Recall that it was not up to us to prove anything regarding Saddam’s wmds but for him to prove that he was in compliance. The Duelfer report concludes that he was not going to cooperate and once sanctions were lifted, he would have restarted his wmd programs anyway. The threat was real regardless of whether actual wmds were found. You know this and understand it but you keep fueling this paranoia and conspiracy theory that somehow we were “lied to” and that this has been some major effort at fooling the American people. It wasn’t.
Second, the Iranian government has told the world what kind of enrichment it is doing. There is no need to prove anything regarding Iran. We can simply take the mullahs at their word. I know that this is hard for you to understand but Iran is also a threat. Its agents are roaming the Middle East causing trouble wherever they can, all funded by the mullahs in Teheran. Want stability in Lebanon? Get Iran out of the picture. Want stability in the West Bank and Gaza? Get rid of the Iranian supplied arms and funding? Want stability in the Persian Gulf? Remove the threat of Iran. Want stability in Iraq? Get Iran to stop funding and arming the insurgents. Want stability in Afghanistan? Get the Iranian influence out of the western part of the country.
Iran is the No. 1 source of funding and support for terrorist groups in the world. What do you have to say about that?
Also, I see that perhaps our “negotiations” are paying off with regard to North Korea. Still want to invade what no one else wants to invade? While pretending that those nations that we did invade were never a threat?
Recall that it was not up to us to prove anything regarding Saddam’s wmds but for him to prove that he was in compliance. The Duelfer report concludes that he was not going to cooperate and once sanctions were lifted, he would have restarted his wmd programs anyway. The threat was real regardless of whether actual wmds were found. You know this and understand it but you keep fueling this paranoia and conspiracy theory that somehow we were “lied to” and that this has been some major effort at fooling the American people. It wasn’t.
Second, the Iranian government has told the world what kind of enrichment it is doing. There is no need to prove anything regarding Iran. We can simply take the mullahs at their word. I know that this is hard for you to understand but Iran is also a threat. Its agents are roaming the Middle East causing trouble wherever they can, all funded by the mullahs in Teheran. Want stability in Lebanon? Get Iran out of the picture. Want stability in the West Bank and Gaza? Get rid of the Iranian supplied arms and funding? Want stability in the Persian Gulf? Remove the threat of Iran. Want stability in Iraq? Get Iran to stop funding and arming the insurgents. Want stability in Afghanistan? Get the Iranian influence out of the western part of the country.
Iran is the No. 1 source of funding and support for terrorist groups in the world. What do you have to say about that?
Also, I see that perhaps our “negotiations” are paying off with regard to North Korea. Still want to invade what no one else wants to invade? While pretending that those nations that we did invade were never a threat?[/quote]
I’m not sure you understand my question. It was why would President Bush state – a la his claims about Iraq’s WMD’s in 2002 and 2003 – that Iran has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon.
So because Bush was wrong about Iraq having wmds, he will therefore ipso facto be wrong about everything else in the future? What kind of logic is that? Also, he was right according to the Duelfer report about the big picture. Iraq was a threat. Saddam would have restarted his wmd programs so the fact that Iraq had no wmds does not seem to be the most important point. That is precisely why Clinton passed the Iraq Liberation Act which set out as the primary goal of the US government regime change not proving or disproving wmds.
The mullahs are trying to develop a nuclear weapon. If you choose to not believe this, that is up to you. Again, all sorts of opinions are allowed on this forum and you have every right to voice yours. You can doubt whether the sun and moon really exist, claiming that it is a CIA plot to fool the no-nonsense average Joe on the street. BUT which of our views is going to get the ear of those who implement policy? yours or mine? I think that we know the answer to that so get ready for some tough action one way or another with regard to Iran. Notice all those riots? protests? civil disturbances recently? The mullahs are not in a strong position. The time for them to go has come. Let the people of Iran speak. Let their voices be heard. The new government will last 1,000 years… Whoops! Wrong propaganda source… Whoops. haha
So because Bush was wrong about Iraq having wmds, he will therefore ipso facto be wrong about everything else in the future? What kind of logic is that? Also, he was right according to the Duelfer report about the big picture. Iraq was a threat. Saddam would have restarted his wmd programs so the fact that Iraq had no wmds does not seem to be the most important point. That is precisely why Clinton passed the Iraq Liberation Act which set out as the primary goal of the US government regime change not proving or disproving wmds.
The mullahs are trying to develop a nuclear weapon. If you choose to not believe this, that is up to you. Again, all sorts of opinions are allowed on this forum and you have every right to voice yours. You can doubt whether the sun and moon really exist, claiming that it is a CIA plot to fool the no-nonsense average Joe on the street. BUT which of our views is going to get the ear of those who implement policy? yours or mine? I think that we know the answer to that so get ready for some tough action one way or another with regard to Iran. Notice all those riots? protests? civil disturbances recently? The mullahs are not in a strong position. The time for them to go has come. Let the people of Iran speak. Let their voices be heard. The new government will last 1,000 years… Whoops! Wrong propaganda source… Whoops. haha[/quote]
You don’t know the answer any more than I do, do you? You’re just blathering now. I guess the difference between you and I is that it bothers me when people in high places just pull things out of their ass but you’re perfectly comfortable with that.
Why does everyone do this now? It is between you and ME.
I think that Saddam was a threat and had to go with or without wmds. As I told you early on, wmds were 20 percent of my decision to take him out. I didn’t trust him. I thought that he would start something new. He had to go. I am comfortable with that decision so I don’t see anything being pulled of someone’s ass. Please explain why previous administrations believed that Saddam was a threat and that he was trying to develop wmds? Why every intelligence agency in the world believed the same? Why even Hans Blix believed the same up to Feb 20?
The sales seem to have occurred because of insufficiently tight monitoring not to make money. That was the conclusion I arrived at from reading this article.
One imagines though that the German companies who sold Saddam all his nuclear, chemical and missile technology, equipment and supplies were in fact interested in one thing and one thing only: Making Money. I am glad to see that this is such a problem for you. I urge you to take action to make sure that all such evil doers are punished to the full extent of international law (even though your nation was deemed guilty of breaking it with regard to its actions in Bosnia and Kosovo). No doubt you will explain to us in plain English why one set of egregious actions leads to no comment while this “oversight” appears to be so important? Haha I need a good laugh and it’s Friday. Tell us all about it. Also, given that Germany is the No. 1 trading partner of Iran in Europe, and a major source if not the largest source of funding, despite being officially committed to sanctions which would require that all such trade and aid be cut off, how this in fact is “consistent.” Please explain… objectively… haha