Originally posted by beebo
are u calling burbs thread constuctive?
The thread started showing a letter Michael Moore sent to Bush, i didnt really want it to be a "constructive" thread. More of an opinion, which is what i got and obviously different view points came, and are usually responded with a constructive answer.
I think TJ was referring to your "were #1" which isnt very constructive.
oh and please dont send me another e-mail calling me a wimp. Or i will cry.
originally posted by markI don't understand your point here. You're saying to ignore the reasons, but then you focus on one.
I believe liberation is a noble cause, but it's not the reason. Disarming Iraq is numero uno
If we are there for removing the WMD - which we are
sure they have, why havent we found them yet?
Its a very expensive cost in life for "assuming" they have WMD.
Basically you havent proven your case that Iraq own weapons of WMD - you still need to proove this to the UN, and the rest of the world.
"we found chemcials in a phospate factory" Isnt that a suprise?
It is those who are opposed to war that sight the civilian casualties that will result, and unfortunately have resulted. Only then does the issue of liberation become a theme by Bush and Blair.
Your saying by removing these WMD your going save the world from terrorist attacks? Failing to realise that America's foriegn policy's are probabbly the main cause to the hate the eastern world has towards us, forgive me if im wrong but was the horrific 9/11 caused by a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
This is why i said it was for Liberation, and until you find WMD the Media will constantly show pictures of Liberated Iraqi's to cover the fact you havent found WMD yet.
So Why Iraq first?
