let's try to dissect this post and see where you are getting your wires crossed. i'm only trying to help here....
>>Well now you should reread the Tommy Franks quotes."
did you mean to write "well now, you should reread Tommy Frank's quotes?" what quotes?
>>If anyone had humit in Iraq it would be Arab countries.
what the hell is "humit"??? How can the answer to something "in" Iraq be "Arab countries?"
>>Arab Countries all said you will face WMD's if you attack.
I think you meant "all arab coutries said that the US would face WMD's..." all arab countries said this? are u sure about this?
>>It was said with slam dunk confidence.
If "all of the arab countries" are so good at subterfuge, why would you assume such statements are not bluffs?
>>So after 911 with hundreds of thousands of US troops sitting in Saudia Arabia you would have said in the face of everything don't go.
This is a big 'ole mess. I think what you meant to write is something like: "so even after 9/11, (notice the comma, it is quite useful when trying to make your point clear) with hundreds of thousands of US troops stationed in Saudi (no 'a') Arabia, (remember, commas are our friends) you would have said "don't go" (ie invade Iraq).
Even correctly written, this is a worthless comment as you don't make explicit the connection between our troops being stationed in SA and our need to invade Iraq. I could assume that you mean that having our troops already in SA was a prime opportunity that we shouldn't pass up. I think that the connection was more likely that the invasion of Iraq gave us an excuse to move troops out of "the holyland," which, to me, is more opportunistic than opportunity.
moving on....
>>You feebly argue one fact in isolation.
What one fact are you referring to? How does one argue a "fact?" Or did you mean that I was "isolating one fact, out of context, to make an argument?"
>>I argue that in the totality of all known "The most credible source that saddam had WMD stocks was saddam's lack of cooperation in showing he had none and his proactive campaign to feed the perceptions he did have them.
yikes, another disaster. i hope you are not claiming that you "know all." then you jump back to reiterate the blanket statement you made in your prior post, which I disagreed with.
>>saddam is rotting in jail because he was a master liar. LOL..
First of all, if he is such a master liar, why (again) did you assume that he was telling the truth about having WMD. Secondly, I am at a loss as to why this comment, or the invasion of Iraq for that matter, would cause you to "LOL." Lastly, I thought Saddam was in jail for being a tyrannical dictator and a threat to world peace, not for lying.
>> Clearly you cannot connect the dots
Clearly I am very good at connecting dots. One has to connect many dots just to attempt to understand your jibberish. Unfortunately, even with all those random DOTS connected, you still fail to make a POINT.
if you can't run with the big dogs TW, it's best to stay on the porch. |
