Pre-war data on Iraq not solid: Powell

[Arlo]

Originally posted by straffo
BS if it's how a diplomatic text should be written ,else anyone can at anytime say anything from such a "fuzzy" document.

A contrario to what you pretend this document is very specific.


I hope you don't have signed an insurance policy not mentioning "specific details of who, where, what, when, etc"

Because the day you will need it you will cry

You seem torn about whether it's fuzzy or specific. It does show that the UN was concerned about Iraq committing acts of terrorism.

It's funny how the "anti-war protest" side of these threads flip-flops from "the U.S. acted against the will of the UN and therefore committed an illegal act" to "well, look at who the security council is comprised of, so there" and back again.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Thrawn
]


No, what it does have to is specifically mention Iraqi ties with terrorism and the sanctions imposed forbidding such.  Resolution 687 clear doesn't do that.  There is no mention of sanction at all, nor is there any mention to Iraqi "ties" with terrorism.

It clearly shows the UN's concern for such. Which makes the whines about how much a nice guy Saddam was and how much he hated terrorism and would never ever have anything to do with it .... followed by all the bs about how the U.S. illegally went againt the will of the UN and all that type of rubbish sound even sillier than before.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Arlo
You seem torn about whether it's fuzzy or specific. It does show that the UN was concerned about Iraq committing acts of terrorism.

You must re-read the part where the word terrorism is used .
Then look up the word starting the sentence.
It's more subtil than your affirmation.

It's funny how the "anti-war protest" side of these threads flip-flops from "the U.S. acted against the will of the UN and therefore committed an illegal act" to "well, look at who the security council is comprised of, so there" and back again.
[/B]

Don't confuse me with an anti-war, I never was against the war or the removal of Saddam.

I just kept saying that GWB was using weak argument ,was IMO headed to the wrong target and was wasting ressources in a "Public relation" war completly missing the objectives.

Never I did say I was supporting Saddam, I even said it was strategicaly understandable to get control of Iraq.
But I said too I was affraid to see the outcome be some desert version of VietNam.

If you have a doubt check my posts from last year.