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.
we didnt finish the job the first time? thats why we waited 8-10 years to finish the job? o right clintons fault, sorry I forgot. I doubt the public would have gone to war had bush said "yea we didnt finish the job the first time" rather then "look saddam is making WMD still, hes providing them to terrorists"
there is a big difference...the second one is what we call LYING.
Sure I consider it news, I did hear about it afterwards. Unfrotunately it does not justify an invasion and occupation of a soveriegn nation, especially since these were not even being refurbished for future combat or any recent weapons program. Yes they can still cause harm, but they were not being gathered up for any such purposes any time in the years of events. I will vote yes because I just heard about this and consider it news.
Why did we invade? Because if we didn't, Iraq would today be known as Western Iran. And we'd be paying $10/gallon for gas, and be doubly worried about nukes and terrorists.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
why does age matter? Because we already went to war once over them, so why would we, 10 years later suddenly go to war over the same forgotten WMD that are now 10-15 years older.
Originally posted by jsobecky
marg, marg, marg, sweetie..
It's WMD's. Not MWD's. Although, that is an interesting concept.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
shots, if that is the justification then I am completely stunned. They told us they had WMD, and if they said they were abandond from the gulf war, no one in their right minds would have invaded for that reason. We all thought that they had new WMD being made and providing them to terrorists, not some forgotten WMD from pre gulf war. I know the second gulf war would have had ALOT less support if we had been told that, so it was Ok to just leave that part out?
Originally posted by grimreaper797
shots, if that is the justification then I am completely stunned.
They told us they had WMD, and if they said they were abandond from the gulf war, no one in their right minds would have invaded for that reason.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
shots, if that is the justification then I am completely stunned. They told us they had WMD, and if they said they were abandond from the gulf war, no one in their right minds would have invaded for that reason.
We all thought that they had new WMD being made and providing them to terrorists, not some forgotten WMD from pre gulf war. I know the second gulf war would have had ALOT less support if we had been told that, so it was Ok to just leave that part out?