[ASLplease]

911 makes them a victim of their own success.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

With 20/20 hindsight, I agree. Sadly, we didn't know that Iraq didn't have nukes until we invaded. Had Hussein not been such a douche and had just let the UN inspectors do their jobs this would never have happened because the US would've had no excuse for the invasion.

What a pile of BS.

[ASLplease]

brown sugar?

[BartSimpson]

sandorski sandorski:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

With 20/20 hindsight, I agree. Sadly, we didn't know that Iraq didn't have nukes until we invaded. Had Hussein not been such a douche and had just let the UN inspectors do their jobs this would never have happened because the US would've had no excuse for the invasion.

What a pile of BS.

Not at all. Prior to the invasion Hussein insisted he had nuclear weapons and this was intended to fool the Iranians into thinking Iraq had the bomb. Unfortunately, Hussein did such a great job of fooling the Iranians that he also fooled most of the US Congress. Yah, not such a great idea for Saddam.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmo ... ar-program

$1:

Mon, 11/12/2007 - 05:48 ET

On Sunday's "NBC Nightly News," correspondent Pete Williams previewed details of a new book, The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack, by Ronald Kessler, in which Kessler revealed information obtained by the an FBI agent who extensively interviewed Saddam Hussein and found, among other things, that the former Iraqi leader had deliberately tried to "fool the U.S." into believing he had weapons of mass destruction because "he wanted Iranian leaders to believe that he had nuclear and biological weapons." The FBI agent, named George Piro, also reported that Saddam Hussein "hoped the post-Gulf War sanctions on Iraq would dissolve, allowing him to pursue a nuclear capability." (Transcript follows)

[sandorski]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

sandorski sandorski:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

With 20/20 hindsight, I agree. Sadly, we didn't know that Iraq didn't have nukes until we invaded. Had Hussein not been such a douche and had just let the UN inspectors do their jobs this would never have happened because the US would've had no excuse for the invasion.

What a pile of BS.

Not at all. Prior to the invasion Hussein insisted he had nuclear weapons and this was intended to fool the Iranians into thinking Iraq had the bomb. Unfortunately, Hussein did such a great job of fooling the Iranians that he also fooled most of the US Congress. Yah, not such a great idea for Saddam.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmo ... ar-program

$1:

Mon, 11/12/2007 - 05:48 ET

On Sunday's "NBC Nightly News," correspondent Pete Williams previewed details of a new book, The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack, by Ronald Kessler, in which Kessler revealed information obtained by the an FBI agent who extensively interviewed Saddam Hussein and found, among other things, that the former Iraqi leader had deliberately tried to "fool the U.S." into believing he had weapons of mass destruction because "he wanted Iranian leaders to believe that he had nuclear and biological weapons." The FBI agent, named George Piro, also reported that Saddam Hussein "hoped the post-Gulf War sanctions on Iraq would dissolve, allowing him to pursue a nuclear capability." (Transcript follows)

Quit Failing. There was absolutely No Evidence of Saddam having the capability prior to the Invasion.

[EyeBrock]

That's not what he was telling the world in 2003 or were you too busy watching Treehouse then?

[mentalfloss]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

I personally consider it a very mild and short term threat, all things considered, and therefore not serious enough to warrant the wars that followed. That is just my own view on it though.

I'm curious, what would you consider to be a serious enough threat to go to war over?

Well, as a historical example, the original Gulf War seemed appropriate enough. There was a serious threat to the economic development of many peaceful nations. While even that is up for debate as a legitimate concern, I think it was much more plausible than the wars stemming from 911.

Also, there is definitely the possibility that a nation could altruistically go to war on behalf of other nations, purely on principle to either foster peace or possibly promote democracy - so long as that is the actual intent.

[EyeBrock]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

I personally consider it a very mild and short term threat, all things considered, and therefore not serious enough to warrant the wars that followed. That is just my own view on it though.

I'm curious, what would you consider to be a serious enough threat to go to war over?

Well, as a historical example, the original Gulf War seemed appropriate enough. There was a serious threat to the economic development of many peaceful nations. While even that is up for debate as a legitimate concern, I think it was much more plausible than the wars stemming from 911.

Also, there is definitely the possibility that a nation could altruistically go to war on behalf of other nations, purely on principle to either foster peace or possibly promote democracy - so long as that is the actual intent.

What a load of old bollocks.

[sandorski]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

That's not what he was telling the world in 2003 or were you too busy watching Treehouse then?

Fail.

[mentalfloss]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

What a load of old bollocks.

lol

Okay, well what is your version then?

[EyeBrock]

sandorski sandorski:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

That's not what he was telling the world in 2003 or were you too busy watching Treehouse then?

Fail.

So, the wiki-intellect not up to a real debate? Have we all forgotten that Saddam was blagging us all he had nukes? We know he had poison gas, he used it on the Kurds.

Saddam was no benign ruler. He had already caused one war and he carried on with his belligerant and provocative ways.

His regime is no loss.

[PluggyRug]

sandorski sandorski:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

That's not what he was telling the world in 2003 or were you too busy watching Treehouse then?

Fail.

A rather hackneyed phrase old chap. Is the word part of your intellect?

What EyeBrock said is correct, although the war in Iraq was unjustified.

[EyeBrock]

A war against Hitler in 1938 may have seem unjustified.

[PluggyRug]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

A war against Hitler in 1938 may have seem unjustified.

True, I'm speaking from hindsight.

[EyeBrock]

I know what your saying Plugs, but I've studied both WW's on various uni courses.

I see us making silly decisions towards dictators and tyrants in the vein of those well-meaning prime ministers of the 1930's.