GannonFan wrote: Chizzang wrote:
you're arguing that we waited 10 years to attack Iraq because ..?
The only "lane violation" going on here is your obsession with Semantics
and now being cornered into defending the Bush child / Halliburton debacle
again: A situational corner only you would find yourself painted into
because I used the wrong variant on a particular word
and you need to be the smartest guy in the room
It's not semantics, you actually used the Persian Gulf War (circa 1991) as an example of Sadaam doing nothing and not affecting anything and us then sticking our nose into the situation. It's all right there, that's what you said. That doesn't pivot on one particular word at all. Defend that. Oh, and I'm not the smartest person in the room, unless you and I are here by ourselves and then yes, yes I am.
Ya... Gulf War
After Saddam Hussein rolled into Kuwait in August 1990
it was natural to wonder whether restoring the Kuwaiti prince
and protecting the Saudi monarchy was worth American blood...
At the time
the Pentagon claimed satellite photographs showed a quarter of a million Iraqi troops
were poised to roll across the Saudi border...
The St. Petersburg Times and NY Times decided to check
They purchased commercial satellite photos of the border region - which showed empty desert...
When contacted the office of then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney for evidence to the contrary
“trust us,” was the best the Pentagon could do....
“It was a pretty serious fib," putting it mildly...
A war of Administration needs - Halliburton and Exxon Mobil Royal Dutch Shell vs. The Truth
We never needed to do anything in 1991 or 2003 and there's no worthy argument to date otherwise