Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackmane
Also, on weapons of mass destruction. Anyone who believes that Saddam really didn't want to get weapons is not thinking clearly. Sarin gas missles have been found buried in Iraq by coalition forces. Spy sattelite pictures confirm a large number of trucks moving from Iraq to Syria in the time before war broke out.
|
I don't think it's any doubt that Saddam
wanted to get weapons of mass destruction... But at the time he didn't, and wasn't able to... Didn't they make some sort of report just recently that said that? That yes it was interested in getting them, but didn't have any and hasn't since a number of years ago?
How old were those Sarin gas missles?
The trucks, obviously a bit more suspicious... He was moving something out of Iraq (unless what he was moving were empty trucks
), but it could have been anything...
As for him being a threat in the first place, if he acquired WMD, did he actually have the means to attack the US with them? If he channeled them off to terrorist groups, would they?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackmane
First off, we didn't just invade Iraq because it was preceived as a threat. We haven't invaded North Korea or Iran because it was perceived a threat. No, we went into Iraq because the administration feared that sanctions by the UN weren't working, and in the aftermath of 9/11, feared the dangers of another attack that might be preventable with pre-emption.
|
And how can you be sure of that? Depending on your view of the situation, that could go
against Bush'n'co... Iraq was a threat because Saddam
wanted weapons (of course, at the time we thought he had them, but since then people have been saying even without the weapons he was worth taking out), North Korea and Iran are a threat because they have them... But we invade Iraq?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackmane
But, no, since Cheney was ONCE head of the company, it must be a handout by the administration.
|
And since you're a Bush-supporter, you figure there couldn't possibly be any connection... Although I personally havn't payed much attention to the Halliburton shindig...
I believe keeping the country safe should not be as big of an issue in this election as it is, and yet it's probably why 90% of the people backing Bush (if you'll excuse me pulling a number out of my ass) are doing so...
This country was very safe from outside attacks to begin with... But after one attack (one major attack) succeeded, people have become paranoid...
Remember a couple years ago... "Summer of the shark attacks oooOoOooo"... A few shark attacks happen and all of a sudden a bunch of people are like OMG SHARKS! THE THREAT IS FOR SOME REASON GREATER THAN BEFORE! WE ARE NOT SAFE!...
Only in that situation, the Bush administration didn't make a color-coded alert system as to how high your risk of being attacked by a shark was... Or constantly talk about how we're not safe from shark attacks unless they do these things Bush wants to do, vote for him...
And of course Bush could 100% sincerely believe that this (terrorism, not the shark thing) is a major issue, a major threat, and this is the correct way to handle the problem, and is doing it for what is the best interest of our country... But then it would simply be a situation of me disagreeing with the way he's handling it... Which is reason enough for me to not vote for him...