1  |   Order by index

Mar 7, 2003, 4:01pm

I just find it suspisious that as soon as you get a new president, Iraque
turns into a danger over one night.
How come USA did not attack 1 year ago or 2 years ago?
So basically, if you can have waited 2-3 years, a few months more will not
hurt, will it ?

Drac
bowen <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e68b315$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
> I'm sorry, I don't consider 2-3 years a hurry. The inspectors can't do
anything in a
> desert, Saddam can and probably is just moving his weapons around.
>
> Ockham's Razor should be applying to this too. Iraq has and destroyed
their weapons,
> but does not have any evidence of doing it and maybe just destroyed that
too and is
> just now allowing inspectors in to prove it? Or, Iraq simply is hiding
and moving
> them around? Please, you're not that stupid; look past your hatred of
Bush for just
> one minute. Clinton attacked Iraq for _exactly_ the same reasons during
the _end_ of
> his presidency. So in those 3 years he just suddenly became the nicest
guy on the
> planet? Please. Europeans are just so blind to things they can't see.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>

1  |   Order by index