Register | Login | |||||
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
| |
0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
User | Post |
windwaker Posts: 58/235 |
Originally posted by Snow Tomato Regardless of the outcome, we know they lied, because regardless of their existence, there was zero basis for these claims. |
Zer0 Posts: 5/14 |
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination You also forgot the small captions between liberation and democracy. Oil |
Gavin Posts: 123/181 |
Nothing will come of this.
Never. Ever. And now, for your reading pleasure and to possibly add something to the conversation, key topics highlighted in the Charles Duelfer Iraq Survey Group report. Duelfer Report: I mean, given the fact that Iraq was like the only country in the world who might pose a threat to us, our invasion wasn't so unreasonable. It's not like there were two+ other countries actively seeking or to have already aquired nuclear capabilities that are openly hostile to the US, US interests, and/or a non-secular fundamentalist crack-house of fantastics. Oh wait, nevermind... |
Wurl Posts: 499/842 |
Don't forget that time the U.S. gave Saddam mustard gas.
Even if Saddam did have WMDs, the war wasn't fully justifiable. It has arguably created more problems in the Middle East. And don't say it's simply about concern over human rights and freedom. If the U.S. were truly concerned about human rights, we wouldn't have given Suharto the tools of genocide. If we were truly concerned over freedom, we wouldn't have given Iranians money and then diverted the funds to a terrorist orginization. |
Jomb Posts: 86/448 |
If Saddan had WMDs, then why did'nt he use them when he was being destroyed by the US forces? If he had them and did'nt use them, even then, then i dont think he ever would have. |
Ziff Posts: 629/1800 |
9/11 ---> Threat to US ---> WMD ---> liberation ----> democracy ---> liberation ----> DEMOCRACY + Liberation
That's how it's gone. And why isn't this being presented before the U.N. first? |
Snow Tomato Posts: 375/798 |
I'm interested to. If it's true, I'll shit my pants with glee. At least they didn't lie.
But an important connection is missing. The justification for war has become "we needed to liberate the Iraqi people". We don't really know why we're there to be honest with you. Right now, there being no evidence (unless this is real), MAJOR links are existing that link Saddam Hussein's downfall to improved national security. After all... after he fell.. there's more terrorists in Iraq now than ever before. It's become a sort of safe haven for terrorists... because there's no real government in place right now... and we're only in a few select locations. Basically... how was Saddam Hussein a threat to our national security? Unless this is true.. it remains to be seen. |
geeogree Posts: 92/207 |
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200602\NAT20060215a.html
came across this today.... not sure what will come of this but apparently there is an "Intelligence Summit" regarding some tapes and other information confirming existence of WMD's in Saddam's possesion. I'm quite interested in the outcome of this. |