Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Terry_Herrington said:I wonder which country on Earth has the most WMD's?
Revmitchell said:Probably one of the ones who do not use them.
Revmitchell said:Probably one of the ones who do not use them.
Terry_Herrington said:I wonder which country on Earth has the most WMD's?
carpro said:The countries that make up the former Soviet Union.
Terry_Herrington said:I don't know about that, but you may be correct.
Yeah, well, you have to look under "Santorum" - the only news is that he is reading some declassified stuff and retelling old lies.gtbuzzarp said:I can't seem to find this story at any other major news outlets. If this proves nothing, why is the MSM afraid to report on it? Seems to me this should be a big story for the media.
If by 'farce' you mean that they kept Iraq from developing new weapons and from rekindling weapons programmes, then you are so right!NiteShift said:According to Rolf Ekeus, who led the UN inspections from 1991 - 1997, the Iraqis were offering bribes to UN inspectors, and said he personally was told by Tariq Aziz that "a couple of million was there if we report right."
The inspections process was a farce.
Daisy said:If by 'farce' you mean that they kept Iraq from developing new weapons and from rekindling weapons programmes, then you are so right!
That's not a strong case. According to Richard Clark, the out-going administration stressed the danger of bin Laden, which the in-coming adminstration pooh-poohed. The Clinton administration isn't the one who overestimated the case against Saddam.Scott J said:Very good answer to the WMD questions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/783pliue.asp
Notably, a strong case could be made that we are in Iraq because of intelligence gathered and passed on by the Clinton-Gore administration. They botched al Qaeda/bin Laden by underestimating the threat and apparently botched Saddam by overestimating the threat.
He bombed Saddam in retaliation for specific acts. That, the inspections and the sanctions apparently kept Saddam from developing any new weapons or weapons programmes. It seems to have been effective in keeping him in line at minimal cost to us.SJ said:Liberals complain that Bush went after Saddam rather than bin Laden... but who was Clinton bombing? Who was he letting go when offered for capture?
Saddam is arrested and standing trial. This week, yet another of his defense attorneys was murdered. Bin Laden is diminished but alive and maybe be plotting even now....SJ said:Bush has gone after both pretty effectively, btw. Saddam is gone. Bin Laden is diminished.
The inspectors didn't accept the bribes. Iraq wanted to rearm being surrounded by hostile countries as well as having the Kurds within its borders, but was unable to do it. It was co-operating with the inspectors when Bush called off the inspections.NiteShift said:Nope. Absurdity. Nonsense.
The Iraqis didn't cooperate, they certainly gave the appearance of hiding stuff (why else bribe the inspectors), and intelligence agencies the world over understandably assumed the worst.
Daisy said:The inspectors didn't accept the bribes. Iraq wanted to rearm being surrounded by hostile countries as well as having the Kurds within its borders, but was unable to do it. It was co-operating with the inspectors when Bush called off the inspections.
That is not exactly farcical.
Revmitchell said:It is amazing what people are willing to believe to justify their positions.