So, after much mindless rambling you FINALLY get somewhere near my original point.

Or are you saying that *IF* we would have invaded Iraq in 1991 with the want to GET Saddamn then, we would have gotten resistence then? WOW... I _AM_ so baffled with your Bullshit...

That's close. If we had invaded Iraq in 1991 with the stated intention of killing Saddam and overthrowing the Iraqi government, then we would have seen the same level of resistance that we are seeing now.

We did not do that.

We did not attempt to take Iraqi cities in 1991.

We bombed their military (correctly) and tried to bomb Saddam.

But we never tried to take Baghdad.

You know the saying: Blind them with Brilliance, but if you can't, Baffle them with BullShit.

I think that you're annoyed that your pre-conceptions are being ripped apart and I'm doing the ripping.

Hey, if you can't deal with the facts, that's your problem.

My predictions are 100% accurate.

Your predictions are at 0%.

Well, if that were true, then Iraq would have used nuke/chem/bio.

My pre-conceptions aren't being ripped apart...

You can't tell 0% from 100%. I'm sure that's not all you don't know.

Your MIS-conceptions... have already been ripped apart by yourself. Thanks for playing.

Hmmm, but I said Iraq would NOT use nuke/chem/bio.

If MY "MIS-conceptions" were the issue, then Iraq WOULD have used them.

But Iraq has NOT used them.

I'm sure you'll continue to claim you were correct.

Even when this "war" is "over" and Iraq has STILL not used nuke/chem/bio weapons.

:D