lock

[Random Variable]

 

[woodie1]

Who says he doesn't have them now.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: woodie1
Who says he doesn't have them now.

Good question.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: woodie1
Who says he doesn't have them now.

I do.

 

[unclebabar]

Why should we do anything about him? There's another, greater evil, one that does have weapons of mass destruction and has absolutely no reservations about using them. His name is George W. Bush.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: unclebabar
Why should we do anything about him? There's another, greater evil, one that does have weapons of mass destruction and has absolutely no reservations about using them. His name is George W. Bush.

OK.

 

[ObiDon]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
Does that make sense?

None whatsoever.

 

[Kadarin]

Well, if you're EngineNr9, or others with the same viewpoint, then it makes perfect sense. Then again, people like that would cheer if a US city was nuked, thinking we had it coming...

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Well, if you're EngineNr9, or others with the same viewpoint, then it makes perfect sense. Then again, people like that would cheer if a US city was nuked, thinking we had it coming...

But we're the reason all of the people in the Middle East are oppressed. The freedom fighter on the corner with the gun, the one beating the women for showing their faces, he told me so.

 

[bulldawg]

Originally posted by: unclebabar
Why should we do anything about him? There's another, greater evil, one that does have weapons of mass destruction and has absolutely no reservations about using them. His name is George W. Bush.

Amazing.

:disgust:

 

[XMan]

I was against attacking Iraq, but I'm beginning to reconsider.

An innocent man usually does not try to enlist terrorists to attack his enemies.

 

[notfred]

We have nuclear weapons. I think China should attack us to make sure we won't be able to use them. <- same logic as you're using to justify attacking Iraq.

 

[woodie1]

Right now I think we should let him pull another stupid stunt like attacking/invading another country and then much of the world will be hesitant to condemn us for wiping him out.

If he is proven be supporting terrorist camps then all bets are off.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: bulldawg

Originally posted by: unclebabar
Why should we do anything about him? There's another, greater evil, one that does have weapons of mass destruction and has absolutely no reservations about using them. His name is George W. Bush.

Amazing.

:disgust:

because it's true?

 

[HappyPuppy]

We should let Saddam get his nukes and incinerate half a million people in the Middle East before attacking him. First of all, he doesn't have a delivery system that will reach the U.S. or any other Western nation. Second, after he has used his nukes we would be justified, no, obligated to stop the madman. Actually, we wouldn't have to nuke him. Five minutes after he detonated his first bomb, Israel would annihilate Iraq. That way the whole world could continiue hating the Jews just like they always have and we would be lookin' good for not using our nukes.

 

[brtspears2]

Originally posted by: unclebabar
Why should we do anything about him? There's another, greater evil, one that does have weapons of mass destruction and has absolutely no reservations about using them. His name is George W. Bush.

So wait, we should blow up GW Bush? Or are you saying that GW is just as bad as Saddam, being a bully in the middle east, gassing his own people, running a dictatorship.

I admin GW didn't sound like a great pick to start with when he won the election. But his leadership and ablity to handle problems is what is expected of the president.

 

[darren]

canada, britain, france, china - everyone - you name it is against taking military action right now. George W. 's people are retracting statements made bout pending plans to attack iraq.

 

[GoodToGo]

Many of these "pundits" are the reason the foriegn policy is such a mess. And BTW, any links to these "pundits"? I guess they havent heard of prevention is better than cure.

 

[JellyBaby]

Either way the Bush administration needs to present strong evidence warranting the need to "adjust" Iraq's government. This should be given to the public and to Congress so that Congress can make the final decision to declar war, which is proper under the Constitution.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: notfred
We have nuclear weapons. I think China should attack us to make sure we won't be able to use them. <- same logic as you're using to justify attacking Iraq.

That's not my argument.

I just don't know how the world will be able to deal with a nuclear-armed Saddam. How will we stop him from invading all of his neighbors?

 

[Bluefront]

When Bush the father attacked Iraq, it was for the sake of US interests in the middle-east. Should Bush the son attack Iraq, it will be for the sake of Israel.....so says the Iraq ambassador to the UN, during a recent interview with Dan Rather.

I'm inclined to agree.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bluefront
When Bush the father attacked Iraq, it was for the sake of US interests in the middle-east. Should Bush the son attack Iraq, it will be for the sake of Israel.....so says the Iraq ambassador to the UN, during a recent interview with Dan Rather.

I'm inclined to agree.

If you don't understand why he said this I feel sorry for you. The one thing that will rally every ME country together no matter what else happens is the idea that Israel may have something to gain. He said this for the same reason Iraq launched scuds into Israel during the Gulf War.

 

[bulldawg]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: bulldawg

Originally posted by: unclebabar
Why should we do anything about him? There's another, greater evil, one that does have weapons of mass destruction and has absolutely no reservations about using them. His name is George W. Bush.

Amazing.

:disgust:

because it's true?

No, because someone could be so blind. "a greater evil". Get real.

 

[Bluefront]

Well Dave, maybe, just maybe, "the idea that Israel may have something to gain", may actually be true in this instance. I know it's hard to believe, but this may well be a case of the US fighting a war with only Israel standing to gain anything at all. I know....why don't we let one of Israel's other allies fight this war for them?

You want to worry about some crazed dictator having his finger on a nuke? Worry about Israel. They have hunderds of nukes pointed everywhere. Read.... everybody is their enemy, or so they think. Should we attack Iraq, it will be without any allied support, not a very good idea.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: bulldawg

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: bulldawg

Originally posted by: unclebabar
Why should we do anything about him? There's another, greater evil, one that does have weapons of mass destruction and has absolutely no reservations about using them. His name is George W. Bush.

Amazing.
:disgust:

because it's true?

No, because someone could be so blind. "a greater evil". Get real.

Oh the irony