Originally posted by eLmo
..wasn't the justification for this war WMD??.. thats what the coalition went in for- so where the hell are the WMD?..this bomb is hardly significant to start to say that there are large amounts of WMD in Iraq- for the public to stop doubting this political crap- they'll have to come up with more than this...quite simple
CITE?
Because you see, what I remember is:
Reporter: Ari, what is the goal in Iraq, disarmament or regime change? It seemed like both messages were said.
Ari Fleischer: The President believes that both are important and they are both statements of American policy. The President thinks that it's important to enforce the resolutions that have been passed by the United Nations for the last decade, which mostly aim at -- on the issue of disarmament. And the President, of course, supports the laws of the United States, and the law includes regime change.
and so on, like October 2 there. This war was about UN resolutions, policies that existed since Clinton, Saddam failing to comply and so on. Quite simple really, you're trying to simplify the war into the one issue when it's actually quite complex, and even now you're trying to tell me that sarin gas isn't really WMD, for that we'd have to have huge stockpiles (which of course probably exist, unless Saddam's fired them already - he's not just making a shell for kicks). The only political crap is what you're saying.
Originally posted by Ziff
The news services just said that the small amount of Sarin gas which was released from the bomb that went off was most likely a reminant from the 1990 inspections that the weapons inspectors missed and not from a large scale WMD programme Saddam was accused of undertaking after the Gulf War.
So you were saying...
Perhaps you'd like to fill in the blanks for me, because I don't see how the Iraqi government could somehow lose a shell of sarin nerve agent and not know where it is when the inspectors came by, only for said shell to be subsequently found by Iraqi insurgents.
