Bob 0119 wrote:1) The Iraqis were our friends at the time, and we were selling them our B-list stuff.
I agree because dieing from chemical weapons is so much better than dieing from nuclear weapons. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Hey, at least with chemical weapons you stand a chance of protecting yourself!
At least until we invent a 10 billion SPF sunblock!
All kidding aside, we backed Iraq as the lesser of the two evils when they were at war with Iran. We ignored them using the weapons we gave them on their own people as "none of our business."
And then many in congress ignored the fact (20 years later) that the WMD's that we didn't find were technically the same WMD's that we sold to them! That's how we knew he had them!
So instead of being worried about where they went (most likely sold to Syria), it was much sexier to say "we went to war under false pretenses; we were lied to. There were no WMD's."
I understood it different. It went from, "Possessing WMDs," to, "the INTENT to possess WMDs."
I don't see how the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
When you say you have PROOF that they POSSESS WMDs and drive all the way from Kuwait (where we entered Iraq from) all the way to Baghdad and when you can't produce any evidence they they POSSESS what you accused them possessing, then the story changed to INTENT TO POSSESS.
...any given Sunday....
RIP #21 Sean Taylor. You will be loved and adored by Redskins fans forever!!!!!
GSPODS:
The National Anthem sucks.
What a useless piece of propagandist rhetoric that is.
We were a little weak on the proof he was trying to get more, but we knew he had chemical weapons already because we supplied them, and we'd seen him use them.
The more disconcerting part of the story should have been "what the heck did he do with what we knew he had" moreso than "how reliable are these reports that he's trying to buy more WMD's"
“If you grow up in metro Washington, you grow up a diehard Redskins fan. But if you hate your parents, you grow up a Cowboys fan.”-Jim Lachey
Bob 0119 wrote:Of course we had PROOF he had them.
We gave them to him during the Iran/Iraq war.
We were a little weak on the proof he was trying to get more, but we knew he had chemical weapons already because we supplied them, and we'd seen him use them.
The more disconcerting part of the story should have been "what the heck did he do with what we knew he had" moreso than "how reliable are these reports that he's trying to buy more WMD's"
Republican! I see your logic, but it does have flaws. If you gave someone drugs many years ago does that mean he still has them today? Not at all. Could you presume that since they had at one time possessed drugs that they would have them now? Possibly. Iraq should have been "liberated" during the first Gulf War, but instead, as political logic would have it, we went back a second time to try and finish the job. Only this time we had a loose basis of reason to attack a Country that some would view as the US just not liking.
Bob 0119 wrote:Of course we had PROOF he had them.
We gave them to him during the Iran/Iraq war.
We were a little weak on the proof he was trying to get more, but we knew he had chemical weapons already because we supplied them, and we'd seen him use them.
The more disconcerting part of the story should have been "what the heck did he do with what we knew he had" moreso than "how reliable are these reports that he's trying to buy more WMD's"
Republican! I see your logic, but it does have flaws. If you gave someone drugs many years ago does that mean he still has them today? Not at all. Could you presume that since they had at one time possessed drugs that they would have them now? Possibly. Iraq should have been "liberated" during the first Gulf War, but instead, as political logic would have it, we went back a second time to try and finish the job. Only this time we had a loose basis of reason to attack a Country that some would view as the US just not liking.
You're right, if I gave someone drugs 20 years ago, I certainly wouldn't expect them to still have them 20 years later.
Of course, the natural assumption would be that they'd use them all by now.
However, unlike chemical and biological weapons, drugs can be used in the comfort and privacy of your own home!
I can't imagine what Saddam would be like coming into work after a three day bender of Anthrax and Mustard gas!
“If you grow up in metro Washington, you grow up a diehard Redskins fan. But if you hate your parents, you grow up a Cowboys fan.”-Jim Lachey
JansenFan wrote:We should launch a .50 caliber rocket from a sniper rifle towards that nut job in charge. Crisis averted.
Thats what I'm talkin' about! Somebody should have done that a long time ago. He has made that a terrible country and he is gonna end up killing a lot of people and/or start a war if somebody doesn't stop him.
Actually, his dad did that. Kim has just lived off the rotted fruits.
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
Question for ya'll because ya'll know more than I do. Do we use our stealths for spying? have we used them in some wars? I'm really curious about this.
I see your logic, but it does have flaws. If you gave someone drugs many years ago does that mean he still has them today? Not at all. Could you presume that since they had at one time possessed drugs that they would have them now? Possibly. Iraq should have been "liberated" during the first Gulf War, but instead, as political logic would have it, we went back a second time to try and finish the job. Only this time we had a loose basis of reason to attack a Country that some would view as the US just not liking.
Thats what I'm talkin' about! Somebody should have done that a long time ago. He has made that a terrible country and he is gonna end up killing a lot of people and/or start a war if somebody doesn't stop him.
