Can someone give this guy a TV or a newspaper........ Please tell it to the President, he for one thinks its about WMD....NOT...
Hey, you post this on your "Screw the anti-war demonstrators" thread: and: These posts fly in the polar opposite of the isolationist, let's-hold-hands-and-sing-Kumbayah comments you've posted here. Are you bi-polar?
No, just stoned. But seriously, my point was this: a) If Iraq is contributing to global terrorism, then lets go in and wipe them out. b) If Iraq isn't or our government cannot provide good evidence that Iraq is behind it, then what business do we have being there? It is the old "shit or get off the pot." If we're going to war, sell it to me. I'm an American, I pay taxes and I helped to vote his ass into office -- so am I not due a solid presentation of just why we're spending billions of Social Secutity funds that are earmarked for ME and instead developing cool star-wars weapons for our fight against Iraq ... and for what reason .... ? WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? All I hear is a bunch of hunches and opinions coming from the white house. Isn't congress supposed to vote on war or is this country now just a Bush / Kennedy toy?
Lucky bastard. The evidence, if you require a "smoking gun," will in all likelihood never be found. Do you really think a couple hundred of inspectors will be able to find anything substantive when Iraq has had years to hide it? To me, the "evidence" if you will has been Iraq's not being forthcoming in revealing everything. However, having said that, I think all the evidence we need is Saddam's past actions. They speak for themselves. 9/11 not only was a day that scarred our nation, but it also marked the day we stopped giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO! So I ask you again, and a simple yes or no will suffice: Are you willing to risk your life, that of your family, and those of your fellow citizens that he will not provide terrorists like Bin Laden a weapon to use against us? To me it's that simple. Thank goodness it isn't a Kennedy toy. Good grief, Chappaquiddick Ted would have ducked his head into a vat of gin for the duration of this crisis...
Yeah, but by that rationale, wouldn't the Soviet Union be a far more dangerous threat to us because they have just as many weapons as we do yet not enough money or manpower to watch them all? Osama has millions upon millions of dollars. What would stop him from finding a mid-level Soviet weapons worker to pass across some plutonium in exchange for lots of money? Iraq, if they had "weapons of mass destruction" had to get them somewhere. I seriously doubt they have the know-how to make a fully functional nuclear weapon. It would be far easier to just exchange a few million barrels of oil for a couple of "suitcase bombs" from Russia. Is my reasoning that off?
Granted, it is a danger, but not a malicious threat. I'm sure he has tried. Maybe (fingers crossed) the Russian republics are taking better care of their nukes than we thought. The Israelis thought the danger was high enough to bomb the Iraqi reactor in the early 80's, that's twenty years ago. Iraq has been working on the "know-how" for decades. I think your questions are valid, but I think there is a huge difference between Russian and Iraq.
Too bad George Bush Senior did not do the job right in the first place. When Iraq took over Kuwait deposing or killing saddam would have been justified. Now, opinion is too divided on the issue in the international community. The US would be seen as an agressor.