Nuclear chief: No 'smoking gun' in Iraq
January 6, 2003 3:59 PM Subscribe
Nuclear chief: No 'smoking gun' in Iraq Does this mean we can call the troops back now?
This post was deleted for the following reason: blah blah newsfilter blah blah
"There currently is no 'smoking gun,' ElBaradei said, but he noted that inspections are still in their early stages. "
They themselves say they are only in the early stages. But sure, what the hell. Bring 'em home. Sadaam was right all along. NO BLOOD FOR OILLLLL.
Could you please read your own article for consistency before you start trolling?
Sheesh.
posted by jammer at 4:12 PM on January 6, 2003
They themselves say they are only in the early stages. But sure, what the hell. Bring 'em home. Sadaam was right all along. NO BLOOD FOR OILLLLL.
Could you please read your own article for consistency before you start trolling?
Sheesh.
posted by jammer at 4:12 PM on January 6, 2003
NO BLOOD FOR OILLLLL.
Could you please read your own article for consistency before you start trolling?
you may have beat him to it.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:13 PM on January 6, 2003
Could you please read your own article for consistency before you start trolling?
you may have beat him to it.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:13 PM on January 6, 2003
So, I have no problem with a war for oil. . .
posted by the fire you left me at 4:14 PM on January 6, 2003
posted by the fire you left me at 4:14 PM on January 6, 2003
You've completely ignored the UN timetable. Fortunately the inspectors haven't and are doing a thorough job without jumping to conclusions before finishing it.
It alarms me how people who, like me, desire peace with Iraq, can convieniently forget about Saddam Hussain's track record and assume his total innocence without sufficient investigation. Being blind to the possibility of his guilt isn't going to solve this problem.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:19 PM on January 6, 2003
It alarms me how people who, like me, desire peace with Iraq, can convieniently forget about Saddam Hussain's track record and assume his total innocence without sufficient investigation. Being blind to the possibility of his guilt isn't going to solve this problem.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:19 PM on January 6, 2003
It alarms me how people who, like me, desire peace with Iraq, can convieniently forget about Saddam Hussain's track record and assume his total innocence without sufficient investigation. Being blind to the possibility of his guilt isn't going to solve this problem.
As opposed to, say, the United States, which has both a clean and perfect military "track record" and even if it did do, oh let's say maybe one or two tiny horrific military actions over its time, would surely hold itself accountable for those actions. Riiiiiiight.
It alarms me how countries that, like the US, desire complete supplication from the rest of the world, can conviniently "forget" their own track record and assume its total innocence with sufficient investigation. Being blind to the rest of the world's opinion isn't going to solve this problem.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:32 PM on January 6, 2003
As opposed to, say, the United States, which has both a clean and perfect military "track record" and even if it did do, oh let's say maybe one or two tiny horrific military actions over its time, would surely hold itself accountable for those actions. Riiiiiiight.
It alarms me how countries that, like the US, desire complete supplication from the rest of the world, can conviniently "forget" their own track record and assume its total innocence with sufficient investigation. Being blind to the rest of the world's opinion isn't going to solve this problem.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:32 PM on January 6, 2003
« Older The BBC's virtual monopoly must end (must it?) | The Tyranny of the Tidy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I believe Bush will issue an apology to Saddam Hussein tomorrow and then withdraw all US troops in the area.
posted by einarorn at 4:11 PM on January 6, 2003