SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bilow who wrote (100394)6/5/2003 2:04:29 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Of course our allies agreed that there was weapons of mass destruction. That was the legal justification for the war. If they hadn't believed in the legal justification, they wouldn't have been our allies.


Carl, even France agreed that Saddam had WMDs (and why not? they had the receipts from the sales). Their argument was not that Saddam didn't have them, but that the UN inspections were sufficiently containing his weapons programs.

You and the Iraq-is-Vietnam crowd have been wrong on all your predictions. Now you use one hole in Bush's arguments - the fact that we did not find piles of WMDs ready to use, just antidotes and protective gear - to try to "prove" all the other arguments wrong by contagion.

It's not going to fly. If you want to make more predictions, you are going to have to find some actual evidence for them if you want to persuade anybody.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News