Last time I checked, being "close" only counted in hand grenades and horseshoes.
The bombing starts in five minutes.
Posted on 05/29/2003 9:33:31 AM PDT by Brian S
Sure they can. They can give us videotapes of themselves destroying them.
That's like asking me to prove I wasn't the Boston Strangler.
You could prove you weren't the Boston Strangler by, for example, having videotapes of the Boston Strangler performing his crimes, and pointing out that there is no resemblance.
You might object that to require you to have videotapes of the Boston Strangler's crimes is a tall order - in fact, completely unreasonable. Ah yes, but you see, it's not so unreasonable to expect Iraq to document, in some way, an act which they were, after all, supposed to consciously engage in and document for us.
The burden of proof is always, again ALWAYS, on the accuser. Always, no exception.
Wait, let me understand, you mean ALWAYS? ;-)
Your words are correct but only in a court of law. There is no court of law in this discussion.
Do you mean to suggest that it's OK for the American people to be misled as long as it's a Republican doing it? I guess that you had no problems with Clinton then, except that he was from the wrong party.
Then why the need for the UN inspectors between then and 1998?
What do you mean "now"? And you gave yourself away with "Republican President".
Oh, I thought this was a Bush-supporting conservative message board. Did this change to a Leftist board in the past 24 hours? Or are you a Buchananite?
To use the terms "in close proximity to" and "inside" interchangeably with regard to the recent events in Iraq is not inconsistent.
Last time I checked, being "close" only counted in hand grenades and horseshoes.
The bombing starts in five minutes.
Oh, jeez...
Let's see... The War on Terror? Arab/Muslim fundamentalism/extremism? The "Axis of Evil"? Salmon Pak? $50,000 to every "Palestinian" Arab suicide family?
Has everyone here lost their marbles?
I don't know what the hell it was for. And neither do you, frankly.
But it's becoming more clear to me that it wasn't about "weapons of mass destruction," it wasn't about "spreading freedom and democracy in the world," or whatever the rationale of the moment happened to be at any given time over the last eight months.
I was not against the 1991 Gulf War, therefore I am not being misled. Enforcement of the cease-fire agreement was LONG overdue.
And yes, I wanted Bill Clinton to go after Saddam Hussein too.
That it is the second regime to be deposed in the war on state-sponsored terrorism. Others may get the message. If they don't, they go too.
Please, enlighten us. If WMD weren't the main reason for going to war with Iraq, what exactly were the real reasons? I'd love to hear them.
Was it "blood for oil"? Was Bush "settling an old score" for his father? Please do tell.
Wrong. Inspectors destroyed chemical weapons all throughout the mid 1990s. And don't forget that Saddam had a secret atomic weapons programs for four years after inspections started that was not found by inspectors, but only by a defector's statements.
You need to stop defending to dirtboy a point ("the US would never place troops near a WMD country") which you've already admitted to me is bogus.
The US did this in 1991 and you know it, you even gave me your theory for how they did it successfully (without having the WMDs used). So why are you still defending this bogus point?
Then you must also think that President Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz have also lost their marbles.
I seem to remember "If you harbor terrorists, if you fund terrorists, if you provide aid to terrorists, you are a terrorist." Remember the Bush Doctrine?
He's just doing his daily intellectual yoga exercises. One must keep one's positions limber and flexible, you know.
Because I was never sold on the need for the first Gulf War to begin with. And the events that followed that first Gilf War (the no-fly zones, the abandonment of the Kurds and Shi'ites who rose up against Hussein, etc.) convinced me that the United States didn't have a freakin' clue what we were doing from one week to the next. And we still don't.
That is not true. There is some large number of liters of anthrax, for example, which the inspectors had found and known about in the 1990s (before being thrown out). We knew they had this stuff at one point or another. If they no longer had it because they destroyed it, it ought to have been a simple matter to videotape and document their destruction for us. Got it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.