It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Seekerof
1. why there was the possibility of a low probability of WMD present
2. his claim that Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein may in fact have had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
3. As such, care to elaborate or speculate on where those UN and UNSCOM documented, unaccounted for anthrax and other WMD, that Saddam/Iraq admitted to having, went or are located? The same documented and unaccounted for WMD information that the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Canada, Spain, the US, and other nations had.......
Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
1. & 2. are obfuscations in their own right. What the hell is a "possibility of a low probability"? What does it mean to "claim he may in fact have had" something?
3. No, I don't care to. I am very settled in the knowledge that WMDs were not where they were specifically "known" to be by the Bush admin liars, and that there were never any readily deployable WMDs posing an imminent threat to the people of the United States of America. Those gross lies are enough for me, but if you need to obfuscate and defend a lack of reason, continue... that's what cults are about.
Originally posted by billybob
there is a possibility that the low probability of the possibility of probable WMD was possibly more probable than possible in light of the lack of any non-verifiable lack of evidence that probably, or at least possibly went missing due to unknown probable causes.
what more 'proof' do you need!?
Originally posted by THENEO
and we kicked some raghead butts too!
Originally posted by Jakomo
And lo and behold we didn't go, because it's called Democracy, and having your government do what your people TELL them to do.
jakomo
Originally posted by Jakomo
I don't get it. We had a referendum to do with Quebec separation and the people voted against it so it didn't happen.
I don't quite get what you're implying.
j
Originally posted by KrazyIvan
stupid french people
Originally posted by Jakomo
TheNeo: "I have to keep asking who cares? Saddam is gone, gas is still available to the middle class to fill their SUV's. The Israeli's feel safer, all those oil companies will make more money, all kinds of people got jobs, and we kicked some raghead butts too!"
First off, what's this WE bullcrap? Canada did nothing, we had NO troops there, we had NO specialists, NOTHING. YOU certainly didn't do anything.
Secondly, raghead is a racist term, same as calling a black person a 'n-word'. As soon as I can figure out how to I'm reporting you to a Mod.
"I was for us sending troops there and I know that the military in general wanted to go but we had limited resources and our Quebec controlled federal government had to defer to France and say no. I would like very much for Canadians to regain control over their country again. "
Funny thing, 80% of people ACROSS THE COUNTRY didn't want to go. The pollsters were working overtime and every poll said that the Canadian public did not want to get involved in and illegal and unjust war in Iraq. And lo and behold we didn't go, because it's called Democracy, and having your government do what your people TELL them to do.
jakomo
Originally posted by THENEO
I frankly don't care what you think man because you are from Quebec and thus you are not a Canadian.