how many decades of diplomacy,kosar?......
did you read the whole article?
"OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. ..... Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones....... A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime."' ...............................................
the difference is that saddam was never coming clean...that,and the fact that he never showed inspectors what happened to the chemical and biological stockpiles that he had.......
we see the same scenatio unfoding in iran...they refuse inspectors full access...
you`re telling me that saddam destroyed those weapons but didn`t let the u.n. know?......despite a decade of scrutiny and inspections?....
despite supposed sanctions....and having the u.n. up his arse?....
that begs credulity,kosar...and you know it...
bush went into iraq either after(thanks to the u.n. running interference)the weapons were removed or destroyed.....and i believe the former happened...the latter is an assumption that makes no sense whatsoever...given he had everything to gain by showing that the weapons were destroyed...
common sense....
now,because we can`t track what happened to the chem and bio weapons,liberals surmise that they didn`t exist....when we know they did...
you say bush went into iraq when no weapons existed....when we know they did...
that`s like the narcs saying to drug dealers,"we are raiding your house next week"....and when the raid happens,everything is gone....
does that mean there weren`t drugs in the house?...lol
i guess,by that kind of twisted logic, you`d say that clinton,by doing next to nothing regarding n.korea,is responsible for them going nuclear...
lliberal logic....do nothing...delay...talk...discuss everyone`s feelings....
did you read the whole article?
"OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. ..... Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones....... A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime."' ...............................................
the difference is that saddam was never coming clean...that,and the fact that he never showed inspectors what happened to the chemical and biological stockpiles that he had.......
we see the same scenatio unfoding in iran...they refuse inspectors full access...
you`re telling me that saddam destroyed those weapons but didn`t let the u.n. know?......despite a decade of scrutiny and inspections?....
despite supposed sanctions....and having the u.n. up his arse?....
that begs credulity,kosar...and you know it...
bush went into iraq either after(thanks to the u.n. running interference)the weapons were removed or destroyed.....and i believe the former happened...the latter is an assumption that makes no sense whatsoever...given he had everything to gain by showing that the weapons were destroyed...
common sense....
now,because we can`t track what happened to the chem and bio weapons,liberals surmise that they didn`t exist....when we know they did...
you say bush went into iraq when no weapons existed....when we know they did...
that`s like the narcs saying to drug dealers,"we are raiding your house next week"....and when the raid happens,everything is gone....
does that mean there weren`t drugs in the house?...lol
i guess,by that kind of twisted logic, you`d say that clinton,by doing next to nothing regarding n.korea,is responsible for them going nuclear...
lliberal logic....do nothing...delay...talk...discuss everyone`s feelings....
Last edited:
