It's possible (and more likely, given that the theocratic Bin Laden is a sworn enemy of the secularist Hussein) that there was a Saddam-Nazi connection. Is this also a good reason to support the war?
It's possible that Saddam Hussein was filling my inbox with come-ons for natural male enhancement and mail-order vicodin and that he was telepathically controlling the Green River killer all these years. It's also possible that he created David Blaine in an underground laboratory.
But then, it's also possible that Vicente Fox is responsible for those dastardly deeds. The bastard. Let's roll.
Very funny gentleman. Put me in the "Bush lied, but didn't have to" camp. Let's not rehash the entire war argument, but I still believe that those opposed to the war needed to make the case that 1) Saddam didn't have WMD or 2) they were sure he wouldn't arm terrorists with them. Did anyone think 1? And I was never convinced of 2 because Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization hostile to the US.
But I'm all for bombing Mexico, if that's what you're asking.
Well, the UN weapons inspectors, who were in a pretty good position to know, seemed fairly convinced of it. And no, there's no need to rehash the entire war argument. Nonetheless, my opposition to it was never based on WMD or terrorism claims, either correct or incorrect ones. I opposed it because waging a multi-hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars, multi-thousands-of-deaths war where the prize for "winning" was getting to administer Iraq struck me as a unduly costly quest for the world's ultimate booby prize.
But then, that's all just so much pissing in the river at this point. I'm all for going to Mexico and getting bombed.
On a more serious note, Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, almost certainly (legally) has some, and we can't be certain that Bashar Assad won't give them to some terrorist group. Pakistan has actual nukes and their military and security services both have good-sized subpopulations with unconcealed sympathy for al Qaeda specifically. These still don't make any sort of case to me for rolling into Damascus or Islamabad.
It's possible (and more likely, given that the theocratic Bin Laden is a sworn enemy of the secularist Hussein) that there was a Saddam-Nazi connection. Is this also a good reason to support the war?
Posted by chun the unavoidable | Link to this comment | 12-22-03 4:23 AM
It's possible that Saddam Hussein was filling my inbox with come-ons for natural male enhancement and mail-order vicodin and that he was telepathically controlling the Green River killer all these years. It's also possible that he created David Blaine in an underground laboratory.
But then, it's also possible that Vicente Fox is responsible for those dastardly deeds. The bastard. Let's roll.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-22-03 7:18 AM
Very funny gentleman. Put me in the "Bush lied, but didn't have to" camp. Let's not rehash the entire war argument, but I still believe that those opposed to the war needed to make the case that 1) Saddam didn't have WMD or 2) they were sure he wouldn't arm terrorists with them. Did anyone think 1? And I was never convinced of 2 because Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization hostile to the US.
But I'm all for bombing Mexico, if that's what you're asking.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-22-03 8:56 AM
>Did anyone think 1?
Well, the UN weapons inspectors, who were in a pretty good position to know, seemed fairly convinced of it. And no, there's no need to rehash the entire war argument. Nonetheless, my opposition to it was never based on WMD or terrorism claims, either correct or incorrect ones. I opposed it because waging a multi-hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars, multi-thousands-of-deaths war where the prize for "winning" was getting to administer Iraq struck me as a unduly costly quest for the world's ultimate booby prize.
But then, that's all just so much pissing in the river at this point. I'm all for going to Mexico and getting bombed.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-22-03 9:40 AM
On a more serious note, Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, almost certainly (legally) has some, and we can't be certain that Bashar Assad won't give them to some terrorist group. Pakistan has actual nukes and their military and security services both have good-sized subpopulations with unconcealed sympathy for al Qaeda specifically. These still don't make any sort of case to me for rolling into Damascus or Islamabad.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-23-03 3:02 PM
Not to you maybe...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-23-03 3:03 PM
http://www.i5net.net/~i5pages/i5pagesnonaccount/ilosaki/toonanimepic/hedgehog/dilbert.html garyhoodlumnow
Posted by boss | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 5:48 PM
http://www.monsiteadulte.com/lesbienne/atseka/fat/story.html garyhoodlumnow
Posted by needed | Link to this comment | 01-18-06 3:58 PM