Weapons in Iraq - dangerous or not



 Sociology > Education > Weapons in Iraq - dangerous or not

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Sociology > Education
User: "K.C."
Date: 31 Oct 2004 08:56:58 AM
Object: Weapons in Iraq - dangerous or not
If the explosives in Iraq are dangerous, 1. Bush was right to go into
Iraq and 2. the UN failed to remove them.
If they aren't that bad, Bush is successful for having removed 400,000
tons and missing only a hundred tons or so.
K.C.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"

Title: Re: Weapons in Iraq - dangerous or not 31 Oct 2004 11:13:13 AM
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

If the explosives in Iraq are dangerous,

All explosives are dangerous.
Are the explosives in Iraq dangerous to the US? Only if left
unguarded so that they get into al Qaeda hands. Bush left the ones in
the news unguarded, and they are purportedly in al Qaeda hands.

1. Bush was right to go into Iraq

There are dangerous explosives in every country of the world. Does
this give Bush the right to send troops into every country, leaving
the weapons caches unguarded so that they fall into terrorist hands?

and 2. the UN failed to remove them.

It was not the job of the UN to remove such explosives. The UN
however DID seal the cache, and the seals were intact when American
troops got there.

If they aren't that bad, Bush is successful for having removed 400,000
tons and missing only a hundred tons or so.

All it takes is a few handfuls for you and your family to join your
Savior. 380 tons is enough to level a good chunk of a city.
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "K.C."

Title: Re: Weapons in Iraq - dangerous or not 31 Oct 2004 09:28:27 AM
K.C. wrote:

If the explosives in Iraq are dangerous, 1. Bush was right to go

into

Iraq and 2. the UN failed to remove them.

If they aren't that bad, Bush is successful for having removed

400,000

tons and missing only a hundred tons or so.

K.C.

no reply?
.
User: "Robyn Lee"

Title: Re: Weapons in Iraq - dangerous or not 31 Oct 2004 04:59:54 PM
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1099236507.834381.127910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


K.C. wrote:

If the explosives in Iraq are dangerous, 1. Bush was right to go

into

Iraq and 2. the UN failed to remove them.

If they aren't that bad, Bush is successful for having removed

400,000

tons and missing only a hundred tons or so.

K.C.


no reply?

How about this reply, "You are a dumb *****."
Wet Ones,
Robyn
http://profiles.yahoo.com/bobbilee_trannie
Yahoo IM msrobynlee2000
***** George W Bush!
.



  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
France was supplying Iraq with weapons in 2003
Missouri OKs Concealed Weapons, Curbs Abortion
Re: Weapons Inspector: French Sabotaged U.N. WMD Searches
Re: Weapons Inspector: French Sabotaged U.N. WMD Searches
Utah Teachers To Carry Weapons?
Re: Weapons Inspector: French Sabotaged U.N. WMD Searches
SUICIDE BOMBERS CAN CARRY BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS INSIDE THEIR BODYS- (cough!)
Bremer Threatens Dutch With Economic Sanction for Not Sending Cannon Fodders to Iraq
Bush predicted "we're not going to have any casualties"in Iraq
>> Iraq does not need the USA <<
Democrat Congressman: Media's Bias 'Is Killing Our Troops' in Iraq - The Baa'th Party love the press
Leftist Continue To Lie About Invasion Of Iraq
Mission Accomplished! 404th GI Killed By Bush's Big Lie. Why Aren't NeoCon Chickenhawks Doing the Dying in Iraq?
Mission Accomplished! 442nd GI Killed By Bush's Big Lie In Iraq. Where Are All You ***** Neocon Chickenhawks Now?
Iraq policy leading up to military draft for young Americans
 

NEWER

pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER