No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...


But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because
they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?

Today not all

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in
the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered
the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the
future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as
being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and
apparently will continue to suffer.

Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?


It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of
countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if
that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice
that it hasn't, for some strange reason.

Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every
country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we
have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan
and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and
China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give
your guys a hand and lend you some moral support.

George Z.