Proof of WMDs?
Find a Conversation
Proof of WMDs?
| Mon, 05-17-2004 - 2:43pm |
>>Sarin Nerve Agent Bomb Explodes in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb containing deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday. It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any of the banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war.
Two members of a military bomb squad were treated for "minor exposure," but no serious injuries were reported.
...
<<
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sarin
thoughts?

Pages
My original comment was in response to the earlier post, "If we had not invaded Iraq they never would have come clean."
In order to convince me that I'm wrong, you post a link that reads, in part:
The son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi told CNN Saturday that "the capture of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant" to Libya's announcement that it is to abandon its weapons of mass destruction program.
"In fact, we started the cooperation even before the invasion of Iraq and we decided to announce it, the outcome of that cooperation, two weeks ago," Saif Al-Islam Gadhafi told CNN's Andrea Koppel.
"Really it was a long and tough secret negotiation for nine months, and two weeks ago we closed the deal and we said, 'OK, done deal, announce it,'" he said.
I realize that you lend little credence to stories posted on CNN, but next time, you might want to do more than peruse a story for the words 'Libya,''weapons,' and 'Iraq.'
Doesn't exactly prove your point, flag waver.
<<
From what I recall, *we* destroyed the remaining sarin during the 1st gulf war...
Libya announced Friday that, after meetings with U.S. and British officials that began in March, it would get rid of its banned weapons programs.
No one would disagree with this, this is a fact.
"Now in order to make sense out of Iraq, you have to make a list of the good things accomplished... Libya has folded and has given up its nuclear program...."Now you see, this would be mostly OPINION.
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
Ooooh... "flag waver" Good one...
Let me clear this up for you. I'll go reallyyyyy slow and use numbers for you, ok?
1. You attacked a poster saying she should include "psychic" on her resume. (Implying that Libya hadn't already disarmed and that she was using her "psychic powers" in claiming that they'd already disarmed.
2. I posted a quote from an article from Fox News that stated clearly that they had already begun to disarm. (And I left the part of the quote that said it was a positive outcome from the Iraq situation just for kicks.)
3. You claimed that Fox News wasn't a good news source with your rather dull humor not even acknowledging that *surprise!* Libya has disarmed already or has begun to.
4. I posted a CNN article to prove that Fox News wasn't the only news source providing the disarming of Libya's weapons
Ok, the ENTIRE reason I even posted the article is to show that Libya has begun to disarm.
I agree, it is debatable whether or not it had something directly to do with Iraq being that Fox News says it does, and CNN says it doesn't. Everyone on the same page now?
The poster stated that Libya NEVER would have disarmed had we not invaded Iraq.
The CNN article states that talks with Libya began several months before the US invaded. The FOX article links Libya's disarmament to invasion of Iraq, and it certainly IMPLIES that the disarmament was related, and you certainly INFERRED that there was a direct correlation, but NOWHERE in EITHER article does it state, as fact, that A) Libya never would have disarmed if we didn't invade Iraq, and B) there is a direct relationship between the two.
O'Really (as always the master of implication and innuendo) only hints at a relationship.
Again, because you find all three items mentioned in the same article, does NOT mean that there's a direct link. If Libya agreed to disarm ONLY after and because we sent troops to Iraq, don't you think that he'd state that directly? It's smoke and mirrors, not fact.
Pages