Many Soldiers Eager To Re-enlist

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
"Q. In March, 2003, the United States invaded Iraq because:"

You left E None of the above.

I believe if I read and heard correctly we invaded them for their failing to comply with resolutions.

Oh, we're back to that one, huh? I wonder when we plan on taking out Israel. They lead the league in 'failing to comply' with 'resolutions', by a large margin.

You guys just love to ridicule and marginalize the UN, but yet continue to say, 'hey, we invaded because the UN said so.' Well which is it? You can't have it both ways. It's just ridiculous.

lol- I'm sure Haskell will have a colorful response to the other part of your post. :)
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Resoloutions? Now come on that was not the reasoning to go to war, did you forget that Iraq was purchasing Enriched Uranium from Nigera? The Weapons of Mass Destruction that were poised and ready to strike Eurupe? Cheney's claims of mobile nuke's? Now were back to the resoloutions since all the other claims have turned out to be lies, so that implies that Saudi Arabia will be next since they have failed to allow the Atomic Commission into the country to inspect, as has Egypt and Turkey.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,484
160
63
Bowling Green Ky
The constitution may have been written in simple terms--but the issue is HOW judges interpret these simple terms--Take the liberal 9th district court of appeals and Aclu/ vs conservative judges.
Will save arguement on who is correct but you have totally diff interpretations--however I believe common sense goes a long way.

If Resolutions were not reason MC why were last 2 efforts to avoid war --to have him comply and finally giving him last chance for he and son's to leave country in tact?? and WMD issue is old--we seen endless list of all from boths sides that said same thing--maybe someone could post list of those that said he didin't prior to war.

What would a logical person think--
He had them--he used them--inspectors can not account for destruction on many of them--the U.N. wants him to account for them--he refuses.--What do you think oddsmaker line would be?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
If Resolutions were not reason MC why were last 2 efforts to avoid war --to have him comply and finally giving him last chance for he and son's to leave country in tact?? and WMD issue is old--we seen endless list of all from boths sides that said same thing--maybe someone could post list of those that said he didin't prior to war.

What would a logical person think--
He had them--he used them--inspectors can not account for destruction on many of them--the U.N. wants him to account for them--he refuses.--What do you think oddsmaker line would be?

Who cares whether he had bio or chemical weapons or not? Seriously. Almost every country in the world has them. What was so urgent about Iraq at that exact time?

It's not just the WMD, or lack thereof. They've had so many different reasons for this clusterf*ck that it makes my head spin.

The timing for that invasion was horrible. 9/11 was the perfect opportunity for this admin to finally take Saddam out. Something they've been dreaming about since the late 80's.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Bonus money is good and lack of good paying jobs in private sector help many make up there minds. Hey having a pay check is better then going looking for a new one.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top