DeadCanDance
Senior Member
- May 29, 2007
- 1,414
- 127
- 48
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. Think I've been around where he was on two-maybe-three times, so try again.
You can call them IAEA, or Hans Blix, or whoever you choose. The fact is, Saddam was accused of having WMDs, and he did. I did not include nukes in "WMD's" ... the media did. In the military they are referred to as nuclear, checmical and biological weapons, and specifically identified.
No matter what you choose to call the lackeys of the UN, only some on the left/Bush haters appear to have faith in their ability to do a damned thing. I'd as soon trust the 3 years old next door to tell me whether or not Iran had nukes as trust any of these completely ball-less, paper tiger international committees on jerking off.
edit: I haven't told anyone to trust Bush. You're making it an either or. I trust the facts, logic and common sense before I trust any one person or agency. None of them support your argument.
The fact is, Saddam was accused of having WMDs, and he did.
What are you talking about? Multiple US investigators have concluded he didn't when we invaded.
Are you talking about way back in the 1980s, when he used them on the iranians? Well, of course we knew he had them, he was using them on the battlefield against the iranians with our tacit and tactical support.
At any rate, that's a diversion. Iran is not accused of threatening the united states with bio/chem weapons. In fact bio/chem weapons are only useful as tactical battlefield weapons, and even then only under certain conditions. They aren't a strategic threat to the U.S. worthy of waging war half way around the world.
That's why I specifically cite IAEA. They are the nuke experts, and Bush supporters have claimed iran is actively building a bomb. IAEA says there's no evidence of that. Although, its prudent to remain suspicious and continue to make the iranians make their program more transparent.