Genius At Work or Idiots At Play?
4.26.2005
Notes. For now. 4.26.05 0800
1) We KNEW that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were admittedly ENEMIES...why did we assume that they'd be working together?
Saddam Hussein is an enemy to the interests of Bin Laden's extremist ideals...to that end, why would they?
2) Saddam Hussein is NOT a stupid person. On the contrary, he's at the least, very coy. Sociopath? Absolutely. Psychotic? Yep. Willing to "hand over the keys" to any amount of troops and/or weapons (either nuclear or otherwise) to terrorists? HELL NO. Come on. If you have an enemy, a mutual enemy that you share with another enemy of yours. Are you going to work in concert to rid yourself(yourselves) of said "3rd party"? No way.
3) As far back as 1991, Iraq was without nuclear ability - at least to the ability of doing any untold/unannounced damage to our country.
4) Iraq was never proven to have nukes. Let's assume that they did. Why should THEY or any other country in the world NOT BE ALLOWED by our hubristic bullying to have them? Are we the only country that should be allowed to have them?
5) If we do indeed have enough nukes to destroy most of the world several times over - why do we need more?
6) If Iraq really DID have nukes...why choose the date we did - POST 9/11 to attack Iraq? WHY NOT do it when Bush Jr. came into office - releasing the bile/contempt/defending his daddy that was built up behind his icy eyes?
7) This is an easy one, really, but what the hell: Why haven't we gone to Saudi Arabia to search for terrorists, since that's where the "main ones" came from originally during 9/11?
Notes. For now. 4.26.05 0800
1) We KNEW that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were admittedly ENEMIES...why did we assume that they'd be working together?
Saddam Hussein is an enemy to the interests of Bin Laden's extremist ideals...to that end, why would they?
2) Saddam Hussein is NOT a stupid person. On the contrary, he's at the least, very coy. Sociopath? Absolutely. Psychotic? Yep. Willing to "hand over the keys" to any amount of troops and/or weapons (either nuclear or otherwise) to terrorists? HELL NO. Come on. If you have an enemy, a mutual enemy that you share with another enemy of yours. Are you going to work in concert to rid yourself(yourselves) of said "3rd party"? No way.
3) As far back as 1991, Iraq was without nuclear ability - at least to the ability of doing any untold/unannounced damage to our country.
4) Iraq was never proven to have nukes. Let's assume that they did. Why should THEY or any other country in the world NOT BE ALLOWED by our hubristic bullying to have them? Are we the only country that should be allowed to have them?
5) If we do indeed have enough nukes to destroy most of the world several times over - why do we need more?
6) If Iraq really DID have nukes...why choose the date we did - POST 9/11 to attack Iraq? WHY NOT do it when Bush Jr. came into office - releasing the bile/contempt/defending his daddy that was built up behind his icy eyes?
7) This is an easy one, really, but what the hell: Why haven't we gone to Saudi Arabia to search for terrorists, since that's where the "main ones" came from originally during 9/11?
posted by swg11871 at 11:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home