The Great Kreskin was busy that week.Originally Posted by steeldawg
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
The Great Kreskin was busy that week.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
By law we aren't allowed to go and knock off a foreign head of state. So no we couldn't just send a hit team to do the job. We didn't leave after Hussein was removed because we felt an obligation to try to set the country in the right direction before leaving. "You broke it you bought it" this was pretty much the prevaling world attitude at the time. And no we didn't lie. As has been pointed out in numerous posts already in this thread. But if you falsely claiming that to be true makes you feel good knock yourself out.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
At a spoon bending seminar.
Lol so we couldnt have captured or killed him without going to war for a decade and invading an entire country? So we cant send in tactical teams to apprehend or kill him but we can send the entire us military,launch missles, kill innocent people , and take over the country to try and aprehend one man? All the death and destruction was well worth it huh? especially for a guy who had no WMDs. Wow your right when i say it out loud I like my position that the war was a blunder even more.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
Your post is a blunder. You have no concept of the real world and how things work.
You live in makebelieveland. Where actions and inactions have no consequence if you close your eyes hard enough and wish things to be as you want them.
It's fine for kids and people who don't matter. But Presidents don't have that luxary and are bound by real world events and realities.
Bush wasn't able to remove Hussein and his regime from power by simply wishing it to happen. Or by covert miliarty action for that matter.
The threat of the Iraqi regime was very real at the time from the perspective of just about fucking everyone. Had nothing been done to eliminate the threat and had there been a terrorist attack of orgin from Hussein's hands, and WMD's had been used how does everyone feel about the President's cautious approach then?
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
Anytime you feel like addressing the hard facts Preacher put forth here Dawg or Empire, please have at it.
But of course you really wont. Just more "Bush lied" nonsense will be the responce.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
What hard facts? we went to war because we were told saddam had WMDs and ties to Al queada none of which were found, those are facts buddy. If you want me to believe we went to war because the yemen leader heard saddam say he had WMDs then our intelligence agencies need a serious overhaul. So either we were lied to or simply incompetent. You dont invade a country and go whoops well we heard there were weapons but i guess we were wrong oh well while we are here lets build a democracy.Anytime you feel like addressing the hard facts Preacher put forth here Dawg or Empire, please have at it.
But of course you really wont. Just more "Bush lied" nonsense will be the responce.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
Some images from Halabja poison gas attack by Saddam Hussain on the Kurds
Yeah this guy was no threat. Never had WMD's and certainly would never use them.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
nobody is saying saddam shouldnt be removed from power its simply the question of did we need a decade long war and the number of lives of civilians and soldiers to do it.
Some images from Halabja poison gas attack by Saddam Hussain
Yeah this guy was no threat.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
It wasn't a decade long war. Hussein's army was subdued in a matter of months.
That we had to fight and kill terrorist's that rose up in the vacuum that ensued, that's on the terrorist, as are the civilian casualties.
- - - Updated - - -
Without a military invasion Hussein would still be in power today.
To do more of this. http://kdp.se/old/chemical.html
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
Here's what it comes down to. You have a tyrant. An evil dictator, who has historically been proven to have used chemical weapons against fellow Muslims. His own citizens no less.
Now you have countless amounts of emperical evidence saying he still has WMD's. He won't comply with conditions set forth in a cease fire, a cease fire that only came about due to a hostile invasion on said dictator's part against a Muslim neighbor. A brutal unprovoked invasion of a soveriegn nation, where he violated just about every doctrine of interntaional law in existence. So now you have evidence that he has these abominal weapons, weapons that he has proven that he wont hesitate to use against normal citizens. Unarmed woman and children.
And you're going to take him at his word when he fails to comply with disarmenent terms he agreed to to stay in power?
Again we know he had the weapons! We know he is willing to use the weapons against innocents! This is proven. Not conjecture.
But we were wrong to invade him you say?!!!!
You tell me. Say a biological terrorist attack against New York occurs the following year and the weapons used trace back to Hussein, what are you using as an excuse to not have disarmed him?
"Well we really weren't sure at the time." You know by him preventing inspectors to do their job we were really in the dark, so in the end we sort of just had to take him at his word. I mean really, what basis did we have to think he'd actually let someone use them in such a destructive way?"
"Outside of that thing with the Kurds." But that was a while ago, so....
Now let me tell you what I believe. The weapons were there. But Hussein is no idiot. He's evil. Evil almost beyond compare. But he's no idiot. And he knows, even with his WMD's. He can't win this war. He can't beat us. So once the invasion is ineviatable he ships the WMD's en masse to Syria. Because he thinks he still has a chance to return to power. But if he uses the WMD's, he'll be too much of a pariah to have that chance. Remember this is a guy who had a lot of friends in high places in France, Germany, and the U.N. He had more than a few advocates in the International community. Use those WMD's and that evaporates.
Basically the strategy is this. Retreat, and hide. He knows his country better than us. He knows a civil war between Shiites and Sunni's will occur in the vaccuum. He figures the Sunni's will eventually prevail. Thus once no WMD's are discovered, he can embarress the invaders with this information to the weak willed international community, which he knows will turn on American interests at the first possible chance. Thus when the time is right, Saddam the Uniter will return, and all will be his again. So what if his putz son's and his lackey's take the fall for his brutality in his absense? No skin off his nose. He never realized the evil they were up to, or so he would say.
But that part didn't work out quite right. The rat got caught in his rat hole and he wasn't quite as beloved as he thought. Tyrants tend to believe too much of their own bullshit after all, thus they are subject to being victim to their own ego and pathos.
Anyway that's what i think happened. Make of it what you will.
Last edited by zulater; 03-23-2013 at 07:35 PM.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
It's pointless Zu, some people will never get it. I was there, I spoke to Iraqis face to face, I befriended lots of them while there. I had the unique experience to speak to the citizens of Iraq. They thanked us daily for doing what we were doing. So for me, speaking to the citizens of Iraq about the war, I feel what we did was justified.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
We thank you for your service Hindes! And we pray for your fallen comrades.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
I dont know how you can say we know he had the weapons when we flat out admitted from the lips of george bush that we found no weapons and the intelligence was wrong. Bush also said his biggest regret as president was the war in iraq. Removing saddam from power was good but it was not worth 162,000 dead 80% of those civilians the thousands of dead soldiers and the trillions in debt that it cost to remove him. When we invade a country based off of flawed intelligence I do not know how you can look at it as not a huge military blunder.Here's what it comes down to. You have a tyrant. An evil dictator, who has historically been proven to have used chemical weapons against fellow Muslims. His own citizens no less.
Now you have countless amounts of emperical evidence saying he still has WMD's. He won't comply with conditions set forth in a cease fire, a cease fire that only came about due to a hostile invasion on said dictator's part against a Muslim neighbor. A brutal unprovoked invasion of a soveriegn nation, where he violated just about every doctrine of interntaional law in existence. So now you have evidence that he has these abominal weapons, weapons that he has proven that he wont hesitate to use against normal citizens. Unarmed woman and children.
And you're going to take him at his word when he fails to comply with disarmenent terms he agreed to to stay in power?
Again we know he had the weapons! We know he is willing to use the weapons against innocents! This is proven. Not conjecture.
But we were wrong to invade him you say?!!!!
You tell me. Say a biological terrorist attack against New York occurs the following year and the weapons used trace back to Hussein, what are you using as an excuse to not have disarmed him?
"Well we really weren't sure at the time." You know by him preventing inspectors to do their job we were really in the dark, so in the end we sort of just had to take him at his word. I mean really, what basis did we have to think he'd actually let someone use them in such a destructive way?"
"Outside of that thing with the Kurds." But that was a while ago, so....
Now let me tell you what I believe. The weapons were there. But Hussein is no idiot. He's evil. Evil almost beyond compare. But he's no idiot. And he knows, even with his WMD's. He can't win this war. He can't beat us. So once the invasion is ineviatable he ships the WMD's en masse to Syria. Because he thinks he still has a chance to return to power. Basically the strategy is this. Retreat, and hide. He knows his country better than us. He knows a civil war between Shiites and Sunni's will occur in the vaccuum. He figures the Sunni's will eventually prevail. Thus once no WMD's are discovered, he can embarress the invaders with this information to the weak willed international community, which he knows will turn on American interests at the first possible chance. Thus when the time is right, Saddam the Uniter will return, and all will be his again. So what if his putz son's and his lackey's take the fall for his brutality in his absense? No skin off his nose. He never realized the evil they were up to, or so he would say.
But that part didn't work out quite right. The rat got caught in his rat hole and he wasn't quite as beloved as he thought. Tyrants tend to believe too much of their own bullshit after all, thus they are subject to being victim to their own ego and pathos.
Anyway that's what i think happened. Make of it what you will.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
Guess those Kurds commited suicide?
"A man's got to know his limitations."
What you did as a soldiers is of course justified, you did your job. The government officials sending hunreds of thousands of troops into a country based on bad intelligence is what needs justification. That too me is a pretty big mistake.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
hindsight - understanding the nature of an event after it has happened; "hindsight is always better than foresight"
Perception of the significance and nature of events after they have occurred
recognition of the realities, possibilities, or requirements of a situation, event, decision etc., after its occurrence.
- - - Updated - - -
I thought you said Bush lied?
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-ph...went-to-syria/
Ha’aretz has revived the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq’s WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.
The newspaper reveals that a 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria has been photographed by satellites at the request of a Western intelligence agency at least 16 times, the most recent being taken in January. The site is near Masyaf, and it has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains. This supports the reporting of Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who said in 2004 that his sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were in Syria.
One of the three specific sites he mentioned was an underground base underneath Al-Baida, which is one kilometer south of Masyaf. This is a perfect match. The suspicious features in the photos and the fact that a Western intelligence agency is so interested in the site support Nayouf’s reporting, showing that his sources in Syria did indeed have access to specific information about secret activity that is likely WMD-related. Richard Radcliffe, one of my co-writers at WorldThreats.com, noticed that Masyaf is located on a road that goes from Hamah, where there is an airfield sufficient to handle relatively large aircraft, into Lebanon and the western side of the Bekaa Valley, another location said to house Iraqi weapons.
It seems to be commonly accepted that Iraq did not have WMDs at all. The intelligence was obviously flawed, but the book has not been closed on what actually happened. The media blasted the headline that Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group tasked with finding out if Saddam had WMDs, concluded that a transfer did not occur. In reality, his report said they were “unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war” due to the poor security situation.
Although no conclusion was made, Duelfer has since said that he is “convinced” that no WMD went to Syria. He is a competent and credible individual, but there is evidence that key information on this possibility was not received by the Iraq Survey Group, which had many of its own problems.
On February 24, 2009, I went to see a talk Duelfer gave at the Free Library of Philadelphia to promote his book. He admitted there were some “loose ends” regarding the possibility that Iraqi WMD went to Syria, but dismissed them. Among these “loose ends,” Duelfer said, was the inability to track down the Iraqis who worked for a company connected to Uday Hussein that sources said had driven “sensitive” material into Syria. A Pentagon document reveals that an Iraqi dissident reported that 50 trucks crossed the border on March 10, 2003, and that his sources in Syria confirmed they carried WMD. These trucks have been talked about frequently and remain a mystery.
During the question-and-answer period and during a follow-up interview, Duelfer made several interesting statements to me that reinforced my confidence that such a transfer occurred, although we can not be sure of the extent of it.
General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of the Iraqi Air Force, claimed in his 2006 book that he knew two Iraqi pilots that flew WMD into Syria over the summer of 2002, which came before a later shipment on the ground. I asked Duelfer if Nizar Nayouf or the two Iraqi pilots were spoken with.
“I did not interview the pilots nor did I speak with the Syrian journalist you mentioned,” he said. “We were inundated with WMD reports and could not investigate them all. … To narrow the problem, we investigated those people and places we knew would have either been involved or aware of regime WMD activities.”
He then told me that the lack of testimony about such dealings is what convinced him that “a lot of material went to Syria, but no WMD.” He cited the testimony of Naji Sabri, the former Iraqi foreign minister, in particular.
“I knew him very well, and I had been authorized to make his life a lot better, or a lot worse,” he told me.
- - - Updated - - -
He said that Sabri’s position would make him aware of any such deal between the two countries. However, in his book, Duelfer said that Sabri had nothing to do with any of Iraq’s WMD efforts at any time. “His statements on WMD from an intelligence perspective would have been irrelevant,” Duelfer wrote.
“Someone among the people we interviewed would have described this,” Duelfer said. However, such testimony does exist. Don Bordenkircher, who served as the national director of jail and prison operations in Iraq for two years, told me that he spoke to about 40 Iraqis, either military personnel or civilians assigned to the military, who talked about the WMDs going to Syria and Lebanon, with some claiming they were actually involved. Their stories matched and were not contradictory, he said. Another military source of mine related to me how an Iraqi intelligence captain in Al-Qaim claimed to have witnessed the movement of suspicious convoys into Syria between February and March 2003.
I also asked Duelfer if he was aware of the intelligence provided by the Ukrainians and other sources that the Russians were in Iraq helping to cleanse the country shortly before the invasion. His facial expressions before I even finished the question showed he genuinely had never even heard of this.
As explained in detail in Ken Timmerman’s book Shadow Warriors, high-level meetings were held on February 10-12, 2004, involving officials from the U.S., the UK, and Ukraine. Among the attendees were Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw, the head of MI6, and the head of Ukrainian intelligence, Ihor Smeshko. The Ukrainians provided all the details of the Russian effort, including the dates and locations of meetings to plan the intervention and even the names of the Russian Spetsnaz officers involved. Shaw also worked with a British source that ran an intelligence network in the region and provided substantiation and additional details.
The former head of Romanian intelligence during the Cold War, Ion Pacepa, has provided supporting testimony. He says that he had personal knowledge of a Soviet plan called “Operation Sarindar” where the Russians would cleanse a rogue state ally of any traces of illicit activity if threatened with Western attack. The plan’s purpose was to deny the West of any evidence incriminating Russia or its ally. The presence of Russian advisors in Iraq shortly before the invasion, some of whom received medals from Saddam Hussein, is a strong indication that this plan was followed.
Dave Gaubatz, who was the first civilian federal agent deployed to Iraq, told me that he saw intelligence that “suggested that some WMD had been moved to Syria with the help of Russian intelligence.” Iraqis personally confirmed to him that there was a Russian presence before the American soldiers arrived.
Amazingly, Duelfer seems to have never been informed of this intelligence. “This does not mean … that it was not passed on to ISG [Iraq Survey Group],” he said to me later. The fact that the head of the WMD search was never even made aware of this indicates something went seriously wrong. In Timmerman’s book, Shaw says that Smeshko complained about the CIA’s station chief in Kiev not being cooperative. Timmerman researched the station and chief and found that he was very close with other people in the intelligence community who were doing their best to fight Bush administration policies.
Duelfer actually provides information that supports this account. He confirmed that Russia was helping Iraq’s illegal ballistic missile program and had close ties to Saddam’s regime.
“Russians were present in Iraq for many activities. … Russian officials regularly met with Iraqi officials. … Russian KGB officers were in regular contact with the regime at very senior levels. … Russian businessmen were all over Baghdad trying to secure a variety of deals. And of course Russians, including very senior Russians, were in receipt of lucrative oil allocations under the UN Oil-For-Food Program,” Duelfer told me.
The theory that Iraq’s WMD went to Syria is not a fringe conspiracy theory. John Loftus, a former Justice Department prosecutor known for his wide-ranging contacts in the intelligence community, said in an interview we did that “every senior member of a Western, European or Asian intelligence service whom I have ever met all agree that the Russians moved the last of the WMDs out of Iraq in the last few months before the war.”
General Tommy Franks and General Michael DeLong, the top two officials in CENTCOM when the invasion began, have spoken of credible intelligence supporting the theory. General James Clapper, President Obama’s pick to replace Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence, has previously stated his belief that the weapons went to Syria and took part in the meetings organized by Shaw.
Much more evidence exists that the WMD went to Syria, as documented here. Obviously, it is impossible to prove and we do not know exactly what went to Syria, but the history books on this issue shouldn’t be written just yet.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Ya he used poison gas during in the iraq-iran conflict in 1988 so we waited till 2003 to invade the country and look for the weapons? No we attacked his chemical weapons cache in in 1991 the gulf war a war in which we actually found weapons we said he had. Yes saddam was an evil dude, but invading a country based on bad information is not only a blunder its down right scary that we could make a mistake of that magnitude.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
If you have a convicted perv living down the block from you. And the FBI traces child porno being routed through his computer via a 3rd party, but when they get to the perv's house, warrant in hand, and his computer's memory has been completley eradicated, he's obviously innocent in your mind, and you'd have no problem letting the kiddies hang out there.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
lol i love the last paragraph how do you follow up "much more evidence that WMD went to syria" with "we dont know exactly what went to syria" and "its impossible to prove"?
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
A known user of WMD's. Every single person in the world suspect's he still has them. He refuses to comply with inspections. Inspections that were brought about by his illegal and brutal invasion of a neighboring country.
But let's take his word for it. Because that's in fact what you're saying should have been done.
Something that at the time Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi were unwilling to do.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Oh now we are doing analogies? So our intelligence agencies knew he had the weapons they just never saw them didnt know where he kept them and dont know where or when he moved them, all we know is he had them, he must of moved them before we got there, and he probably moved them too syria.
- - - Updated - - -
No thats not what im saying! what im saying is let make sure he has them before we invade a country.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
Yeah it's just too far fetched for you to believe he ever had or would use WMD's.
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
Originally Posted by Preacher
Okay, follow me here.
1. The "blunder" of not taking him out during the first war was perpetrated by whom? Do you even know? President Bush and many in his cabinet wanted to remove Hussein. Ultimately, they did not PRECISELY because it would usurp the UN resolutions, thus making the war "illegal." So, let me get this straight. You blame President George H. W. Bush for NOT committing war crimes - and then you blame President George W. Bush for war crimes. See a problem in your logic here?
2. What, exactly, were his war crimes? Let me give you a little bit of history again to clear this up again.
a. Gulf war finishes. Part of the CEASE FIRE. Not, an END to the war, but a CEASE FIRE agreement is that Saddam Hussein and Iraq hand over all their WMD, allow inspectors uninhibited access, and generally be verified that they were no longer in possession of WMD or carrying devices for them (such as rockets that could fly over a certain distance - which he had, and did launch in the second war by the way. So much for him being innocent).
b. When that was not completed, the cease fire was invalidated by his actions. There would be no reason, either withing the US, or in the UN to gain approval for war. A vote by congress and the UN was ALREADY held prior to the Gulf war, and THAT cease-fire agreement was no longer valid, meaning the war was on again. It was purely the restraint of the US for 10 + years that we didn't do anything about it besides launch a few missiles now and then.
c. President George Bush took the UNNECESSARY step in going back to Congress, and to the UN to gain approval to resume an ALREADY LEGAL WAR.
d. The US poured financial resources into Iraq and helped them rebuild their infrastructure Per the Hague Convention rules of war.
The entire "war criminal" line is idiotic at best, and slandering the deaths of thousands of US servicemen and women at worst. Stop it. Just stop it.
3. There's no such thing as "If this, then it will have been justified, if that, then it will not have been." That is petty, hindsight driven trash. Have you seriously even researched who believed he had weapons and why:
a. "The president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had close ties with Hussein, told Vice President Cheney that Hussein did not want war but would use chemical weapons if attacked."
b. German agents - to the degree that they passed on "Hussein's plan for defending his capital. Concentric rings were to be manned by Iraqi units of varying trustworthiness. One of the circles was called the 'red line.' This was to be the final barrier, manned by Hussein's elite and most reliable troops. US military intelligence reasoned that as American troops reached this defense line they would be met by poison gas or germ weapons." (A report of a command from Hussein to launch the weapons was also made during the war. Funny that none of the networks every say anything about it).
c. Hussein's generals, until Hussein informed them in December of 2002 that "Iraq did not possess WMD. The generals were stunned. They had long assumed that they could count on a hidden cache of chemical or biological weapons. Iraq had used such weapons in the war with Iran." That information came from Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. (These three points are sourced from this story).
Add to that the intelligence agencies that came to their conclusion that there was WMD in Iraq:
d. Britain
e. Germany
f. Russia
g. China
h. Israel
i. France
j. Hans Blix - the head of the UN inspection team
So much for Bush "being lied to by his intelligence network." By the way, here's a definition of lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. So did he lie? No. Did his intelligence agency lie? no. Who lied then? Saddam Hussein. Follow the first link to read the entire story. All in all therefore, your statement makes absolutely no sense. Saddam Hussein brought it upon himself by lying and manipulating the international community.
4. WMD was not the reason we went to war. It was the mechanism that allowed us to continue to prosecute a war. It was the technicality that made it much easier to explain. However, the reason we went to war was because of Hussein's support for terrorists (well documented, including his terror training camps), his destabilization of the mid-east (he was one of the main contributors that paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and because, as former Vice President Cheney said, an Iraq with Saddam Hussein in charge created a nexus by which chemical, biological, and maybe even nuclear weapons can be joined with terrorists and terrorist organizations. For that reason, it was not an unnecessary war, but was instead, the centerpiece of the war on terror, as it should have been.
Conclusion: your posts in this thread, your thought processes on this subject, and your positions presented here are so far away from reality that they take on a note of poisonous revision, and are outright ludicrous. Either you have bought wholeheartedly into the Goebbels-level propaganda that has been spewed by the left who had their panties in a twist over the 2000 elections, or you know the truth and still choose to spew this trash. In the end, it is ironic what that makes you.
It makes you guilty of doing exactly what you accuse George Bush of: either outright lying, or being completely lied to by the ones you haven chosen to read. From what I know of you from around here, I believe and hope it's the latter, and this thread begins the wake-up call you need to start blaming the one who is REALLY responsible for your friends' deaths in the desert: Saddam Hussein.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
Hey Hitler, we know you said you wouldn't invade Poland, but ok, we'll give you that one, and Czechoslovakia too I suppose. But really there's no reason to suspect you'd invade France is there? We can take your word for it this time right? > Steeldawg as the leader of the free world in 1939.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Actually according to you thats exactly what we did, we took saddams word that he had weapons? Im mean thats what your saying, Saddam lied to us so we invaded?
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
Whatever.
I think it's time I heed their advice and walk away from this one. Because you're convincing me of nothing, and I'm certainly not convincing you of anything. So I'll agree to disagee with you, feeling quite confident that rationale people understand the points that have been made here.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
well congrats on your reputation comments Im glad Im not considered to be on ur level of rationale that is taken as a compliment.Whatever.
I think it's time I heed their advice and walk away from this one. Because you're convincing me of nothing, and I'm certainly not convincing you of anything. So I'll agree to disagee with you, feeling quite confident that rationale people understand the points that have been made here.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
Did I proclaim some sort of victory? I said I felt people understood the points that have been made here. Does that statement in any way preclude your points?
Basically what I'm saying is that we're getting redudant at this point. You've made your points, I've made mine, and we're both obviously firmly entrenched in in our respective viewpoints.
Pointing out that you're stubborn in your opinion isn't exactly earth shattering news to you is it? I'm certainly guilty of the same. It doesn't make your views any more or less valid than my own admittedly stubborn point of view.
So again, there comes a time to agree to disagree.
I think that's where we're at.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
I apologize i misunderstood your post i thought you were saying rational people understand the points you made, i took it as a dig. Agree to disagreeDid I proclaim some sort of victory? I said I felt people understood the points that have been made here. Does that statement in any way preclude your points?
Basically what I'm saying is that we're getting redudant at this point. You've made your points, I've made mine, and we're both obviously firmly entrenched in in our respective viewpoints.
Pointing out that you're stubborn in your opinion isn't exactly earth shattering news to you is it? It doesn't make your views any more or less valid than my own admittedly stubborn point of view.
So again, there comes a time to agree to disagree.
I think that's where we're at.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
