25396, RE: who does 'you' refer to?|
Posted by HoChiGrimm, Thu Mar-20-03 09:11 PM
>The UN has always had an anti-force policy, that's to be
As well as encouraged
>No, Hanz Blix stated that there was "progress", but that
>Iraqi's were still not fully in compliance. The "progress"
>came when the troops started building up outside Iraq.
Bullshit. The inspectors were
making considerable progress;
there was no need for troop
>>Umm, hello, I asked you what
>>threat Iraq poses to the U.S.,
>>I didn't say anything about
>>Israel. If Saddam is a threat
>>to Israel, let Israel fight
>>it's own damn battles.
>You missed the point completely.
>>We might recall the warning of
>>General Lee Butler, head of
>>Clinton's Strategic Command in
>>the early 90s, that "it is dan-
>>gerous in the extreme that in
>>the cauldron of animosities that
>>we call the Middle East, one na-
>>tion has armed itself, ostensibly,
>>with stockpiles of nuclear weapons,
>>perhaps numbering in the hundreds,
>>and that inspires other nations to
>>do so." He was referring to Israel.
>Now this, is way off the topic.
Again, nice rebuttle. If anything, it's
way ON topic, because Bush is condemning
country for possessing weapons of mass
>>The new inspectors have searched
>>hundreds of places all over Iraq,
>>and tested more than 300 chemical
>>and biological samples and found
>>absolutely no evidence that Iraq
>>possesses banned chemical, nuclear
>>or biological weapons. All the sites
>>that US intelligence said had weapons
>>turned out to be empty, and some of
>>the inspectors recently told CBS news
>>that the information they were getting
>>from the US is 'garbage.' The UN insp-
>>ectors said that the satellite images
>>that the US presented were worthless.
>We'll see wont we? When this war is over, we'll see if they
>have the weapons or not. When we don't have inspectors
>staying in bugged hotels, followed around by Iraqi officials
>who's job it is to decieve.
Hahahahahahaaaaaa! Yet again, what
a nice retort.
>And history has clearly shown that these people are capable
>of that to, right?
When the U.S. doesn't meddle in
their affairs, yes. Besides, "gain
some perspective -- as you said --
history is in the past.
>>>Look at the war right now on TV. What's going on? The US
>>>isn't mass bombing innocent civilians,
>>Heeeeeelloooooo, the war just
>Heeeeeeelloooooo, it's not going to happen.
>>When all was said and done after the
>>1990-91 Gulf War, nearly 200,000 cas-
>>ualties had occurred.
>Try 100,000 Iraqi soldiers.
>200,000 innocent civilians did not die in Desert Storm.
No, more died because we destroyed
their water supply and infrastructure.