Someone like me...
Someone like who? Please digress.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means
I've already made my meaning plain enough, you seem to be being deliberately obtuse. I'll try and spell it out one last time.
Why would I want to waste time arguing about the Iraq war with someone whose posts give me reason to believe they are utterly deluded, if not just plain stupid? To change your mind?
Yeah, that always works in internet discussions about politics
We can go back and forward all day and you're still going to be a blindly patriotic idiot no matter what I post. Now, against my better judgement, I'm going to post just a couple of links and quotes, in the full knowledge that it is a waste of time and won't change your mind at all.
I mean, people having been debating this BS for years and I doubt one single person has changed their opinion just because of what someone with an opposing view on the internet says. So, this isn't me arguing with you
this is just pointing out why I believe you're talking total crap when you use phrases like 'Saddam was bluffing that they had WMDs'. If anything it was US intelligence services making that bluff and using it as a justification to do what they wanted to do anyway (not saying that it was a bad thing, wanting to get rid of Saddam, don't get me wrong)
Saddam was bluffing that Iraq had WMDs
(what you said) or Iraq definitely having WMDs was used as a justification for going to war
(what I said) http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-06/world/iraq.wmd.report_1_nuclear-weapons-charles-duelfer-iraq-s-wmd?_s=PM:WORLD The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."
"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.
"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.
and this as well I suppose...in for a penny in for a pound
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-20/politics/rumsfeld.interview_1_defense-secretary-donald-rumsfeld-obama-administration-curveball?_s=PM:POLITICSIf the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" program, Rumsfeld noted there were multiple reasons for attacking Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein from power.
However, intelligence reports -- now shown to have been false -- that Iraq possessed WMDs were the main reason for going in, Rumsfeld said.
"No question it was the big one," he said. Asked if the United States would not have invaded if the administration hadn't believed Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: "I think that's probably right."
He criticized the source known as "Curveball" -- an Iraqi defector who admitted his claims that Iraq possessed WMDs were false -- but stopped short of condemning the U.S. intelligence community."
