Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by dmp, Oct 13, 2004.
Okay...so I changed that last part...but still.
But ya gotta understand !!!!! We only had a search warrant for WMDs. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to throw all your genocide evidence out.
I sense sarcasm...
Just a piont of Order: We had a 'warrant' based on his failure to provide proof he had no WMDs, AND we had 'justification' for Saddam violating OTHER terms in the Cease-Fire agreement.
I personally never defended Saddam as being a "swell guy". It seems to me that no one did.
And sarcasm or not, I agree that morality was very low on the list of reasons to go to war.
And I guess we found no "WMD'S" either? I guess Saddam doesn't count as a WMD - and the genocide he was committing doesn't matter Bush Lied, people died! Saddam wasn't soo bad...
Of course Saddam doesn't count as a WMD. Is that what Bush and the rest of the world talks about when they use that term? Call him a tyrant but lumping him in as a WMD is just an attempt to prove there were WMD in Iraq.
And I don't think the genocide mattered to the American public because you never heard one damn word about it until the debate on whether invasion was a good idea started up. Where is Bush's great empathy for those involved in genocide for the people of Darfur?
Never said Bush lied...
So how many people would Saddam have to kill before you'd count him as a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
He can never be a WMD in the sense of the word used in the ordinary language of the situation.
This is an attempt to switch definitions. A WMD is chemical, nuclear or biological. The use of the word would change considerably if it was broadened to include anything that killed a lot of people.
It was used in the U.N., by Bush and the Administration and by the whole world to mean a certain thing. Do you HONESTLY think when Bush said we had to rid Saddam of WMD he meant Saddam was one of those WMD?
You can use a broad definition of your own to what a WMD but the world uses a different one which doesn't include Saddam or any other 'person' for that matter.
Here's a link:
Has CIA documents, Congressional documents, DOD documents, U.S. laws, etc.
All use the same definition. The one used in the argument for war.
To go back and rewrite history and say there was a different definition for the word in an attempt to validate that argument is not honest.
Knowing everything you know now about Saddam, do you feel Iraqis, as a nation, and the rest of the world was 'better off, safer' with him in power?
Separate names with a comma.