Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Until they are found I can't defend. Now its quite possible that Saddam didn't have any WMD's and provoked war by ignoring the resolutions and interfearing with the weapons inspectors because he was just an idiot.
|
You know Ustwo, I think you might just be right there. It worked for him over the previous 10 years. I think he just miscalculated.
Quote:
|
I am also not overly worried if Syria has them because if they do they would have to be raving lunatics to give them to any terrorists to use. If they did so and we were able to link them to it, they would cease to exsist as a government, at least with Bush in office.
|
Well, I don't think Syria would provide WMDs (if it has them) to terrorists. I think that's just a story Ann Coulter uses to promote her racist tirades and used to scare young Neocon children at night. :-)
Quote:
Now if your thoughts are Iraq must have had WMD's and they must directly threaten the US for there to be just cause for war then I don't think you will be satisfied anytime soon, but I would like you to answer one question as well.
Did Bill Clinton lie about WMD's?
|
Good point. If we base any invasion on the criteria that the US must be directly threatened, then you're right. Personall, despite what others may believe, I do not. I think military action to remove a despot is indeed justified. But you can't keep changing the reasons, "flip flopping" (to coin a currently popular term with anti-Kerry pundits), and moving the goal posts when your original reasons are proven wrong.
And I don't think Clinton lied. Why does Clinton always pop up in threads here? Isn't he a private citizen now? :-)
Mr Mephisto