Both you and Poly go back and re-read the history - NOT Wiki, as Poly would say its very inaccurate .
Please stop repeating this. I never said it. I am a wiki editor in good standing.
As I mentioned that Saddam was playing a shell game with the UN for the deception that Iran would see. Sadly Bush fell for the deception and not Iran.
Go back and study yer pony's or donkies.
Majorly pwned and depantsed and you don't even know it. You remind me a Christine ODonnel laughing about how witty she was when she was actually depantsed by Coen.
I used your own words from those threads. Saddam deceived Bush into believing there was WMD even when Dr Hans Blix said there is no deception, there were no WMDs. Are you the last person on earth who will not admit you were lied to and you still believe it?
Ghee Dave , how long did it take for the D- Day invasion.
You start planing for it from day one. - It will take months, later to implement it - Thats a no brainer.
Steve this was PRE - 9-11 !! This was before any mention of WMDs or inspections, or Al Quada. April 2001 - March 2003 is 2 years! You forget the whole thing was totally unjustified. D-Day was justified !! Saddam was just a nuisance, no real threat. Desert Storm showed that. He was a push-over !
Hundreds of thousands have died and it's cost us $1-2 trillion - atrocities were committed by US- and the Iraqis had done NOTHING to us !! . .do you find all that OK ?
You seem to have lost your photographic memory for your own posts poly. At one time you did say it's not to be totally believed, but it has been quite a few years. I don't have the time to look it up.
But carp, it has been years since he said that, and since wiki has become much more popular it has become much more accurate in leaps and bounds.
OK, I can't find it either but I will recreate my post about taking wiki with a grain of salt. I was editing vandalism out of a bunch of wiki pages, stuff like "Bush sucks" replacing his page and so I said something close to the following:
Me: "Wiki is one of the best sources for information especially controversial stuff like the Iraq War. But you do have to take it with a grain of salt. Someone could visit right before you and add something very wrong. But, it is extremely easy to check. Just click on history at the top of the page and you can see if someone has edited recently. Assuredly a wiki editor (I do it all the time) will remove garbage, often in as little as a few minutes. We all have a certain number of pages on our watchlist. I have about 150. If there is a change, I drop what I am doing and check the edit.
In this way wiki is the best source for controversial topics because the opposing forces battle it out until the article is completely neutral. Not Fox news neutral, not even NPR neutral. But really neutral with citations for every controversial item."
Not exactly photographic but close. Now if you want to accuse me of saying to not use wiki as a valid source after reading that then you are in the carp truthiness zone.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.