Wait One Damn Minute!!- Saddam Hussein Had A Chemical Weapons Plant!!

A handy summary of my view of Hans Blix

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080539/posts

Dayton, this needs to be answered if this thread of yours - or your opinions for that matter - are to be given any credibility.

And you'll have to do better than "several people at other sites have posted stuff".

You realize that NotDayton is... not Dayton. Right?

I was tricked by that, too. It is just the sort of thing Dayton would say.

Given the fact that he's posted in this thread and not said the sort of thing that you think he would, it would appear that you misperceive him.

Yet.

Dayton's favorite word whenever he can't counter an argument:

http://wordforge.net/index.php?thre...atus-of-forces-agreement.104063/#post-2621496

http://wordforge.net/index.php?thre...t-a-cop-being-shot.103946/page-2#post-2617045

http://wordforge.net/index.php?search/234317/&q=irrelevant&t=post&o=date&c[node]=2&c[user][0]=164

I'm really going to have to give up on WF when I only have time for quick "hit and runs." I completely missed that!

Well, at least it's reassuring -- I thought Dayton had completely lost it. Thanks for pointing it out.

No, I'd say I have a pretty good understanding of him. Or was it NotDayton who put the word President in quotes?

Free Republic, quoting a biased commentary piece, and even then it doesn't contain anything like the quote you gave.

Sorry Dayton, gonna have to give your post an F due to fraudulent content.

^Well, I tried.

No , you didn't try. You really, really didn't.

Okay. Maybe this old chemical weapon plant is not that big of a deal.

Still, it's only 45 miles from Baghdad.

Which we were after March 2003.

Again, we were at war after March 2003.

Rumsfeld is on record as saying we knew where the WMDs were. Assume, for the sake of argument, that Iraq did have WMDs and that we did know exactly where they were. Which is what Rumsfeld claimed at the time.

Presumably, in the months leading up to the war, we would have been using satellites and spy planes to monitor all activity in and around those areas. Even during the Clinton Administration, we had no problem taking out things on the ground (anti-aircraft installations, primarily) that we thought posed a threat to US forces. Should we not have bombed those sites if we saw large numbers of vehicles leaving them? The moment the war started, shouldn't we have bombed those sites or dropped forces in an attempt to control them? That way we could prevent them from being moved (and falling into the hands of folks like Bin Ladin) or prevent them from being destroyed so that we could say to the world, "See! We weren't crazy, Saddam did have WMDs!"?

Yet, we didn't. Why is that? It doesn't matter what Saddam might have done with such weapons, if he had them, the man clearly wasn't rational. If we thought that they posed a danger, then our first priority, once we initiated the war, should have been to capture those facilities at all costs. Desert warfare is relatively "simple" according to Major-General F. W. von Mellenthin (who served under Rommel in the Afrika Korps), in that once you obtain air superiority, it doesn't matter how many soldiers you have on the ground, the battle is yours.

Again, we're left with two choices:

1. The people in charge of the war were incompetent.
2. They knew the claims of WMDs were bullshit.

What Saddam might have done, if he actually had WMDs, doesn't factor into the equation at all.

Did you realize that you are 125 posts away from finally pushing marathon out of the top 20 of wordforge post count?

I bring that up here because this thread is useless without a hijack effort.

Nm, realized it was NotDayton and Not Dayton.

Psst, Anna, that's NotDayton. (Granted, its very, very hard to tell the difference.)

Your first response worked regardless.

We're definitely into "Poe" territory here.

I was hoping you hadn't. If that was the best source you could find then it's as good as admitting that you just made your quote up.

Or, at very best, blindly repeated what someone heard from someone who heard something from someone who probably exaggerated what he heard that someone else had thought was probably how it all happened...

And all of that simply because it suited what he wanted to believe. Kind of like Wordin repeating any anti-Republican satire he heard as if it was Gospel Truth.

Unfortunately, this kind of nonsense has made it in to supposedly more reliable sources. I read an op/ed yesterday that was filled with Daytonisms: "we've heard that this awful thing might have happened, and are waiting for evidence to prove it wrong." Um, what about presenting evidence that what you've heard is correct?

I thought it was in National Review back in the 2000-2002 era but I've never been able to find it.

IIRC, 2000 was when I started posting at the TrekBBS

That's usually how these things work. Try to handle it and it'll explode in your face. Guess what a precursor to using it is... that's right, handling it!

So yes, they could carry out a Tokyo subway-style attack, once they get a all those people into the chemical weapons plant. The place where they are now is the only place they are dangerous, because they cannot be moved elsewhere without setting them off.

This thread=

Dayton started it, what else would you expect?

Dayton does prefer explosions in his disasters.

Have you checked the coop yet?

Indeed.

We need a chicken coop smilie...