|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
03-02-04, 10:18 PM | #14 | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
we know hussein had weapons of mass destruction. he used them against the kurds, against the iranians and against his own people. and, as david kay said.."we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." you don’t seem to see any relevance in that statement. kay also had this to say… "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq, and we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapon capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, there were terrorist groups passing through the country - and no central control." this war was necessary, and it was the right thing to do. it was a direct reaction to 9/11, wmd's, terrorism, and a murderous dictator defying ceasefire accords. it's these components which clearly makes iraq part of the war on terror and is why saddam had to be removed. on another note....good debates aren't about trying to pound your point of view into others. a good debate is about exchanging ideas and info intelligently with other people.. and making people think about things they may not have considered. try to use those quidelines, guidelines liberals don't seem to like. as it is, all you two manage to do is come off sounding like typical single-minded bush-hating terror apologists. |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|