Orville_third
Banned
Well, before the war, Rumsfeld did say "We know where they are," and gave the vicinity of Baghdad as their location.
You need to believe Birthers (the crowd claiming that Obama wasn't born in the USA) to believe this guy, as both claims have the same nuttiness to them.Said Eastern Bloc defector has been proven wrong on numerous occasions.
One issue that would certainly arise if the WMDs were found is whether or not Americans gave the Iraqis the WMDs in the first place. According to many blogs on the issue, the WMDs were supposedly given during the Iran-Iraq War of 1981-1988. For many in the Arab world, the question becomes, why didn't the U.S. take those weapons in 1991? Why did they wait until 2003 to get them?
Second, the international community would point out, if Iraq has WMDs is justification for attack, why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea. This would seem hypocritical since the 1994 ICBM tests...
Third, Russia and China would also point to their backing of Iran, stating, "Why shouldn't Iran launch a "preemptive strike" against Israel? They have a "proven" WMDs capability (e.g. nuclear weapons)..."
Second, the international community would point out, if Iraq has WMDs is justification for attack, why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea. This would seem hypocritical since the 1994 ICBM tests...
I see you rolling, I hatin', you trollin' up with sources dirty.Dang how many times must I must I say this, we did find WMDs!!! Just because they were buried on page 11 doesn't mean they don't exist.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/06/22/more-wmds-found/
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/04/02...munitions-found-last-year-were-official-wmds/
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/08/14/the-no-wmd-lie-the-sequel-and-finale/
And all this is ignoring the testimony of Iraqi General Georges Sada who says that they were shipped out before the invasion.
The question is rather why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea, on behalf South Korea. North Korea has certainly launched acts of terrorism against South Korea and Japan (e.g. kidnappings, assassinations, bombings, et al.).I don't think this would seem hypocritical. Its not as if the US supports N. Korea. The US doesn't invade N. Korea because China has made it pretty clear that they'll protect them and stonewall any UN action in the security council.
The question is rather why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea, on behalf South Korea. North Korea has certainly launched acts of terrorism against South Korea and Japan (e.g. kidnappings, assassinations, bombings, et al.).
As for Iraq, just consider that China, France, and Russia had already said that they would veto any U.N. resolution , unless the nuclear inspectors were given at least 6 months more time....
You might even see a smaller Iraqi insurgency - with a (semi-)legitimate reason to invade, the population might me more convinced that we were there to reconstruct, not exploit.
Because South Korea will never ask the US to do that. Why? Because North Korea has thousands of heavy artillerypieces pointed at Seoul. It's a MAD situation really.
Funny how the arguement of "why not North Korea" keeps coming up despite this painfully obvious reason of "why not".
Well most people simply don't know. Add to that the fact that most people have very little knowledge on military strategy and global geopolitical problems. There are alot of people saying that we should do something about Darfur and Zimbabwe not knowing that it is impossible because of reasons we simply can't do anything about.
This question of how much McCain lost by is interesting. Wikipedia says it was 10 million on one page and 8 1/2 million on another. I can't seem to find a definitive source (or in fact anyone who agrees with anyone else), but the sources I have seen (Foxnews, CNN, and a few other election tracking sites) put the number between 8 and 10 million votes, not the 3 million originally asserted. Perhaps the person who originally posted that number got it confused with 2004 where Bush beat Kerry by 3 million votes.
edit: I mentioned wikipedia because that seems to be where the 10 million vote margin number came from, I personally do not find quoting wikipedia to be very authoritative