Ummm, did you say "read"?
And then you quote me saying:
We're going to invade WITHOUT finding ANY TRACE of "Weapons of Mass Destruction
Hmmmm, I guess you missed the bit about "WITHOUT finding ANY TRACE of "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
Which seems rather strange as you did specifically quote it.
so you keep insisting to have your cake and drink it too. Any normal person not obsessed with winning an argument at all costs would aknowledge that the above statements are at odds with each other and were used by you in a pathetic attempt to win an argument to the point of obsession.
Awwww, does it hurt you?
So sorry.
But without FINDING them....
It cannot be PROVEN that they exist.
If it cannot be PROVEN, then you're going to go in and kill kids based upon your BELIEFS.
Hey, al Queda's looking for people like you.
I said I do BELIEVE that Saddam has chemical agents, but that he doesn't have enough to pose any threat (more of a threat than conventional weapons) to anyone.
But I am NOT one who would support the killing of a child WITHOUT having my belief SUBSTANTIATED by PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Hey, it's an EASY requirement to fulfill.
And our current regime keeps claiming that it has information that would, if given to the inspectors, allow my requirement to be fulfilled.
Awww, does it hurt when you learn that your government has been telling fibs to you?
I'm sure they were just little "white" lies.
Really, I'm sure they were.
And now you have to try to lie about what I posted. But my posts haven't been altered.
I believe that Saddam does not have enough chemical agents to pose a threat and that is why the inspectors have not been able to find any chemical weapons.
Why does the pro-war faction have to keep resorting to lies?
Because their position is shallow and has been demolished.
