Why can't you tell me what these reasons are?Surely if you are as educated as you make out, you'd be able to rattle these off from the top of your head, rather than post some legalese from the white house, and keep referring back to it without so much as a quote.
TELL ME WHAT THESE OTHER REASONS WERE.
(TELL ME WHAT THESE OTHER REASONS WERE.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:52,
archived)
Okay, since you evidently can't understand big words:* Saddam had WMD
* Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda
* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush
* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire
* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture
See, it's not that difficult if you're literate.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:57,
archived)
* Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda
* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush
* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire
* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture
See, it's not that difficult if you're literate.
And how many of these were presented to the UN?One: WMD's.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:59,
archived)
Ummcan you provide us with this literature?
We're not convinced... and you can't "prove us wrong" in an argument till you do that (unless mathimatically).
I mean the american explinations for war changed so much that it was laughable at times.
There were no WMD's found
It's VERY hard to move WMD's without detection, or leaving evidence... even during a war.
There's still no sadam to al-queda link... not unless you believe that SCO has nothing to do with microsoft and it owns all linux software ever made and that can fesably ever be though of :)
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:22,
archived)
We're not convinced... and you can't "prove us wrong" in an argument till you do that (unless mathimatically).
I mean the american explinations for war changed so much that it was laughable at times.
There were no WMD's found
It's VERY hard to move WMD's without detection, or leaving evidence... even during a war.
There's still no sadam to al-queda link... not unless you believe that SCO has nothing to do with microsoft and it owns all linux software ever made and that can fesably ever be though of :)
Sorry mate,but when the argument consists of "The Americans only ever gave ONE reason for the invasion of Iraq", then it is indeed mathematically possible to prove it wrong -- simply by proving that there was more than one reason. QED.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:35,
archived)
Actually, as mentioned above,They only presented one LEGAL reason for invasion to the UN, and it wasn't true.
Take your QED elsewhere (especially considering that this was originally an argument about the separation of church and state). You've proven nothing.
(Take your QED elsewhere (especially considering that this was originally an argument about the separation of church and state). You've proven nothing.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:38,
archived)
I suspect that was the only one the UN would listen to.Having faffed around over Iraq for ages.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:03,
archived)
It was the only one the UN would listen to,because it was the only viable, legal reason for invasion that america had. Strangely, it wasn't even true.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:08,
archived)
Fool. Carlyle Group - bin Laden - al-Qaeda.
"* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush"
President Bush has attempted to assassinate Saddam.
"* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire"
The US has failed to abide by many UN agreements.
"* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors"
That is a lie, as there were actually inspectors on the ground. Bush refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, in truth, just prior to the (second Bush) invasion.
"* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture"
The US oppresses Iraqis with murder and torture. In the same prisons, like Abu Ghraib, no less!
"See, it's not that difficult if you're literate."
Must be eminently difficult for you then. Why DO you despise reality so very very much?
You've become tiresome; and your bullshit, trite, weather-thinned and vacuous. Our patience wears thin.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:38,
archived)
"* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush"
President Bush has attempted to assassinate Saddam.
"* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire"
The US has failed to abide by many UN agreements.
"* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors"
That is a lie, as there were actually inspectors on the ground. Bush refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, in truth, just prior to the (second Bush) invasion.
"* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture"
The US oppresses Iraqis with murder and torture. In the same prisons, like Abu Ghraib, no less!
"See, it's not that difficult if you're literate."
Must be eminently difficult for you then. Why DO you despise reality so very very much?
You've become tiresome; and your bullshit, trite, weather-thinned and vacuous. Our patience wears thin.