G
Guttermouth
Guest
I know that many desperately want there to be WMD's to justify the daily mass killing and maiming. I beleive it to be a fantasy. Such weapons are good for a few limited purposes. They are actually used against the enemy, or they are used as a deterrent/bargaining chip. If these weapons existed, they weren't used. No one has given a satisfactory explanation as to why. If they still exist, and they aren't to be used, and they aren't to serve as a deterrent, what useful purpose could they possibly have? There is no use for weapons you don't intend to use either for destructive or political purposes.
Its like this folks. Saddam led many to believe he had them becuae he could use that almost as effectively as if he actually did. Our administration used the opportunity to play things up. They used his claims as proof that he had the weapons because the administration desperately wanted to go to war. They did all they could to bolster Saddams claims and convince the world and our own congress that they existed.
When Saddam saw that his bluff was being used against him to justify an invasion, he began an effort to show the weapons did not exist, and never had. Problem was, our administration further spun the whole thing, demanding that he prove he destroyed the weapons. Well, you can't prove you destroyed something you never had in the first place. There were no new weapons, the old ones had been long-ago destroyed after the first gulf war.
The Bush administration played a great game. They got what they wanted, an invasion. But while they were wokring so hard on the politics, they forgot to plan for the occupation. Now we are toast.
There are no weapons. There never were weapons. You were fooled, first by Saddam, then by your own government.
We tried to tell you before the war started. You wouldn't listen. Have you forgotten? Rose petals at our feet. A mere billion or two to get in and get out. Everything paid for with oil. Minimal casualties. The pro-war people were dead wrong about all those things. They choose to pretend they never argued those things. But I remember it very well.
Its like this folks. Saddam led many to believe he had them becuae he could use that almost as effectively as if he actually did. Our administration used the opportunity to play things up. They used his claims as proof that he had the weapons because the administration desperately wanted to go to war. They did all they could to bolster Saddams claims and convince the world and our own congress that they existed.
When Saddam saw that his bluff was being used against him to justify an invasion, he began an effort to show the weapons did not exist, and never had. Problem was, our administration further spun the whole thing, demanding that he prove he destroyed the weapons. Well, you can't prove you destroyed something you never had in the first place. There were no new weapons, the old ones had been long-ago destroyed after the first gulf war.
The Bush administration played a great game. They got what they wanted, an invasion. But while they were wokring so hard on the politics, they forgot to plan for the occupation. Now we are toast.
There are no weapons. There never were weapons. You were fooled, first by Saddam, then by your own government.
We tried to tell you before the war started. You wouldn't listen. Have you forgotten? Rose petals at our feet. A mere billion or two to get in and get out. Everything paid for with oil. Minimal casualties. The pro-war people were dead wrong about all those things. They choose to pretend they never argued those things. But I remember it very well.
Upvote
0
