Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Kuwait might still be occupied by a bloodthirsty Dictator. It worked out better for Kuwait did it not?I think America should keep their nose out of all wars, they only stuff it all up.
Let them sort out their own affairs.Kuwait might still be occupied by a bloodthirsty Dictator. It worked out better for Kuwait did it not?
I learned a huge amount talking to those Muslims. They were friendly and open and the conversations went on for quite awhile. They also predicted:
A) No weapons of mass destruction would be found.
They explained at great length why they believed all these things. I learned a lot about Islamic middle eastern culture. I also learned a lot of horrible things about my own country. Nauseatingly evil, but easily documented, things.
I firmly believe that the Bush administration started the invasion of Kuwait in a cynical ploy to play power politics in the oil fields of the Gulf region.
Tom
Are you saying he did?Are you saying that Saddam did not have any WMD?
Just asking
Yes.Are you saying he did?
Who is "them"?Let them sort out their own affairs.
Don't be so paranoid.Who is "them"?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
MARTIN NIEMÖLLER
Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."
Yes.
Do you really know what WMD's consist of? If you do not think he had WMD you don't.
Oh, don't let that bother you because the Republican mantra on this is that anything bigger than a firecracker is a WMD. It's just a cover-up of the fact that what they said Saddam had or was supposedly developing turned out to be bogus-- so they invent fairy tales and then blindly believed in them. No nukes; no new chemical-gas production; most of the old that were stockpiled were destroyed; no fleets of Iraqi jets flying to Syria, etc. All make-believe, much like the supposed "death panels" under Obamacare.Evidence please.
If I remember correctly, the last time someone on RF tried to convince me that Saddam had WMDs, I was directed to news articles regarding IEDs and undetonated artillery shells found in Iraq. :/Oh, don't let that bother you because the Republican mantra on this is that anything bigger than a firecracker is a WMD. It's just a cover-up of the fact that what they said Saddam had or was supposedly developing turned out to be bogus-- so they invent fairy tales and then blindly believed in them. No nukes; no new chemical-gas production; most of the old that were stockpiled were destroyed; no fleets of Iraqi jets flying to Syria, etc. All make-believe, much like the supposed "death panels" under Obamacare.
First let's identify WMD'sEvidence please.
A very reluctant "yes" on my part. Too much was involved and at stake.
First let's identify WMD's
A weapon of mass destruction is any weapon that will cause mass casualties. Now this includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. We know that Saddam had and used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. We also know that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds (Halabja)
Now do any of you dispute any of the above?
Now let's move to the gulf war. I am providing one article out of many that relates to Saddam having WMD. If you want more just search for "Saddam had biological and chemical weapons"
U.S. Nerve Gas Hit Our Own Troops in Iraq
Is this enough evidence for you?
Should America have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait? It was good for Kuwait anyhow.