| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| 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?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
