Drmiler I said ther very same thing in both posts. We had NO reason to attack Iraq and it is time for Bush to admit our invasion was a mistake! I said he has NO MILITARY that was threat to the U S which is correct. He had no offecsive capability to attack us. He was NOT a DANGER to us.

Are you being deliberatly stupid or what? You did NOT say the same thing in both posts! In the first you say he had NO military. In the second you say his military was "dealt with in short order". You can't have it both ways. It's one or the other.

I said he has NO MILITARY that was threat to the U S which is correct. He

You NEVER said any such thing nor did you even imply it.

The subject of this Blog is that Bush admitted that all the information he used to go to war about how Saddam was a threat was incorrect. Then he said he was correct to go to war. If there was no WMD there was NO threat. Then our invasion was a error. I said Saddam was not a threat because he did not have the weapons or the military to attack the U S. that is correct you dummy. The few military he had was nothing as we saw when we invaded Iraq.

The subject of this Blog is that Bush admitted that all the information he used to go to war about how Saddam was a threat was incorrect. Then he said he was correct to go to war. If there was no WMD there was NO threat. Then our invasion was a error. I said Saddam was not a threat because he did not have the weapons or the military to attack the U S. that is correct you dummy. The few military he had was nothing as we saw when we invaded Iraq.

Yet once again you dance around the point I was making. You said " NO MILITARY" you did NOT qualify it or quantify it. You said "NO" as in none.

Is that better or do you need me to draw it in crayon for you as usual? Quite a few more than just 10.

Yes it is quite a few more than 10 (although i was talking about bodies per grave)and its also quite a different quote entirely. Still 400,000 is not millions. So for the slow ones like me perhaps you could do the math for us Dr Milliar.

When does millions = 400,000?

Or maybe this link is better for you. It has "pictures" of the mass graves and they contain a LOT more than 10 people. You know, if you're going to call me on something that's fine. But do "try" to have your facts straight before you do.

I do have my facts straight Milliar. Clearly it is you who is bent out of shape. In your original quote there was no suggestion of a figure and in all subsequent quotes you have yet to be able to deliver the supposedly millions of dead. Like i said frankly the explaination is quite simple.

Quite simply, if you're goig to use quotes in an attempt to reinforce your points then make sure they do. That is what i was calling you on. And that is what you are still wrong about.... and thank you but i have your words right in front of me so i crayon drawing shall not be neccessary.

... I agree tht the US should not be in Iraq today, BUT Sadaam was a threat.

To the American people ....How?

Many people tend to forget that we must all work together to defend ourselves against people like Saddam.

You seem to have forgotten that the invasion was by in large internationally condemed.
The US was not "working together" at all. It was a unilateral action undertaken by it and a handful of other renigade nations.

That is a lie col. In fact, it's a Michael Moore lie. I see now that you do in fact get your "facts" from people like Michael Moore and liberal websites.

Really? Is that why Prince Bandihar, the Saudi Ambassador at the time was on CNN thanking the FBI for their assistance in getting the Saudi nationals out of the country?

represents a grave threat to America

How?

We actually did go to enforce U.N. Resolution 1441. Why is your memory so selective?

Lmao. I cant believe anyone pro-invasion would dare suggest they did so to protect or enforce UN initatives. The invasion and those that participated in it practically told the UN to go fuck itself. Calling it irrelavent. 2150 dead for an irrelevant cause. Thats nice.

Well since the UN does not have it's own military someone had to. And since Saddam was so interested in attacking our jets that made us the perfect enforcement agent, which BTW Britain is also involve, you seem to keep forgetting that. We are part of the U.N. and so that automaticaly makes us one of the many enforcement agents, whether you like it or not.

As above. Bullshit.

(400,000 and that was 2003. how many more since then?).

30,000 at least.

You said "NO" as in none.

This from a guy saying "millions" as in "400,000".

What i will say Col Gene is that Bush is not at all a buffoon. The problem is that you are judging him using a set of criteria based on propaganda.

Whereas Bushs' primary concerns in the region actually revolve around oil, the protection of Israel and tying up a few loose ends in terms of US Global Hegemony.

By these standards hes doing marvellously well. I think you underestimate the power and intelligence of those backing Bush by suggesting that things are not going according to plan or that this was in any way a mistake in terms of its primary purpose.

If you wish to judge him according to a series of stand behind the flag and shout "democracy for all" type standards then you will surely be forever confused.

That of course is the greatest danger. That even those who were and are opposed to the invasion still dont see it for what it really is. I think if you compare notes with Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, various other defence contractors and the Carlyle Group, you'll get a very different picture of just how successful this invasion has been.

2150 + 30,000 dead. Pfft. Who cares. Not their children and think of all that fabulous profit.

Drmiler

You try and deflect the argument with words. Yes, I said NO military. What I meant was NO MILITERY the posed a danger to the US. We did not invade Iraq because they had a military but because Bush claimed that they were a DANGER to the United States. He has now admitted that there was no danger but continues to say our invasion was justified. WHY? Without either the WMD or The MILITERY that could pose a danger to this country, he was no danger. That is why I said Bush is a Buffoon as wells as a hypocrite.

bigrickstallion

You hit on the problen with Bush invading Iraq by saying," Bush's primamy concerns in the region revolves around oil, the protection of Israel and tying up a few loose ends" That is NOT why he told Congress and the American people we had to invade Iraq. I f you are correct, Bush LIED to us pure and simple!!!!!!!

Dear Dubbya,

You DOUCHE!

Sincerely,
AW

Is that better or do you need me to draw it in crayon for you as usual? Quite a few more than just 10. Yes it is quite a few more than 10 (although i was talking about bodies per grave)and its also quite a different quote entirely. Still 400,000 is not millions. So for the slow ones like me perhaps you could do the math for us Dr Milliar. When does millions = 400,000?

And you obviously have a reading problem. Or you would have "caught" this. Where I plainly spelled out NOT millions but at the very least hundreds of thousands. So like I said before......"You know, if you're going to call me on something that's fine. But do "try" to have your facts straight before you do".

Drmiler You have NOT given proof that Saddam killed "Millions" We all agree that Saddam was an evil person just like many other in this world. No I didn't give you proof of millions. BUT I DID give you "proof" of hundreds of thousands (400,000 and that was 2003. how many more since then?). Or is that not good enough? If "anyone" here is full of it, it's YOU!

As above. Bullshit.(400,000 and that was 2003. how many more since then?). 30,000 at least.

NOT BS! Documented FACT with pictures! What "more" do you require? Now I realize I was not specific with my question. So I'll try again for the slow ones. How many more mass graves have been found since 2003?

And you obviously have a reading problem. Or you would have "caught" this. Where I plainly spelled out NOT millions but at the very least hundreds of thousands. So like I said before......"You know, if you're going to call me on something that's fine. But do "try" to have your facts straight before you do".

No I dont have a reading problem at all Dr Milliar. Let me line it up for you because obviously you're looking to wriggle out of this one.

It was Col Gene in post #9 who said NOT millions.

There is no evidence that anything like millions were killed by Saddam.

Interesting that you dismiss him as a kook and then try to take his words as your own.

Then in post #21, you directly quote the above and then imply that there were millions killed with this sarcastic line:

Oh REALLY? Then please explain this! That is "if" you can:

In other words, you're saying that he did kill millions and here is the proof of it. Below this you supply some dumbass quote that doesn't support your "Oh Really" at all. In fact it doesn't provide any quantitive data at all.

To which i reply in #39:

Explain what Dr Millar? How on earth does your quote refute the quote you took from Col G? Where in your quote is there a figure given? A mass grave is a grave with more than a few people in it. So 10 for instance. Thats hardly millions. Frankly the explaination is dead simple.

Again someone disputing the figure of "millions". So the explaination or the response to your "if you can" challenge was "dead simple". The quote you supplied in #21 did nothing to reinforce your point. Nothing.

It wasn't until post #49 in which you supply a "different" quote altogether that you introduced a figure of 400,000. And even then you quote me as saying

Thats hardly millions.

and follow it with

Since you are either "slow" or "stupid", I don't know which. let me clue you in:

So please do "clue us in" Dr Milliar. Given that Im so slow or stupid how does 400,000 = millions? Because this slow and stupid person doesn't seem to think that 400,000 ever equals millions as per Col G post in #9 and my own in #39.

But given that you think Im so slow and stupid for thinking this perhaps you could explain this little mathematical anomoly?

The fact is Dr Milliar your quotes are all arse about face and you can squirm and wriggle all you like but it doesn't change the fact you made yet another dumb mistake.

No big deal on the face of it but decidely absurd when you then try and introduce fresh quotes as "replacements" for your original quotes and still stupidly try and pass yourself as having a strong position on the count.

Especially when one thinks that your subsequent (read:much later on) introduction of a figure of 400,000 does nothing but reinforce Col Gs original assertion in post #9 that Saddam didn't kill millions.

You've started from a position of disputing Col Gs position in #9, to a position some 100 posts later that is in agreeance with Col G, all the while calling both him and myself idiots and retards.

Frankly you're an imbecile..... crayons and all.

Dr Milliar why in post #109 do you quote me as saying:

As above. Bullshit.

And then go onto to say :

NOT BS! Documented FACT with pictures! What "more" do you require? Now I realize I was not specific with my question. So I'll try again for the slow ones.

As if my original "As Above. Bullshit" was in any way a response to your tiresome body count argument?


My "As Above Bullshit" was in response to this...

Well since the UN does not have it's own military someone had to. And since Saddam was so interested in attacking our jets that made us the perfect enforcement agent, which BTW Britain is also involve, you seem to keep forgetting that. We are part of the U.N. and so that automaticaly makes us one of the many enforcement agents, whether you like it or not.

...not in response to you and your body count nonsense. In other words its bullshit that a state that tells the UN to go fuck itself could in any way use enforcement of UN resolutions as a justification for an internationally condemned invasion.

So again, if your going to quote at least keep it honest and in context. You really do like to try and rewrite history dont you?

And as for my

30,000 at least

quote. That was in response to your question "how many more have been killed since 2003?

Do you dispute the figure of at least 30,000 dead since the invasion began in 2003?

Or is this another case of you finding yourself fundamentally agreeing with someone on facts and figures but getting so caught up in the personalities involved that you cant see your face for your arse and end up arguing against your own position?

Clearly an article entitled "Dr Millar is Buffoon" is now warranted.

f you are correct, Bush LIED to us pure and simple!!!!!!!

Yes we know he lied and why he lied. What else have you got?

Clearly an article entitled "Dr Millar is Buffoon" is now warranted.

I will not be posting a response after this one, to this article. Maybe we should do a BRS is a buffoon article.

(400,000 and that was 2003. how many more since then?).

Try again fool since my quote was to 400,000 dead found killed by SADDAM! It had NOTHING to do with how many have been killed since 2003 like you seem to think. Personally I think you need to pull your head out of your arse so you can see what you're talking about, asshat! And since my argument was with the col....I would greatly appreciate it if you'd butt out!

That was in response to your question "how many more have been killed since 2003?

Since I NEVER said the above it all falls back to "get your ducks in a row"!

will not be posting a response after this one, to this article.

Lmao. Its amazing how those with all the bluff and bluster run the moment their own words are fed back to them isn't. God you're pathetic Dr Milliar.

Personally I think you need to pull your head out of your arse so you can see what you're talking about, asshat!

Is this "stinging" barrage of insults a sign of your frustration that you've tied yourself in knots Dr Milliar? I think so. Btw I'd have to be some contortionist to perform the feats you're crediting me with in this backward attempt at insult.

And since my argument was with the col....I would greatly appreciate it if you'd butt out!

Im sure you would greatly appreciate it now that Ive pointed out just how completely full of shit you are.

Since I NEVER said the above it all falls back to "get your ducks in a row"!

You didn't. O.k lemme see. Post #90. What does it say? Let me help you out.

In post #90 you quote the following:

Drmiler You have NOT given proof that Saddam killed "Millions" We all agree that Saddam was an evil person just like many other in this world.

To which you respond:

No I didn't give you proof of millions. BUT I DID give you "proof" of hundreds of thousands (400,000 and that was 2003. how many more since then?).

Someone says Saddam didn't kill millions. The contextual verb is now "kill". So we can use [kill] as appropriate. For example:

No I didn't give you proof of millions. BUT I DID give you "proof" of hundreds of thousands (400,000 and that was 2003. how many more [killed] since then?).

My response of 30,000 was tongue in cheek. I figured you already understood this when you said:

Now I realize I was not specific with my question.

Clearly even when you say you realize something you dont actually realize anything at all.