ah yes, please note my reply above and you'll see that i've already had a look at the memo. Like i said the authenticity of the document is questionable. I watch the news regularly. Global events affect me in ways that you couldn't imagine so its vital that i watch it. I was probably in training or doing something with work that made me miss out on that headline.
I don't care how the UN "designates" them (they are trying to be PC), technically speaking a WMD should be able to cause casualties to big masses in a large area. Chemical and biological weapons are not good for that purpose, but feel free to show me examples with deathratio and covered area...
No one has seriously questioned it. It's authenticity has never been denied, by the English or the Americans. In the US, you can't get the news by watching. You have to read. They didn't. Not even the US own intelligence agencies internal reports (Joe Wilson's report from Niger, famous example) concurred with the public announcements by W&Co.
Actually, the analogy only worked for being wronged and moving on, not for the Iraqi situation. Why? because there was no marriage (contract) involved between USA and Iraq, so your analogy doeasn't fit the situation. But you did a good try...
You don't get the problem. We are arguing about semantics and technical abilities. Semantically speaking if I throw out 1 million kitchen knives from an airplane over a football game that is a WMD, because it has the ability to cause mass casualties, right? But generally we wouldn't call kitchen knives WMDs... The point is, anything could be called WMDs, but in strict military meaning only nukes and some radioactive weapons are....
Does anyone send in a military advisor to ascertain WMDs? If not, its just military semantics; we'll talk about knives when the UN adds them to the list.
Small problem. We did promise during Desert Storm that we would help the people overthrow Saddam. But just like every other time that we were on the verge of success Party politics pulled the funding and let it become a quagmire.
Considering the suffering North Korea suffers under their current leadership, they will take care of themselves sooner or later.
If I were the leader of my nation, and so much as a rumor of WMD's I heard of a neighboring nation, I would invade at all costs; I don't blame Bush for what he did, but I sure as hell don't like him.
What if you started the rumours yourself and knew they weren't true? Would this get yourself all riled up?
Lucky you are not German, because you would be in Paris by now... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
lol no @syzgys, please clarify what you mean............... My nation, my flag, my banner, and my faction are worth everything; if other people from foreign nations have to die so MY people live, then that's how it is. Survival of the best.
"Party politics"? That was all Bush. He urged the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, then decided that his absence might create a power vacuum that would result in chaos. This resulted in a crushed rebellion, and a massacre. Bush 1 had no problem with Saddam's policies, at least until he invaded Kuwait. Prior to that, crank up the wood chippers and release the poison gas, we won't say a word. And we'll continue to sell you all the wheat you want!
This would be only valid if youactually believed the WMD bullshit and you also had to believe that he actually wants to use it against the USA, which was plain stupid. Now if every country were using the same preemption logic, than we would be waring with each other all the time, because there is always a threat, real or imaginary....
It's also vital to be prepared; any preparation is invaluable, including the degradation of surrounding states (unless they are allied) or other, foreign and threatening states
iceaura: I'm not claiming the downing street memo to be fake, it could very well be a valid and true document. I'm just saying the authenticy of the document is questionable, subsequently its not a document i would be parading around as proof that bush lied. If you did a little research on intelligence reports from 02/03 you'll find that countries such as Iran, Canada, UK, France, Australia, USA etc etc etc had intelligence reports suggesting Saddam had WMD's. Now my argument is that claiming George bush lied and that he fixed reports to shape around policy is irresponsible as it is highly unlikely that the President has much influence in foreign intelligence agencies... especially Iran. And just to be pedantic WMD's in military speak refer to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear weapons. If you define the acronym exactly word for word then ofcourse you can argue that Chem and Bio weapons don't count. But military speaking, they are referred to in CBRND training programs as WMD's
