 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999 time: 23:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
According to Scott Ritter, | RITTER: [...] The problem with disarming Iraq right now is that Iraq has failed across the board. There are major questions in chemical. Iraq has a VX program. VX is one of the most deadly substances on the face of the Earth. And we've uncovered this. They refuse to even address the issue.
We have major problems with stocks of chemical weapons and chemical agents that are unaccounted for. The entire biological program, which (unintelligible) horrible weapons, is a black hole, as Richard Butler says. Ballistic missiles -- there's absolute concern that they still retain the capability to deliver chemical and biological weapons through ballistic missiles that they haven't declared.
Iraq still poses a real and meaningful threat to its neighbors, and nothing the Security Council or the United States is doing currently will change this fact.
Last edited by DinoDoc on 04-08-2005 at 19:11
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970 time: 15:37
|
|
another common mistake - confusing the political interests of the Bush Administration with "democracy" or "freedom" or whatever
you really buy the idea that the interests of Bush are synonymous with the foreign policy interests of the USA?
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 04-08-2005 at 19:28
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
one doesnt have to offer a right course of action. But one should at least be moderately consistent in ones criticisms - saying that too few troops is the cause of so many casualties, and that if there were 5 times as many troops thered be five times as many casualties, is not consistent. |
I believe that what AH was saying is that the Administration believed that having more troops in Iraq would lead to more casualties on our part, which is why they did not send enough troops to do the job quickly and efficiently. That may have been a factor, but I don't think it was the primary one.
Many moderate and liberals (and even a few conservatives like McCain) criticize the Pres by saying that if they had sent more troops, the casualty levels would have been lower, since they would have been able to assert more control over Iraq.
This may be true. It may not be. We'll never know, since the damage has been done.
In any event, it's not unsual for people on the same side to hold different beliefs. Many anti-war activists still think the war was about oil. I don't, though I think oil factors into it in several ways. That we disagree doesn't mean that the whole left, therefore, doesn't know what it's talking about, as Patroklos was insinuating.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|