Reply With Quote
I can't give a full translation, but I can clearly discern the word "whippersnapper" in there.
Translation?
I can't give a full translation, but I can clearly discern the word "whippersnapper" in there.
alrighty.
I know that too...
Dude, if Israel can operate that far from port, I'm impressed.
I used to keep up with all the rumors and blah blah blah over military stuff, but I simply dont care as much anymore.
You forget who Israel's allies are? With a little help from their #1 friend, Israel could operate anywhere on the face of the planet. ;o)
So, do you know if they are going to attack?
Thats the only thing that matters.
Yes...I know.
yes, and In those years I remember actions that prevented Sadaam from having WMDs. But you know, nothing beats an all out unesscesary invasion!!!
Really? Illuminate us.
Other than making him cry like a baby and scream like a girl in 1991, he'd pretty much been working toward having WMD's again ever since.
duh i forgot about how hehad so many when we invade. MY BAD.
Well, from what I read -- in the report you guys point to as proof Saddam Hussein posed no threat -- he would have been able to field chemical and biological weapons within days (possibly hours) if the sanctions had been lifted -- which you may have forgotten was what his pals the French and Russians were lobbying for (Gee--I wonder why that was?) The report also detailed -- that's right DETAILED - terrorist ties and relationships the author believed was an attempt to move their WMD knowledge base and pre-cursor materials to the global terrorist arena.
Combine that with the biggest scandal in the history of the world (Oil for Food and how that might have distracted the UN and other complicit parties to maybe take their eye off the ball), and you have the makings of a real mess if we HADN'T taken the initiative and invaded.
I quoted a very relevant portion of the David Kay report, in here, the other day -- did you just ignore it? Let me find it...
You really should quit relying on the media and read the report yourself. It's very illuminating.
The final report of the Iraq Survey Group told us that Saddam destroyed his WMD stocks in 1991 and didn’t produce any significant amount after that. There was much crowing by anti-war commentators that this proved there were never any WMD in Iraq after all, and renewed calls for President Bush's head for misleading the country.
But that report also said that Saddam was using the money he had siphoned off from the oil-for-food programme to buy WMD material; and that he had re-started a ballistic missile programme forbidden by the UN. These findings alone showed that Saddam had been in breach of the UN resolutions, the legal basis for war. Moreover, the report also said that Saddam had destroyed his WMD stocks in 1991 ‘ in order to conceal Iraq’s WMD capabilities’; and also that in 1998, the weapons inspectors had detected VX-related compounds on ballistic missile warhead fragments, and had discovered a do ent describing the use of ‘special weapons’ by the Iraqi Air Force. All these things - along with repeated references to Saddam’s intention to resume WMD production when the sanctions that were falling apart finally ended - indicated that Saddam was still very much in the WMD business. Yet none of them was paid any attention, or even in some cases reported at all, by the media.
Here's what David Kay said:
"We know there were terrorist groups in state [Iraq] still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomenon was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been dangerous if the war had not intervened."
So they're attacking?
When?
What happens then?
Er, were there not supposed to be stockpiles already there, regardless of sanctions?Well, from what I read -- in the report you guys point to as proof Saddam Hussein posed no threat -- he would have been able to field chemical and biological weapons within days (possibly hours) if the sanctions had been lifted
The UN sucks, but the resolutions that we ignore with isreal provided a basis for war here.
There's no conclusive proof there wasn't...
Go read the report. It also lends credence to the theory that WMD's were moved to Syria before the invasion...maybe as recently as 2 months prior to the invasion.
But, even if not, the stockpiles would have comfortably fit into a space the size of a two-car garage. So, you tell me, is it possible they're still there?
A war where? Here, in the U.S.? You're stupid.
You tell me, is it possible they were destroyed?But, even if not, the stockpiles would have comfortably fit into a space the size of a two-car garage. So, you tell me, is it possible they're still there?
Sure! But when? Saddam Hussein never accounted for the weapons that were known to exist in 1998, when inspectors left.
Who had the burden of proof? I say, since Saddam Hussein was under various UNSC resolutions and the provisions of the '91 cease-fire agreement, to FULLY and UNCONDITIONALLY disclose the existence and disposition of ALL weapons of mass destruction, the burden was on him to show the world what happened to the weapons we know existed but were never accounted for.
Go ahead, you make an opposite argument.
So we went to war on a hunch.
Ok.
Collin Powell at the UN, the famous hunch arguement.
Yoni, here signifies the way your using UN resolutions to justify actions in this thread, yet choose to ignore them in other places.
It seems compassionate conservatives are not only conservative through convinience, they also start wars the same way!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
