> If he knows they went into Syria then he must have
> proof they exist,
> so where is it? If he has the proof then why aren't
> we invading
> Syria? Diplomacy? But that didn't work with Mr.
> Hussein because ...?
> He wasn't responsive? And Syria is?
"Two days before the war, on March 17 [2003], we saw
through multiple intelligence channels - both human
intelligence and technical intelligence - large
caravans of people and things, including some of the
top 55 [most wanted] Iraqis, going to Syria," Gen.
DeLong explained.
According to you he's definitely lying because he
doesn't know where they are now?
> Is all a hypocritical, circular argument. Like I
> said, if Monty
> Python hadn't already made the prototypical faulty
> logic sketch, Mr.
> Bush's Iraq/WMD/Terrorism logic would be it. People
> will be studying
> it's ridiculous nature for years.
??? You're not being clear. You state the whole thing
is wrong but can't provide details.
>
> > Why is Zinni so right and DeLong and Franks so
> wrong?
>
> Because General Zinni saw all of the intelligence
> before the decision
> to invade was made and it was his job to determine
> what action needed
> be taken. The other Generals you mentioned are
> after-the-fact-ers.
Gen Franks was after-the-fact?
He was planning the removal of Saddam since May 2002
while in charge of the war in Afghanistan.
Franks also saw the same info and was convinced the
threat was real.
>
> Gen Franks has repeated the ridiculous argument that
> as long as we're
> in Iraq we won't have to fight the terrorists at
> home. Then why have
> homeland security since we're in Iraq? According to
> Gen. Franks'
> logic we don't need it.
That�s a ridiculous way to spin it. He�s saying let�s
not sit back and do nothing. Let�s disrupt them and
the nations that support them before the can attack
again.
> Repeating that ridiculous statement, that ties Iraq
> to Al Queda, is
> propaganda and that taints Mr. Franks' opinions.
Why is it rediculous? Because you just don't want to
believe it?
>
> Gen DeLong has an equally ridiculous statement as
> I've pointed out.
> How can you know for a fact that Syria has WMD, but
> have no evidence
> of that? It's clearly propaganda.
You can witness a shooting and see the guy with the
gun run away. Unless he drops the gun what evidence do
you have other then what you'd seen?
> Gen Zinni, on the other had, said that he saw the
> intelligence and
> Iraq wasn't a threat. That (a.) sounds reasonable,
> and (b.) is
> similar to every intelligence estimate in the world
> including
> Britain's and the joint estimate delivered to the
> UN.
What are you talking about? The UN, Britain, Russia,
Egypt, Jordan and every other country thought Iraq had
WMDs. That was never disputed. The dispute was weather
we should do anything about it and France said no
while all the other nations said yes.
Hans Blix report that I posted here stated that he
knows for a fact that Saddam has WMDs he just needed a
little more time to find them.
> Do you realize who the guys are that disagreed with
> the Generals
> (Zinni & Powell)?
Are you messing with my head or did you just not read
my last post? I quoted Powell claiming he never
disagreed about Iraq. You ignore Powells own statement
to support your argument.
> Mr. Bush, Ms. Rice, Mr. Rumsfeld,
> Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr.
> Cheney, etc. None of whom were ever in the military
> (except Rummy),
> and none have combat, strategy, or tactical
> experience.
Powell Does, Franks does and DeLong does. So now it's
Zinni against everyone else. If one person in a group
disagrees should the whole mission be scraped?
> In summary you had Generals who said don't do it,
> and civilian
> non-military people that said do it. Are you
> surprised at how it
> turned out? The generals were right.
One General and he said that after the fact.
Don't we have proof Saddam was ready to start his
nuclear program once the inspectors were gone? I would
call that a threat.
> Yes people assumed Iraq *may* have WMD, but that's
> what the weapons
> inspectors were for. Of course you'll argue the UN
> is full of dolts.
> But how did it turn out? The UN was right, the US
> was wrong, and Mr.
> Powell was made a fool.
First you say Powell didn�t support the war now you
say he's a foul because he did. You can't have it
every way you want.
Again, Hans Blix said at the time he knows Saddam has
the weapons but he's having trouble finding them
because inspectors weren't allowed surprise visits.
> That's no validation of the competancy of the UN,
> rather it's
> validation of sound reasoning by pragmatic people
> such as Secretary
> Powell and General Zinni.
>
Now Powell is against the war again? Make up your
mind.
-sm
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
