|
SwiftVets.com Service to Country
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
grandforker Seaman Recruit
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 44
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Every time I see one of these stories, they do nothing but confuse me because they make no attempt to answer some obvious questions. For example:
If these explosives were so dangerous and could be used in the making of nuclear weapons, why didn't the UN weapons inspectors destroy them when they had the opportunity to do so in 1995? If the UN could be trusted to do the job properly then, why should it have been trusted in 2003?
Doesn't the fact that the US has destroyed 240,000 tons of weapons, ammo and explosives and has another 160,000 tons marked for destruction indicate that finding and getting rid of such materials is a high priority? And if we can agree that finding and destroying this material is a priority, how is it that such a large and obvious cache of dangerous explosives would be overlooked?
Are the Americans destroying ammo and explosives as fast as they can find them (which looked to be the case immediately after major combat operartions ended) or are they carefully cataloging everything they destroy, noting exactly where it came from?
Even if some or all of the explosives were removed by enemy forces, isn't it possible that they could have been found and destroyed elsewhere by troops that had no idea of where they came from?
If, as alleged, the explosives went missing a year and a half ago, then where is the evidence showing that the terrorists and insurgents have been using them? And if they're not using the explosives, why not?
[/list][/list] _________________ Hard pounding, gentlemen. Let's see who pounds the longest. -- Wellington at Waterloo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 2209 Location: BUSHville
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did I hear correctly this morning that CBS is now claiming to have photos to prove Bush screwed up??? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dimsdale Captain
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 527 Location: Massachusetts: the belly of the beast
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone honestly believe that the IAEA, part of the UN, all of whose members were almost literally in bed with Saddam, wouldn't slide him a few extra seals?
I have no trouble believing that ElBaradei, an Egyptian I believe, would side more with fellow Arab Hussein than the U.S.
The timing of the release of this memo proves that. _________________ Everytime he had a choice, Kerry chose to side with communists rather than the United States. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 2209 Location: BUSHville
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dimsdale wrote: | Does anyone honestly believe that the IAEA, part of the UN, all of whose members were almost literally in bed with Saddam, wouldn't slide him a few extra seals?
I have no trouble believing that ElBaradei, an Egyptian I believe, would side more with fellow Arab Hussein than the U.S.
The timing of the release of this memo proves that. |
so true |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|