Originally posted by LEADPIG
Did you not view the Dan Rather interview not too long before the invasion. Sadaam acted all big all those years before but was acting like a poosy during that interview, that told me something. Was your head up your arnold when that happened? Too bad it wasn't far enough up your arnold so you could see out your throat, then maybe you would've seen something.
I can remember sitting in a Navy Rotc class in college and hearing the C.O. who was a Captain and had flown in Vietnam tell us he was flying i can't remember if it was North or South Vietnam (of course it would make a difference) and telling us as he was flying his A-7 Corsair over a number of hours over a AAA battery that was staring at them. He asked for permission to engage and was denied, it eventually killed his buddy, only then was he given permission to fire. If you don't think that's sad, if you don't get that point. Then Sir, your brain should be shredded and used for kitty litter.
I saw the Dan Rather interview. Big deal. Whatever he said doesn't matter, what he DID matters. He met NONE of the conditions set out in ANY of the chances he was given to prevent the invasion. What it SHOULD have told you was Saddam would SAY anything, but could not be believed. Whether or not that was what you wanted to hear or believe does not matter. Just because Saddam said it to that paragon of credibility Dan Rather does not make it so.
Can the phony "sir" crap. You don't fool anyone, especially not me. First, obviously the event you describe involved a target in North Vietnam, it is very unlikely that there would be a hostile North Vietnamese battery on the ground in South Vietnam. Second, the event is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Third, while such events did happen, they were not the big part of the problem with target selection.
You're grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to support a completely untenable position. Thanks for the entertainment, but you're starting to bore the Hell out of me.
