Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryzorian
Yes, we had legal authorization. Iraq signed an armistace with conditions set, that saddam signed. Soon as he broke those conditions, the war from 91 was back on because it was never over.
Why do people assume WMD's have to be delivered by missle? They don't, some guy with a syringe can foul a water supply. Besides, wether he had missles with Strictnine or not didn't matter, he had the strictnine and THAT did.
Actually, we are creating dozens of thousands of tribal haters of other tribal groups, plus Iraqi's who don't trust Syrians, and Syrians who don't trust Jordanian's and Jordanian's who don't trust Saudi's and none of them trusting the Persians.
Again, if someone pushed the US into a cornor, they would use nukes. It's US policy and has been for 70 years. Those nations know this and wouldn't do anything to tip the scale in that direction. American anti missle technology is well beyound those nations capabilities of getting a ICBM anywhere near the Mainland.
It's partly why we get annoyed when North Korea plays with thier missle systems, we don't care how poorly thier systems work, what we don't want is to have to reveal how well our anti missle system does work.
|
This makes no sense.
First of all you make points about how missiles arnt needed.
Then you point out how superior you feel about your missile defences.
What argument are you making?