-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Iran is only one letter away from Iraq. Maybe there was, like, a typo on an intelligence report and the weapons are in Iran. We should send our tanks over there and look. I mean they're already in the neighborhood, right?
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Now they're saying the weapons were destroyed. A pretty lame excuse, if you ask me. If Saddam destroyed them, couldn't we, um, see that through satellites? Or other intelligence? The same intelligence that claimed Iraq had them?
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
I heard Canada has WMDs ready and aimed at the U.S.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So, if he destroyed the weapons, doesn't that mean he did what we were asking all along? Meaning there was no reason to invade?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, having done it in secret mere hours before the tanks rolled giving the world all that notice...
That is, if some of the Iraqis that surrendered can be believed.
Point 1, Iraq is a big country with 30 years of finding ways to hide things, finding anything won't happen over night.
Point 2, most of the Intel was probably radio intercepts, meaning no person actually saw anything.
Do people actually expect them to be marked with a big red X in the middle of Bahgdad or some such silly thing?
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: So, if he destroyed the weapons, doesn't that mean he did what we were asking all along? Meaning there was no reason to invade?
Well, no, of course not. I mean everybody knows the real reason we were there was to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people. Only world leaders of silly countries like England thought we were there because of weapons of mass destruction. It was never about that for us, was it? We were really just concerned with the plight of those poor, poor beleaguered citizens (who as coincidence has it, are so precariously perched above the world's second largest petroleum reserves.)
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
What if, hypothetically, the WMDs were destroyed in 1998 during Opertaion Desert Fox? I believe those air strikes were targeted at Iraq's weapons plants, and other sites. What if the plants and other facilities were so badly damaged that they could not produce any more Weapons of Mass Destruction? If this happened, then Saddam probably would not cease in his effort to obtain those weapons. But what if, with all his efforts, his scientists and minions could not produce any more WMDs? And the fact that UN Inspectors could not find any biological or chemical weapons was because they really could not rpoduce them anymore? Does anyone believe that Iraq did not have WMDs (after Desert Fox) because they could not produce them? Isn't it possible they had them but they were destroyed in the attacks amd they couldn't get new ones? Sure, Saddam wanted them, but what if he couldn't get them?
One last thing: why'd Dick Cheney say in August of '02 that Saddam would have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." Wasn't that a blatant lie? And why hasn't anyone asked him about that statement? If it wasn't a lie, and his intelligence was wrong, then why can we trust Powell that his intelligence was correct?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I've got a weapon of mass destruction in my pants.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that's a Weapon of Humorous Distraction there, Jason. Something you'd whip out on stage to give everyone a good laugh and make some few other men feel better about themselves.....
Unless of course you're referring to your inability to change underwear in anything less than once a week.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
YOu guys are just mad that i won't let you play "Hans Blix" with me.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic