Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
How are these "two old, dead weapons" *not* prove that Saddam had WMDs? It's not a gray scale thing we're talking about, it's an Either-Or situation: either he had them, or he had none. IF these weapons are shown to belong to the Saddam-era Iraqi army, it proves that he did have WMDs.
Now, does this prove that he had a *substantial amount* of WMDs before the last war? No, it does not. That cannot be proven with isolated discoveries of long-lost weapons.
|
The discovery of some old-assed shells is way different than discovering an actual cache of WMD's. We all know that he had them at one point (the Republicans gave them to him), the "facts" posed to us was that he had enough to be a threat AT THE TIME OF INVASION.
This is more like finding traces of cocaine on someone's money than actually finding cocaine.
Quote:
Originally posted by wonderwench
Do you think it is a good thing that Saddam is no longer President of Iraq?
|
That's such a pointless question and is more suited to talk radio. It greatly oversimplifies the issue. Questions like this obviously go with the general BS like "liberals love Saddam and hate America" We've listed several reasons why we shouldn't have gone to war. If you don't understand them by now you haven't even tried.