View Single Post
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Mar 25th, 2003, 11:04 AM       
That was cute, the way you finally spoke respectfully. It totally makes me forget what an air headed pussy I am, how you pity my children and your speculations regarding my wifes sexuality. I'll play though.

Ritter is a weapons inspector. Blix is a weapons inspector. Who is this weapons inspector? He IS developing weapons? This may well turn out to be true, but so fr their is zero proof. Sadam will sell weapons... IF he has any we have certainly provided a motivation he lacked to sell them, which even we don't claim he's done to date. If you are going to assume for sure he would, then you have to ascribe the same possability to many of the states on my list, most of whom like us less daily because of our current pre-emption policy.

I'm not at all ignoring your question. I'm asking you to follow through on it. Should Bush personally determine since that's his criteria that any of thee other countries (and Iran certainly has all the qulaities you ascribed to Iraq, North Korea has many of them, Pakistan has some of them and as of this morning we are saying so does Russia), is this to be our policy? If at the executive level a determintion is made that these countries wish us Ill and might work with terrorists within five years, will we then invade?

When has Iraq been proven to want to destroy us?

Add to this the following. On Osama Bin Laden's wish list right after wanting to smash into the twin towers was the goal of dragging the US into a middle eastern war. Even in his most recent speech, Osama called saddam an 'infidel' which is kind of strong language to a fundamentalist. Osama is still at large, and we've gone to war with the most secular non -Israeli government in the Gulf. Who's the big winner here?
Reply With Quote