it is as if the US is attacked - the US will and should respond. I cannot believe you did not know that

You're getting really low, Jason. I expected better, honestly.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I don't see the logic in saying years weren't long enough for Saddam to prove he destroyed the weapons, but two months was too long to invade Afghanistan. I do not think two months is that long to wait considering the state of chaos this country was in.

The purpose of invading Afghan. was to get OBL and disrupt al-Qaeda. How could this be accomplished if we gave OBL and his men a running start of two months? How?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You started with the "if we attacked on 9/12" bull**** when you knew that was the farthest thing from the my mind or this conversation. Again, refer to post #262 and you'll see what I really said.

I still do not know what you are talking about.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I still do not know what you are talking about.

Then we're on the same page with each other.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

The purpose of invading Afghan. was to get OBL and disrupt al-Qaeda. How could this be accomplished if we gave OBL and his men a running start of two months? How?

With the exception of Pearl Harbor (Which was an entirely different situation), when have we ever conducted a military invasion in less than two months?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

With the exception of Pearl Harbor (Which was an entirely different situation), when have we ever conducted a military invasion in less than two months?

With the advance of technology, it's not really a fair comparison.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

With the advance of technology, it's not really a fair comparison.

We waited for the Gulf War.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

With the exception of Pearl Harbor (Which was an entirely different situation), when have we ever conducted a military invasion in less than two months?

With technological advances since the 1940's, I don't understand what you're getting at. If we could do it in less than two months back then, we could do it in 2 weeks now.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

We waited for the Gulf War.

Because we knew Saddam wasn't about to go anywhere.

al-Qaeda was a new kind of enemy and needed to be dealt with much quicker, plain and simple. There's no getting around it.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

We waited for the Gulf War.

And? I don't really understand.

Our military technology made huge advances in the post Gulf War era. We went from having smart bombs that could strike within a reasonable distance to those that could strike within inches. This is just one example. There are many, many others. The Clinton administration invested a lot of effort in developing long range missiles so that they wouldn't have to put troops on the ground unless absolutely necessary.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And? I don't really understand.

I'm just saying that the US waited to invade Iraq the first time. I'm trying to find instances where the US performed large military operations in haste, like Dissention was advocating.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I'm just saying that the US waited to invade Iraq the first time. I'm trying to find instances where the US performed large military operations in haste, like Dissention was advocating.

There are no examples because a situation like 9/11 never arose. But don't you think that we had the technology and the means to invade Afghan in two weeks?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Again, your previous statement is an outright lie. I know you like to spin, but this is getting absurd. He NEVER played the "you can go here but not here" game leading up to the invasion. You lied, simply put.

I cannot believe you do not remember Iraq at first refusing to allow any inspections in the so called palaces (I think there were over 50 of them), which were not just homes but war rooms and possible storage sites. Then, after negotiatons with the UN and the amassing of like 200,000 plus troops on his borders, SH caved. So, I think I am correct in saying in the beginning SH was not cooperative. He tried the same crap he had been trying for the last 11 years and the world refused to put up with it.

And, I have never said SH was not cooperating with Blix. Here is an interview with Blix http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/19/ip.00.html Blix says SH was cooperating in the process, etc. - it actually sounded cagey to me - but he cooperated on the surface nonetheless. But, NONE of that answers the main question of the need for inspectors in the first place. Again, why did he not produce the required evidence instead of making us look for it - it was SH's burden - you still have not answered that one. The answer is he did not.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I'm just saying that the US waited to invade Iraq the first time. I'm trying to find instances where the US performed large military operations in haste, like Dissention was advocating.

I edited my post for further explanantion.
As far as the military performing with haste, that's what they're trained to do- meaning they are supposed to be ready to go when called and quickly.
I don't know, you could be right though. Why did it take so long for the fighter jets to scramble on 9/11? Unless they were told to stand down.