Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Try again hotshot. Every county who provides us with intel which in the past has been reliable (England, Russia, etc.) were all saying that Iraq had or was developing WMDs.


This is an interesting point. I recall that the UK and Israel and a few other countries were vouching publicly for Bush's conclusion that Iraq was an imminent WMD threat. I have never given much credence to their public support, as each of them had powerful political reasons for doing so. Each of them wanted to: 1) cooperate with the U.S. and the UN in presenting a united front to Saddam, 2) curry favor with the world's only superpower, and 3) get in line for a slice of the war pie. Furthermore, we are talking about international politics here; we have no idea whether their "support" were based on solid evidence or on political strategy.

Sure, some countries supposedly "vouched" for Bush's conclusion about WMDs, and even joined his absurd little "coalition." The UK officially vouched for the WMDs and supported Bush's war. But the British memo shows that they may have privately believed that it was all bogus. Also, many members of the so-called "coalition of the willing" were anything but willing. Ordinary spaniards, brits, poles, and italians opposed the war, even though their governments officially supported it.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
These are the same countries that were against us going in there.


I don't know which countries' intel you are alluding to. Please let me know.

Logically, if any country vouched for Bush's conclusions about WMDs, and then were against us going to war, doesn't that tell us something isn't right? Isn't is likely that country didn't really think there was an imminent WMD threat, and that they were just trying to cooperate with the US and the UN to present a united front against Saddam?

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Just because "you said" that no county had evidence doesn't mean it's true. You show me what evidence from other countries you have beef with.


I don't know which specific evidence you mean. Please fill me in.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by caltour:
I was referring to the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. in Kuwait in the early 90's (after Gulf War I). If you need more info about it, maybe someone will dig up an old news article about it.


Again, talking down to me like somehow you have a clue what you are talking about does nothing to further your argument. I know quite well about the plans to assasinate Bush Sr.



I really didn't mean to sound like that. I wasn't sure we were both referring to the assasination attempt, so I wanted to clarify. Sorry for the misunderstanding.