Bush says we will nevr back down.

Yes, Brandon and woiyo, it's complicated--

I said "'Thou Shalt Not Kill.'" In quotes, you'll notice. Not my words, just a little something the neocons preach but don't practice. A little something they use when it serves their purposes.

You radical conservatives are so f*ucking stupid. Hopefully some day you'll wake up. You're being taken for fools by the Bush administration.

We can all agree that at one time Saddam "had" WMDs and programs. That's the reason why the UN Inspectors were looking for them to destroy - the same thing they did after Gulf War I.

"Had" is not a justification to start any war that has the potential to kill innocent people. It's a very simple international rule and moral imperative. Only immanent threat that can be proven with irrefutable evidence by many sources can justify a preemptive attack.

Yes, Brandon and woiyo, it's complicated--

I said "'Thou Shalt Not Kill.'" In quotes, you'll notice. Not my words, just a little something the neocons preach but don't practice. A little something they use when it serves their purposes.

You radical conservatives are so f*ucking stupid. Hopefully some day you'll wake up. You're being taken for fools by the Bush administration.

It's known that Hussein had WMD and programs, the only question is how recently. If a few pieces of information turned out to be incorrect, the basic picture of a dictator with WMD and WMD development programs was not. I cannot believe that you still persist in this delusion about lacking the means to deliver the WMD to the target. Just take them apart, smuggle the pieces into the target country, and put them back together. How long am I going to have to hear this absurd nonsense abiut delivery systems. The delivery system for the antrhax attack was the US mail.

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's known that Hussein had WMD and programs, the only question is how recently. If a few pieces of information turned out to be incorrect, the basic picture of a dictator with WMD and WMD development programs was not. I cannot believe that you still persist in this delusion about lacking the means to deliver the WMD to the target. Just take them apart, smuggle the pieces into the target country, and put them back together. How long am I going to have to hear this absurd nonsense abiut delivery systems. The delivery system for the antrhax attack was the US mail.

LOL.. A few pieces turned out incorrect? a few? The basic picture of a dictator with WMD did NOT exist at all. Saddam had ZERO WMD..
The basic picture of a dictator with a WMD development program did NOT exist. There has been ZERO evidence of any ongoing program.

The only delusion Brandon is your claim that a dictator with WMD and WMD programs existed at the time of the US invasion.

Another fact: Terrorism around the world is worse now than before our invasion.

A little patience would have paid big dividends. We would not be engaged in this quagmire that have already cost us almost 2,000 of our men and women, and over $200 billion of our treasury. Those potential savings speak for themselves.

"We're facing a radical ideology with an unalterable objective, to enslave whole nations and intimidate the whole world,"

"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia," Bush said.

"Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September 11, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of the steady progress, the enemy is wounded, but the enemy is still capable of global operations."

cicerone imposter wrote:

We can all agree that at one time Saddam "had" WMDs and programs. That's the reason why the UN Inspectors were looking for them to destroy - the same thing they did after Gulf War I.

"Had" is not a justification to start any war that has the potential to kill innocent people. It's a very simple international rule and moral imperative. Only immanent threat that can be proven with irrefutable evidence by many sources can justify a preemptive attack.

He "had" WMD, and then promised to destroy them verifiably. He then spent years lying and hiding. In an age where one single weapon can obliterate a city and a half million lives along with it, the idea that no use of the military is permissible barring 100% proof that a dictator is still lying, is foolish. The very first time he interfered with inspectors and the UN falied to act, we would have been justified in invading.

Forget about Saddam and WMD, from today...

Quote:

"We're facing a radical ideology with an unalterable objective, to enslave whole nations and intimidate the whole world,"

Quote:

"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia," Bush said.

CNN

and..

Quote:

"Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September 11, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of the steady progress, the enemy is wounded, but the enemy is still capable of global operations."

We won't be asking for any evidence because it's hard to prove a negative of something that hasn't happened.

Are you Scared yet ?

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

We can all agree that at one time Saddam "had" WMDs and programs. That's the reason why the UN Inspectors were looking for them to destroy - the same thing they did after Gulf War I.

"Had" is not a justification to start any war that has the potential to kill innocent people. It's a very simple international rule and moral imperative. Only immanent threat that can be proven with irrefutable evidence by many sources can justify a preemptive attack.

He "had" WMD, and then promised to destroy them verifiably. He then spent years lying and hiding. In an age where one single weapon can obliterate a city and a half million lives along with it, the idea that no use of the military is permissible barring 100% proof that a dictator is still lying, is foolish. The very first time he interfered with inspectors and the UN falied to act, we would have been justified in invading.

You have just provided justification for any country to attack the US. Without 100% proof that we didn't lie to invade Iraq we have opened ourselves up to any attack by others if your standard is really a standard and not a excuse.

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's known that Hussein had WMD and programs, the only question is how recently. If a few pieces of information turned out to be incorrect, the basic picture of a dictator with WMD and WMD development programs was not. I cannot believe that you still persist in this delusion about lacking the means to deliver the WMD to the target. Just take them apart, smuggle the pieces into the target country, and put them back together. How long am I going to have to hear this absurd nonsense abiut delivery systems. The delivery system for the antrhax attack was the US mail.

LOL.. A few pieces turned out incorrect? a few? The basic picture of a dictator with WMD did NOT exist at all. Saddam had ZERO WMD..
The basic picture of a dictator with a WMD development program did NOT exist. There has been ZERO evidence of any ongoing program.

If you want to claim that Hussein never had either WMD or WMD programs, go ahead, but I wonder why, then, he would promise to destroy them. Indeed, it's a matter of public record that he did, and the only question is how recently.

The only delusion Brandon is your claim that a dictator with WMD and WMD programs existed at the time of the US invasion.

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

We can all agree that at one time Saddam "had" WMDs and programs. That's the reason why the UN Inspectors were looking for them to destroy - the same thing they did after Gulf War I.

"Had" is not a justification to start any war that has the potential to kill innocent people. It's a very simple international rule and moral imperative. Only immanent threat that can be proven with irrefutable evidence by many sources can justify a preemptive attack.

He "had" WMD, and then promised to destroy them verifiably. He then spent years lying and hiding. In an age where one single weapon can obliterate a city and a half million lives along with it, the idea that no use of the military is permissible barring 100% proof that a dictator is still lying, is foolish. The very first time he interfered with inspectors and the UN falied to act, we would have been justified in invading.

You have just provided justification for any country to attack the US. Without 100% proof that we didn't lie to invade Iraq we have opened ourselves up to any attack by others if your standard is really a standard and not a excuse.

Bad, bad, silly logic. I am not saying that anyone with less than 100% proof of any proposition is justified in invading the country in question. I am saying that if the consequences of a proposition, should it be true, are awful, such as the obliteration of cities full of people, then less than 100% proof of the proposition may be required to justify acting.

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's known that Hussein had WMD and programs, the only question is how recently. If a few pieces of information turned out to be incorrect, the basic picture of a dictator with WMD and WMD development programs was not. I cannot believe that you still persist in this delusion about lacking the means to deliver the WMD to the target. Just take them apart, smuggle the pieces into the target country, and put them back together. How long am I going to have to hear this absurd nonsense abiut delivery systems. The delivery system for the antrhax attack was the US mail.

LOL.. A few pieces turned out incorrect? a few? The basic picture of a dictator with WMD did NOT exist at all. Saddam had ZERO WMD..
The basic picture of a dictator with a WMD development program did NOT exist. There has been ZERO evidence of any ongoing program.

If you want to claim that Hussein never had either WMD or WMD programs, go ahead, but I wonder why, then, he would promise to destroy them. Indeed, it's a matter of public record that he did, and the only question is how recently.

I see you don't address your statement that only a few of the pieces turned out to be incorrect. Your statement is about reconciling AFTER the invasion what he had at the time of it. He HAD WMD in 1991. We invaded in 2003. The picture was not one of a dictator WITH WMD in 2003. It was a picture of a dictator that HAD them 12 years earlier. Your claim that only a few pieces turned out to be incorrect gives the impression that you think WMD were found. ALL the claims of Saddam having WMD turned out to be incorrect.

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The only delusion Brandon is your claim that a dictator with WMD and WMD programs existed at the time of the US invasion.

I have never once claimed this since I joined A2K. I have only claimed that there was an unacceptable probability that he still did, that simply had to finally be resolved.

Then what the heck is your claim that picture of a dictator with WMD was correct? Saddam did NOT have WMD so the claim that the picture was CORRECT and FOUND CORRECT after we invaded is nothing but delusion. The picture may have been in place before we invaded but there is NO WAY you can claim it continued to exist after we invaded.