Quote:
Originally posted by Pacifier
the USA has failed so far to proof that there were WMDs at all. So right now it looks like the iraqi statement "we have no WMDs" was true..
BTW: the usa are searching for thei justification *after* the attack, in the above China example that would mean, that china could invade taiwan and *then* start to search for a reason.
|
Ah, but the point was that the US didn't *have* to prove that Iraq had them. UN resolutions demanded that Iraq provided proof that they had destroyed those weapons, which they failed to do. Saying that they destroyed them wasn't enough - they needed to provide evidence. Given that the Iraqi government (like most succesful dictatorships) had a large amount of people working to report on virtually every detail of daily life, it seems unreasonable to assume that Iraq had just gotten rid of it's WMDs without any proof whatsoever, especially since they *knew* that they had to provide that evidence later on.
Quote:
yeah, why didn't they used WMDs....perhaps they didn't had WMDs.... 
just curious, i would have loved to see the US reaction on that attack....
|
The fact that they didn't use WMDs is no proof of their non-existance. If I were to have a gun in my house, and fail to use it during a burglary, does that mean the gun doesn't exist?
As for the US reaction: it would have been swift, bloody and brutal. Any such move by Iraq would have been political (and real) suicide.
Quote:
OK, but can you link all those attacks to one nation? can you say a nation is responsible for that? If a nation comes to mind it would have bee afghanistan, but the US already liberated them (LOL).
I think a lot of attack right now are some sort of single attacks that are not linked to a certain nation. The al-kaida has broken up into samller, independent groups, hard to link them to a nation.
|
I don't have to link those attacks to one nation. I never said one nation was responsible. I said Al-Qaida (and it's friends) are the instigators of these attacks. Al-Qaida is actively supported by some people, and actively ignored by some countries. This has to stop. If a government chooses to ignore international terrorists operating from it's soil, it's in fact supporting these guys. In that sense, Bush was right: either you fight the terrorists (you're with us), or you support them (you're against us). There is no middle ground. You cannot just look away and claim to be independent, because that's an open invitation to terror groups to set up camp in your country... And these days, that leaves you open to an attack (military, politcal or economical) by the Western world, the targets of those terror groups.