Baghdad wants U.S. to pay $1 billion for damage to city - Page 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baggi 

 

 I didn't realize we were talking about your opinion. You quoted Rice and your point wasn't clear. If your point was, "Saddam was not a threat" then big whoop.

 

We disagree. I believe Saddam was a threat.

 

The next time you quote someone, maybe you'd should be a bit more clear that you're trying to say, "Saddam was not a threat." then it will be clear from the beginning that you're quoting people for absolutely no reason whatsoever.. 

I was replying to a set of quotes that implied that Saddam was a threat. Therefore I replied with a set of quotes that intimated the contrary by writing my point in exactly the same format. 

It wasn't particularly hard. Crazed got it. It was just you that didn't get it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgman27 

Quote:

 

I was replying to a set of quotes that implied that Saddam was a threat. Therefore I replied with a set of quotes that intimated the contrary by writing my point in exactly the same format. 

 

It wasn't particularly hard. Crazed got it. It was just you that didn't get it. 

That's exactly what I thought you meant, hence the reply, "Something strange happened on 9/11 to change their minds."

Then you contradicted my understanding of what you said.

And now you're just not making any sense.

Make up your mind, will you? If you're saying that before 9/11 they implied Saddam was not a threat, then after 9/11 he was a threat, hmmmmmm....

Not real complicated there.

Just as a reminder, this is what your original response was, which is what lead to the confusion.

Ah, but that's not the stance you were saying they changed.

You were saying of them that they thought he was a threat before 9/11 but not after.

Nice try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baggi 

That's exactly what I thought you meant, hence the reply, "Something strange happened on 9/11 to change their minds."

 

Then you contradicted my understanding of what you said.

 

And now you're just not making any sense.

 

Make up your mind, will you? If you're saying that before 9/11 they implied Saddam was not a threat, then after 9/11 he was a threat, hmmmmmm....

 

Not real complicated there.

Yes, and your reply was irrelevant. I entertained your irrelevant reply, which I shouldn't have. 

I don't know what you are talking about. There are no contradictions on my part. The only contradictions are on the part of the American and British Government with regards to what they said before and after. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baggi 

Just as a reminder, this is what your original response was, which is what lead to the confusion.

 

 

Ah, but that's not the stance you were saying they changed.

 

You were saying of them that they thought he was a threat before 9/11 but not after.

 

Nice try.

 I am saying that successive American Governments have wanted to topple Saddam. 9/11 doesn't change that. 9/11 just presents them with an opportunity to do so. 

As I said before, it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether Saddam was a threat or not. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgman27 

 

 I am saying that successive American Governments have wanted to topple Saddam. 9/11 doesn't change that. 9/11 just presents them with an opportunity to do so. 

As I said before, it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether Saddam was a threat or not. 

And that's where those quotes disagree with you. Before 9/11, people were talking like that because they thought of being attacked by conventional armies.

After 9/11 some of us (Obviously you're not counted in that) realized that 19 people with support and a plan could kill thousands of our citizens without a conventional army.

really.. im glad some of you dont hold an office in politics..

Some of the points and comparsions in here are just laughable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baggi 

 

And that's where those quotes disagree with you. Before 9/11, people were talking like that because they thought of being attacked by conventional armies.

 

After 9/11 some of us (Obviously you're not counted in that) realized that 19 people with support and a plan could kill thousands of our citizens without a conventional army.

The quotes don't disagree with me.  I said he wasn't a threat. They said he wasn't a threat. 

Your last point doesn't really make a difference since the threat of terrorism was not a significant reason for the invasion of Iraq. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgman27 

 

The quotes don't disagree with me.  I said he wasn't a threat. They said he wasn't a threat. 

 

Your last point doesn't really make a difference since the threat of terrorism was not a significant reason for the invasion of Iraq. 

What I meant, clearly, is that those you are quoting disagree with you because a funny little thing happened after those quotes were said, 9/11.

I'm sure you've already realized this, but it's too late to take those quotes back.

Those who you were quoting completely disagree with the conclusion you draw in your second sentence. Before 9/11 they saw no threat from Iraq because they were thinking about conventional weapons. Then this funny thing happened on 9/11 and those you were quoting changed their mind.

Did they change their mind because they suddenly believed Saddam had managed to obtain a large, conventional army?

Therefore, I conclude that your quotes make you look silly. I can see that you're playing obtuse so you don't have to acknowledge it, but clearly those quotes show that 9/11, for some of us, changed our way of thinking.

some ppl might need glasses but others dont have the insight to understand the complete issues with the topic.

MOD- dunno why it posted this line, i didnt do it. attempt to delete, wont delete.

 And Ive explained to you before that your "thought" is incorrect. It's a lie. Like the plastic turkey in Baghdad, or Palin can see Russia from her house nonesense.

It serves no one for you to continue to repeat such lies, specially after i've already explained it to you in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baggi 

 

What I meant, clearly, is that those you are quoting disagree with you because a funny little thing happened after those quotes were said, 9/11. 

 

I'm sure you've already realized this, but it's too late to take those quotes back.

 

Those who you were quoting completely disagree with the conclusion you draw in your second sentence. Before 9/11 they saw no threat from Iraq because they were thinking about conventional weapons. Then this funny thing happened on 9/11 and those you were quoting changed their mind.

 

Did they change their mind because they suddenly believed Saddam had managed to obtain a large, conventional army?

 

Therefore, I conclude that your quotes make you look silly. I can see that you're playing obtuse so you don't have to acknowledge it, but clearly those quotes show that 9/11, for some of us, changed our way of thinking.

It is erroneous whether they disagree with me now since I didn't say they agree with me. I said the their quotes prior to 9/11 agreed with my conclusion. I don't believe anything they said about Saddam after 9/11 because they just exaggerated the evidence or the intelligence was just false. 

I don't know what you consider to be conventional. I would consider WMDs to be conventional and terrorism to be uncoventional. Using my definition, then they continued to talk about him in conventional terms with regards to his WMDs prior to and after 9/11. However, their statements prior to 9/11 contradicted those after because they exaggerated or made up the claims after 9/11. 

Furthermore, there was no substantial evidence to suggest that Saddam was involved in terrorism. So from that point of view, they didn't seriously believe that Saddam posed a threat either. If they did, then they would have invaded in 2001 not in 2003. 

They didn't change their mind after 9/11 with respect to the threat to posed by Saddam. They saw an opportunity to invade Iraq. That is why they were seeking links between 9/11 and Saddam on the day of 9/11 even though it was probably an Al Qaeda attack. 

 Well, except for his paying the family of Terrorists bombers and allowing terrorists to live and train in Iraq, yeah, no involvement whatsoever.

 It's not that complicated. An army with soldiers and tanks against another army, that's conventional warfare and Saddam posed no threat in that regard. Using 19 people to hijack planes and fly them into civilian buildings, that's unconventional. We knew, before 9/11, all about the first. After 9/11, we realized that Saddam could no longer be contained by being able to easily defeat his conventional military.

 This is your belief and you're welcome to it, but let's not pretend like you have any evidence to support this belief.

Clearly they were quite honest before 9/11 about attacking Saddam, they saw no need, and they were in agreement with you. Then 9/11 happened and they changed their mind.

 You might like it to be erroneous but it's not. It's incredibly relevant. It shows the maturity of both Rice and Powell.

Some of us grew up after 9/11 and realized we lived in a different world. Others of us decided to stubbornly maintain our 9/10 mindset.

Knowing who is living in a 9/10 world and who is living in a 9/12 world is incredibly relevant. It helps me determine who to vote for and who I want leading this country.

Allow me to rephrase, "Those pesky people who disagree! Why don't they just shut up!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baggi 

 

 Well, except for his paying the family of Terrorists bombers and allowing terrorists to live and train in Iraq, yeah, no involvement whatsoever.

The suicide bombers didn't blow themselves up because Saddam was giving them money and if the Terrorists being given shelter by Saddam were that serious then they would have dealt with him in 2001 not 2003. 

Anyway, I was talking about the level of terrorist activity that the US government claimed that Saddam was involved prior to the war such as he was potentially involved in 9/11 and he could give WMD's to terrorists. 

Right.....but as I already mentioned  there isn't any substaintial evidence that he was involved in unconventional warfare after 9/11. That is why the case to invade Iraq was built upon Saddam's WMD capability. They didn't say that they were invading because he was planning terrorist attacks on the United States. 

As I said before, if they seriously thought that they couldn't contain Saddam and they had evidence that he could attack using unconventional methods, then they would have invaded in 2001 not 2003. 

Well, I do have evidence and I have already mentioned it. You just choose to ignore it or not accept it. Not my problem. 

Yeh, because they saw they could use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. That is why on the day of 9/11, even though they knew it was probably an Al Qaeda attack they were looking at ways to link it to Saddam. 

It is erroneous. Whether they agree with me or not , doesn't change the fact that their statements prior to 9/11 agree with my point of view. You are not even disputing that point. You just keep on repeating that it isn't. I don't care whether they are more mature, more crazy and etc. That doesn't change the concept that their statements prior to 9/11 agree with what I said. 

 You're right, they didn't blow themselves up because Saddam supported terrorism and terrorists. No one said they did.

The level of terrorist activity that the US government claimed that Saddam was involved prior to the war such as he was potentially involved in 9/11? Perhaps you could share some evidence of your MSNBC instilled delusion.

 This is where we seperate the men from the boys. As was explained in a prior link to the justification for the war, the case wasn't built upon his WMD capability. It was made based on his failure to comply with UN resolutions, kicking out inspectors from the country, etc.

And your insistence that we would "rush to war" without first building a case is also an MSNBC filled fever. You believe the media spin and therefore build a lie from a lie.

 Clearly you havn't. The only evidence you have shows exactly the opposite. That 9/11 changed their mind.

 Again, more MSNBC fantasy. No one in the administration was "trying to link 9/11 to Saddam"

 Imagine that, before 9/11 they agreed with you.

Let's go back to my previous statement. I wonder what happened on 9/11 that caused them to change their mind.