Tigerlure said:
Are you assuming that there is no "correct" answer in these questions asked? And to your wired article, it says that they could be remnants of the gulf war, so that isn't good proof at all of WMDs found. "But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained." Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to you? |
The finding of WMD's isn't proof of WMD's? They found chemical weapons of mass destruction that according to the deals with the UN were supposed to be destroyed. This is fairly similar to "Did the Stimulus save jobs." Someone who thinks "It saved those jobs, but prevented new jobs from being created" very well may say no.
Just as you are indicating you would say no, after directly reading something that says they found weapons of mass destruction. Did they find weapons of mass destruction "no because they were old weapons of mass destruction." I mean... what?
Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to me? No, but they could of found a Nuclear program and that wouldn't of justified it, at best a Clinton age "Bomb the shit out of them until they let us do what they want" campaign would of sufficed.
Also, you miss my point. Which is that if people don't know the answer to something, they are most likely going to guess. (Furthermore said guess will play into their own biases. People who like Red better will say that's his favorite color.)








