Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Especially when the folks are the police, otherwise known as the U.N.

The UN is making similar statements today about IRAN.

You trust their report as much as their report on IRAQ?

Ticomaya wrote:

revel wrote:

So you think because we can bomb and invade countries with no evidence of WMD or Nuclear Weapons (as was stated in the inspections report to the UN before the war) we are potent? I wonder what you think of wife beaters.

I think very little of wife beaters.

I also think very little of folks who tell a man to stop beating his wife, and when he doesn't stop, they warn him again ... and again .... and again ...

But I think an awful lot of folks who tell a man to stop beating his wife, and when he don't stop, they arrest him.

Yeah there's a vivid metaphor. But the problem is, when they went in the man's house to arrest him, they found no evidence of wife beating.

What about all the mass graves and now the Hussein tapes? No evidence of wife beating?

Naturally the evidence suggesting the WMD's were moved is conveniently forgotten or overlooked because it may suggest that WMD's existed and that would lend too much credibility to the invasion.

Naturally the evidence suggesting the WMD's were moved is conveniently forgotten or overlooked because it may suggest that WMD's existed and that would lend too much credibility to the invasion.

woiyo wrote:

The UN is making similar statements today about IRAN.

You trust their report as much as their report on IRAQ?

The weapon inspectors said that it was very unlikely that Iraq had something like chemical or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, or even a program.

However, the IAEO said that they think that the Iranian program has the potential of a nuclear weapons program. They recommended to bring it before the Security Council.

How do you make that into "similar statements"?

Where do you get that 'the weapons inspectors said that it was very unlikely that Iraq had something like chemical or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, or even a program"? Everything I've read from the Duelfer Report, David McKay's testimony before Congress, etc. etc. etc. says that the inspectors were amazed that so little was found following the invasion. Initially, some weeks after the invasion, they concluded they were wrong. New information that has surfaced more recently, however, strongly suggests that they were not.

The evidence that WMD did exist and was moved before the war does not fit the template, so the evidence is ignored now.

So all those U.N. resolutions ignored and evaded by Saddam Hussein are a figment of our imagination?

Foxfyre wrote:

Where do you get that 'the weapons inspectors said that it was very unlikely that Iraq had something like chemical or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, or even a program"? Everything I've read from the Duelfer Report, David McKay's testimony before Congress, etc. etc. etc. says that the inspectors were amazed that so little was found following the invasion. Initially, some weeks after the invasion, they concluded they were wrong. New information that has surfaced more recently, however, strongly suggests that they were not.

Oh, I thought we were talking about the UN weapon inspectors.....

But of course, we can change the subject, no problem!