b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 4317759 (Thread)

I've read it.

Reasons:
Thwarting weapons inspections,
continuing weapons programs,
aspiring to nuclear weapons,
threatening national security,
threatening peace and security of the region,
brutal repression of its civilian population.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:57, archived)

So have I -

What reasons did you get out of it? Other than weapons inspectors being obstructed?

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:58, archived)

You should improve your reading skills

and stop getting your "news" from useless sources like the ABC.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:59, archived)

touche.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:00, archived)

What's wrong with weapons inspectors being obstructed as a reason?

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:02, archived)

I believe that you were arguing that there were more reasons than

just WMDs. The obstruction of weapons inspectors is just another facet of the WMD issue, not a whole new reason for invasion.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:07, archived)

But the point of this

- I'm guessing - is to say "the war was a mistake". Which only works for the specific reason of WMDs existing in Iraq, since there apparently weren't any. But reasons like thwarting inspections remain valid. Iraq was being aggressive and totalitarian.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:12, archived)

I have mentioned above that I do not deny Saddam's pre-war behaviour,

But this does not give America the right to step in.

Similarly, If I see someone in the pub that looks like they might be able to beat me up, I am not allowed to make a pre-emptive strike.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:15, archived)

This post is very hard to read

lots of vertical single word lines of text :)

(Azzek!, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:35, archived)