Lounge of Tomorrow

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)
-   Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq??? (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=3783)

SacTown Chronic 06-22-2006 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubergeek42
Have they found these yet?

No, but they know where they are.

Spoiler:
They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

scaeagles 06-22-2006 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup
My case for the war didn't really care whether he had them or was persuing them but rathre that we simply couldn't take the chance that he had them or was persuing them. Turns out he didn't (though he may have believed he did) really have either. So long as Iraq was stonewalling efforts to definitively establish their capacity, they posed an unacceptable threat. Even though the threat, in hindsight, was pretty close to nil, I still think the war was justified on my grounds but unjustified on Bush's grounds.

This was the final straw in Bush's arguments. What were the 17 UN resolutions about, including the final one immediately prior to the invasion? It was ALL about the fact that Saddam would not allow verification.

Yes, Bush (and many other intelligence services throughout the world) thought he had a much larger capacity. But the fact is that the invasion happened because Saddam would not comply with inspection requirements from the first cease fire, supported by numerous UN resolutions.

To say war was unjusitifed on Bush's grounds and then to recite the very reason the invasion happened seems strange.

BarTopDancer 06-22-2006 10:10 AM

Those photos that uber posted kinda look like a relative of this



Gemini Cricket 06-22-2006 10:11 AM

Optimus Prime could be a weapon of mass destruction. He was a bad a$s.

SacTown Chronic 06-22-2006 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles
This was the final straw in Bush's arguments.

If you need more than one straw to justify going to war, you shouldn't be going to war.

scaeagles 06-22-2006 10:23 AM

Be that as it may....I am just pointing out that I agree with Alex regarding Saddam not allowing verification was enough reason all by itself, and wondering why he does not take into account the final UN resolutions that would have prevented war if Saddam had capitulated to what he had already agreed to. War did not happen until that final rejection of his commitment.

And I disagree with you, Sac. The first Gulf War never ended. There was no peace accord signed, only a cease fire agreement. So one straw was all that was required. And Saddam had more than enough chances.

Gemini Cricket 06-22-2006 10:24 AM

Bush wanted to invade Iraq since the day he got into office. He was just scrambling for a reason to. He scared the whole nation into agreeing with him using 9/11 as leverage. There are no WMDs in Iraq. He knew that and changed his strategy to 'liberating the Iraqi people'. Now there are a lot of dead soliders who are gone because of Powell waving around vials. Even he said he was hesitant.
There's no justifying what is going on. People are catching on, that's why his numbers are still low even after killing Zarqawi.

scaeagles 06-22-2006 10:30 AM

Well, if you want to talk about beating a dead horse, that would be it, GC. 500 (approx) chemical weapons (granted old and degraded, but certainly not destroyed and spread out in a way to allow for usage rather than for surrender) is new news. The Bush as war monger who wanted to do it no matter what argument is just.....old. For someone who wanted it no matter what he sure did give Saddam a whole lot of chances to avoid it.

Gemini Cricket 06-22-2006 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles
Well, if you want to talk about beating a dead horse, that would be it, GC.

This whole subject is a dead horse. Bush knew it, that's why he switched his logic to 'liberation'. It's all bunk.
If this story was so new and informative and groundbreaking, they would have given it to Frist or McCain to reveal. It's garbage so they gave it to Santorum so he can use it to possibly get reelected. The media's not picking up on this story. You know why? And don't say because the media is liberal, it's not. The press is in Bush's pocket. They're not picking it up because it's a nothing story. Nothing to report. Nada. Straws...grasp, grasp.

BarTopDancer 06-22-2006 10:38 AM

What about bin Laden? What about Afghanastan? Why don't we hear about that anymore?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.