Author Topic: Who were the first to claim SH had WMD? (Read 1396 times)

Thrawn · « **Reply #15 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:11:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Virage
You can Lead a Horse to Water...

Nah, the burden of proof is on you to support your statements with data.

Furious · « **Reply #16 on:** December 18, 2003, 12:06:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
...If sadumb didn't have wmd's what did he use against the iranians during the iraq / iran war and against the kurds after gulf war 1?...

You got any documentation for this?

Animal · « **Reply #17 on:** December 18, 2003, 12:12:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Attempting to pin the WMD argument on a political party and another President appears to be a desparate attempt to divert blame for something...like the lack of WMDs found in Iraq thus far. Is this the idea now?

Exactly what I was thinking.

10Bears · « **Reply #18 on:** December 18, 2003, 12:13:48 PM »

So the peradem seems to be "We attacked Saddam cuz Bill Clinton told us to"

Nilsen · « **Reply #19 on:** December 18, 2003, 12:37:38 PM »

Before the war i thought sadddam had wmd, but i still did not think that a war was justified.....war seldom is of some odd reason.

Now we see that he does not have these weapons, at least not ready for use.

The US needs to rethink its aggressive postiure to avoid beeing attacked again. Retaliation and pre-emptive strikes against those that may someday in the future threaten them will just lead them deeper into something that they won't be able to get out of.

Hate and ignorance will never bring the world closer to a more peaceful and safe world for anyone. Sometimes you just have to take few punches without shooting back with a shotgun.

As long as the US does not get this, it will reamain on the hitlist for alot of people.

Sandman · « **Reply #20 on:** December 18, 2003, 12:45:19 PM »

The Bush Legacy: "Don't Blame Me"

Ripsnort · « **Reply #21 on:** December 18, 2003, 12:46:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears
So the peradem seems to be "We attacked Saddam cuz Bill Clinton told us to"

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
No, this was the idea from the beginning, when the liberals ignored mass graves, Pulp mill shredders, and Rape rooms, and started asking "Waaa! where are the WMD???" They can't find anything to pin on Bush anymore, so this is all they have to hold onto.

Virage · « **Reply #22 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:02:07 PM »

Furious · « **Reply #23 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:02:24 PM »

Which idea are you talking about? The first time you used that statement in reply to Curval's question, it did not answer the question. And now, the second time it is just an odd juxtaposition.

Have you degenerated to such a level that now all you can do it cut&paste your own drivel?

-tronski- · « **Reply #24 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:09:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
No, this was the idea from the beginning, when the liberals ignored mass graves, Pulp mill shredders, and Rape rooms, and started asking "Waaa! where are the WMD???" They can't find anything to pin on Bush anymore, so this is all they have to hold onto.

Well that is why the war was begun wasn't it...WMD...I'm pretty sure I do remember that...

I mean surely that information hasn't been through the ministry of truth just yet...

Tronsky

Martlet · « **Reply #25 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:33:26 PM »

Quote

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq October 10, 2002

....In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.....

Yeager · « **Reply #26 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:50:15 PM »

the real war hasnt even started and these weenies are crying foul.

Sandman · « **Reply #27 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:53:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
the real war hasnt even started and these weenies are crying foul.

Who are we fighting against in this "real" war?

Gyro/T69 · « **Reply #28 on:** December 18, 2003, 02:16:55 PM »

Let's see if I've got this right…. Clinton lied repeatedly to the American public about Iraq having WMDs and now. These statments should be forgotten like they never happened?

majic · « **Reply #29 on:** December 18, 2003, 05:58:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, what you view as "stupid" will be recorded in military history as "brilliant".

From a strategic point of view, it was a brilliant move.

Establish a base in the middle east to ensure safe flow of the oil to the world.

Center the "fight on terrorism" in the Middle east, instead of on our home. Let the terrorists come to us in Iraq.

Let neighboring countries know that if you plan to support/finance terrorism in the future, *we* will know about it. Think of it as a neighborhood "Block watch".

Regardless of the initial motive, the humanitarian side of it has proven it was a just war.

Brilliant!

Interesting viewpoint. Food for thought.