FINALLY, the liberal contradicts himself. Exactly my point. You're complaining about all the civilian casualties, comparable to WW2, when there were millions. So... ONLY 50,000 is justifiable here. This can quickly turn into a WW with the case of WMDs popping up on both sides of us. No, we are not using it as a reason. I'm just using it to compare casualty numbers. We gave them weapons back in Bush 1 to aid the war effort we could not fight at the time. And this time, they abused those weapons. NOW we are trying to get rid of them.
Take heart XP. This is the first time yo-yo concedes that Iraq did have WMDs. In every previous post of his, he denied it.
I don't consider us handing over antrhax to saddam, as saddam having WMD's I also don't consider an AK-47 capable of killing thosands of people over hundreds of hours ... a WMD either When you find a nuclear warhead that was capable of being detonated in Iraq, I'll concede to Iraq having WMD's... until then it's a PR spin and fake excuse to attacking a soveriegn nation.
So before. It's that WMDs (traditionally referring to biological or nuclear weapons) didn't exist. You concede that Iraq did. Now the bar is raised so its only nuclear weapons? Convenient.
Common Dreams? Here, let me give you some real info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction What were you saying, yo-yo?
Umm.. everyone knows that Iraq HAD biological weapons... they used them in the Iran war.... the ones we gave them Since attacking Iraq and bombing its citizens have we found that anthrax we sent over or was it already all used 10 years ago ... hmmmm Once again... when we actually find some REAL wmd that was capable of doing REAL damage to US soil... then you'd have something to talk about. 20 year old degraded mustard gas shells simply aren't wmd
For once, you are actually correct, thought I'm sure it was by mistake. The shells themselves are not wmd, but the contents inside them (mustard gas and sarin) are.
You don't feel a bit guilty about spilling the blood of 50,000 women and children who never did a thing to you? Douchebag.
Derrrr.... some of them were aiding terrorists in their hiding, hence when we bombed the terrorists we bombed the family. Sometimes, they help them in fear, sometimes in loyalty, as women and children, to make it more concealed. And, ly2 didn't kill 50,000 people, no need for namecalling.
Isn't that a bit bias? I have no real firm determination of the given, although I wouldn't dare say something that's nothing more than an assertion. Have you watched General Michael Maples speak about the WMD issue on cspan? If not I took a few notes. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1062359&postcount=163 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1062864&postcount=167
He never answered this question either. You would think someone would be proud to stand up for their beliefs.
George Bush told us saddam was building nuclear weapons and planning to attack the United States and it's allies. Until that has been proven, I consider george bush a lying POS, and everything he says since then, cannot be trusted. You can believe whatever PR spin about some mustard gas you want. Do you think saddam was going to sail a boat across the ocean and kill the entire country with 500 20 year old mustard gas shells? If you want to pretend (or are that desperate to justify your positions) that old mustard gas was WMD... go right ahead. You're never going to spin me into believing it
According to the General (and this is my notes): 'if put together correctly it could be deadly....and could potentially have a large impact, and could be packaged in a way that would have a large impact.' Personally I believe the details are yet to make this clear, but it really doesn't take much toxicity to kill anyone. I'm a bit more concerned about north korea, but people shouldn't dismiss this issue.
I don't answer questions that have no factual basis, or are only meant to provoke me into anger. I don't need to answer the question because it holds no ground. If I send a letter to Georgie asking him why he employs bin laden, and he doesn't reply... would you wonder why?
Correct. There would not be nearly the civilian casualties if the terrorists were not hiding behind women and children as human shields when coalition soldiers were fighting them. Says a lot about the character of those we are fighting.
I think it stands that yo-yo is set in his ways... and there's no need to debate this with him. Thus, we can ignore him