Given that this war is allegedly being fought over Iraq's alleged possession of WMD, if Iraq does not use WMD in this war, then it follows that they didn't have them and proves that the war was unjustified.
Jps being the first to respond to this is fun! Guess what? Marry Popins called, she wants her umbrella back. Seriously though, IRAQ ISN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE WEAPONS THAT YOU MENTIONED! So if they have even one nuke, that justifies this war. Just because they didn't get the chance to use them (Because they have no delivery system) doesn't mean that they should get to keep them.
No one seriously believes that Iraq has nukes, if they did they could still use them on attacking US troops. they do have delivery systems that could launch chemical or biological weapons to neighboring countries(or again against US troops)
We are getting rid of a lying, evil bastard dictator so it is in no way wrong. The iraqi people and the rest of the world will be better off now that saddam's reign is over. When we took basra people were cheering and even singing. One guy I saw on live telivision walked up to a soldier and gave him a kiss right on the lips. They dont seem to think its wrong. Neither do the kurds. Nor do the defectors.
If you look into my heart, I do feel that the world is better of without saddam hussain BUT the governent of the united states made huge claims about WMD and sells this to the world as the primary justification for engaging in the war..... Now if in the aftermath proves to be no WMD to be found than I wouldn't say that it is wrong to get rid of saddam hussain, but IT DOES tell me that this war must have been fought for entirely OTHER reasons. I really don't have to explain the other reasons, you know what I mean... But, time will tell, let's hope the time will be short for the sake of the people of iraq... :m:
The US won't have to plant WMDs, but I'm sure America haters will claim that anyway because it best suits their personal agendas.
I don't hate USA but I really do think that's something they could do. They faked the evidence about Iraq buying putonium from Niger so what's stopping them?
This WAR was never about Iraq’s possible arsenal of WMD. From the beginning of resolution 14141,US began complaining and spreading rhetoric propaganda. On the first moth after that, the attacks were more directed to Iraq’s regime and continued in that path ever since. US has being focused on Saddam from day one like a mad dog, ignoring reason and worst of all, possible consequences. There’s little doubt that the Iraqi’s will chant on the streets the day Saddam is out, it will be expected and it would easily happened if it was Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, and hundred of other nations that are under the hand of western supported dictator regimes. :m:
Thats easy. The last country ruled by an abusive dictator. (benign dictators I guess we will tolerate. (I think castro is about as bad as you can be and still not have to face our wrath)
Shooting at our planes, refusing to give in to demands, better armed, more interested in outward invasion. FYI: Despite the fact he is a complete bastard to his own people (believe it or not) Castro is actually an improvement over his predecessor.
You really should check your facts before posting such a claim. This is not about WMD's as such; which of course Saddam does not have (!!!!) and did not fire on Kuwait two nights ago. This is about the use of known chemical stockpiles, such as anthrax and others I know not the names of, in the future and the liberation of an oppressed people to formulate their own lives with their own oil fields.
Clockwood, to avoid some long off-topic comparitive history magical mystery tour, I can only reply: goo-goo-goo-joob, goo-goo-goo-goo-joob.
Ill stop it if people stop using "zionist" as a derogatory term every three seconds and otherwise stop ragging on jews unless they insult everyone equally.
1. Zionism is racism. 2. Judaism x= Zionism. Therefore, Jew x= Zionist. 3. Judaism is not racist, except for what can be expected of almost any religion.
Sounds like a typical leftist perspective. Bury your head in the sand and pretend that the world is exactly how you think it should be. Why in the HELL do you think that is proof? He didn't use them so he doesn't have them? That's simply idiotic. He COULD have them and NOT use them. Maybe even though he's callous bastard he still has sense enough not to use them in this scenario. I mean, who'd want to lose FRANCE as an ally. *giggle* Understood that he has used them before and this is his last stand, but there is no telling what that bastard is up to. I will concede that you might THINK if he had them he would have used them, but that really doesn't mean or prove shit.... besides that your "chain of logic" isn't very logical.
