![]() |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||||||
| Notices |
| Legacy Archived Main Board Business chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here. |

|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#36 | |
|
Members
$100 for every ImLive sign-up
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,036
|
Colin, I think you are correct here... without WMD, the US will look (in the region) like even more of a bully than they already think... and there probably will be no end to the crap at the UN any time in the future when the US wants to get something done...
WMD are the reason for the war - without them, Saddam was "right", the UN was "right", and (shudder) France was "right". It won't be enough, I don't think, to say "he had them once 10+ years ago"... without proof of current weapons, well... I am hoping that the reported find this morning will be the start of a nice run of chemical discoveries... that will put the minds of everyone more at ease. JR: I posted a simple question, Slavdogg said I was "manipulating he truth", so I asked what was wrong with the question. Your answer had little or no bearing on that, rather it was a long winded attempt to make me look anti-american and to belittle my attempt to raise a valid point. The orignal question was: Quote:
your off to the races, trying to explain WHY the US went to war. We all know why. That isn't a question. The question is: What if the assumptions for going to war were wrong, and there are no WMD found? Alex
__________________
Let's go to the edge of disaster Push the pedal and go a little faster Let's slam into a wall at ramming speed Let's go to the edge of a mountain Jump off and lets start countin' Hit the ground and tell me if it bleeds |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|