Replies

No, it actually reinforces my assertion.

Congratulations on your elastic use of facts. This was your claim:

Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.

And when presented with a fact that hosed that point, you shifted to this:

s exactly why the U.S. was willing to wage war against a nation whose "weapons program" consists of a few mobile labs and old protective suits, but calls for "multi-lateral discussions" with a nation that has a weapons program that represents a legitimate threat.

Sorry, but for your original point to be true, the United States would be removing all troops from Korea.

Since you obviously aren't the least bit interested in honest debate, I won't bother with you any more.

There is a difference between having thousands of U.S. troops stationed along the DMZ in Korea for 50 years, and sending thousands of troops into a foreign country like Iraq specifically to deal with the threat of WMDs.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then I don't know what to say.