These are the terrorists who scare GWB

why can't you guys be a little bit on top of the news. first of all iraq had no wmd so it means that we had succeeded
second we have made a lot of mistake
have you seen bolton's interview i posted?
now its good to acknowledge that the success that we see is the result of negotiations with locals.

 

You need to read.. I never said anything about WMD's.. What does that have to do with your statement? You said we need talk, not war.. I naturally assumed from your previous posts that you were referring to Iraq. It is evident you were hiding under a rock, or just too young to remember that we, and the UN, as well as the world, did talk.. For several years... In excess of a decade.

Unfortunately, it did not work.. People tried to talk to Hitler too...

Next you will try to tell me that Iraq was responsible for 9/11..

 

we wanted them to dismantle their wmd and now we know they have done that
how about the negotiation with tribes now?

 

Ah no, the UN wanted them to simply let inspectors in and provide those inspectors with access to facilities in Iraq. Those inspectors were not only not allowed to do their work, they were tossed out.

The UN then began sending resolutions asking Iraq nicely to comply. They did not, so the UN created more resolutions. Without some type of conviction in a request, you are not likely to get someone to comply, as was the result.

The end result was the US gave Iraq and ultimatum, and unlike the UN, baked that ultimatum with a consequence.

Again, you've either been under a rock, or are too young to remember from about 91' on...

I bet you do not even know why the Gulf war started.

 

the whole was un wanted to destroy iraq wmd. let the sun shine in

 

Does Babelfish have a Engrish translator?

 

Actually the UN had all the access they wanted at the end, they could go where they pleased pretty much any time.

Bush is who removed the inspectors and attacked, Iraq did not throw the inspectors out this time, we did.

---edit.

I am also curious as how anyone can bring up the UN and their weapons inspectors, if they are going to dismiss the UN in the end. To me it's clearly a way to find a reason to war, it's having it both ways and then some. I just dont' understand it. The UN is used for the reason, the inspectors, original resolutions, but when the UN itself is actively inspecting at the end, does not give support for war it's ok to bypass them..

Puzzling, it's ok for us to bypass the UN and not obide, but it's not ok for Saddam. It's different when Saddam throws out the inspectors, but when the inspectors have more freedom then they ever had and we say we are going to attack the inspectors are forced to move out, it's different?..

 

its another way of saying you do not hav an answer and can't admit it.

 

I'm intelligent enough to know it's pointless. Direct military action against a fragmented and indistinct enemy never works. It's just a shame your president is an idiot

 

Although we may appear that way at the moment, I would not casually define the United States as a fragmented and indistinct enemy.

When necessary, we can be quite cohesive.

But do continue...

 

You'd be happy to get behind a terrorist organisation?
Wow, I'd have thought the last few years would at least have taught your guys something. I guess I was wrong.

 

Y'all just let us know when your ready to invade. We'll be waiting. We'll leave a light on for you.

 

No, it's called sarcasm.. I cannot understand what you are trying to say.