Printable View
Then why not North Korea, Iran, or Syria instead of Iraq?
No presumptions of bad intent, nor the ability to actually implement it with those guys.
For goodness sakes, we had been bombing, surveilling, and inspecting the hell out of Iraq for a decade...how was it supposed to muster an offence?
If we are supposed to be the world's playground monitor we appear to be chasing down pottymouths while Ted Bundy lurks behind the swingset.
I have already posted why. Don't you read anything other than responses to your posts?Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@1 August 2004 - 23:01
Then why not North Korea, Iran, or Syria instead of Iraq?
No presumptions of bad intent, nor the ability to actually implement it with those guys.
For goodness sakes, we had been bombing, surveilling, and inspecting the hell out of Iraq for a decade...how was it supposed to muster an offence?
If we are supposed to be the world's playground monitor we appear to be chasing down pottymouths while Ted Bundy lurks behind the swingset.
Actually, it was a response to you in which I explained "why". Do you just ignore those posts which you cannot refute or what?
And I have already stated that I don't agree with you.
Disagreement does not imply that I haven't read the damn post hobbes, it means that I've failed to be persuaded by it.
Bush administration officials told Fox News thatmustard gas was also recently discovered.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
“The discovery of sarin gas and mustard gas in Iraq shows that the search for weapons of mass destruction is not finished and must continue,” Diaz-Balart said. “Saddam claimed to have destroyed all sarin gas rounds before the 1991 Gulf War. Obviously, he lied. Saddam was supposed to account for 550 shells containing mustard gas. No surprise, he lied again.
http://www.house.gov/mariodiaz-balart/news..._nerveagent.htm
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:04 p.m.ET Jan.11, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Danish and Icelandic troops uncovered a cache of 36 shells buried in the Iraqi desert, and preliminary tests showed they contained a liquid blister agent, the Danish military said Saturday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3925906/
Warheads with mustard, sarin found by Polish troops in Iraq
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163808/posts
Sarin: 1st WMD found in Iraq
17/05/2004 17:48-(SA)
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,...1528363,00.html
Now we come full circle on your war pigs out right lies
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.
Ah, shock....
NO ONE is claiming that there "never were" WMD in Iraq, simply that they were no longer being produced and that there weren't the massive stockpiles that Bush claimed.
All of your "news" is months old.
Nice try though.
ok, but I am right, you are wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@1 August 2004 - 23:59
And I have already stated that I don't agree with you.
Disagreement does not imply that I haven't read the damn post hobbes, it means that I've failed to be persuaded by it.
I am a Busyman certified debator.
Fair enough.
I never said I was right.
Just that I'm better than you.
AH, FREEREPUBLIC.COM, AN EXCELLENT SITE FOR NEWS AND DISCUSSION. IF ONLY THAT COY MISTRESS WOULD NOT SPURN MY VEGETABLE LOVE, THE WAY SHE DOES.Quote:
Originally posted by >SHOCK<^>WAVE>@1 August 2004 - 19:12
Warheads with mustard, sarin found by Polish troops in Iraq
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163808/posts
Throughout the past 18 months, Bush and Blair convinced their respective electorates that they were right to go to war because they had secret evidence that the WMD's that Saddam possessed posed a credible threat to their collective national interests.
Now that it has been all but proved that whatever weapons Saddam did possess did not pose a credible threat, or indeed any threat, apparently we are supposed to believe that they were still right to go to war, just because they sincerely believed that the weapons posed a credible threat. (even though they didn't).
Sorry, but that doesn't hold water. If that happened in a court of law, then the defendent would be pardoned now, and be claiming damages against his accusers.
The WMD issue, in fact every issue that was put forward, including human rights, was just an excuse to get rid of a powerful guy who wasn't playing ball anymore.
There are many people who would consider calling the police.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@1 August 2004 - 23:21
If you think a man has a gun and might shoot someone and do nothing, you are a coward.
If you charge the man and find he has no gun, you look foolish.
But, if you sincerely believed that he had a gun, can you find fault with the attacker? No, you find fault with the person too afraid to act on his beliefs.
I have to agree with clocker - The Democrats came up with a great dare, but Bush was still the idiot who accepted it. Perhaps the Dems knew he was an idiot (see, they are just as smart as everyon else) and we just feeding him dodgy info.
Clinton didn't have an overwhelming need to invade Iraq. Perhaps that was because he knew it was more about politics than dangerous weapons, and decided it would be better to leave the whole thing alone...