Thursday, January 20, 2011

Joe Lieberman would do it again

Because Saddam would have developed WMD capability, he argues.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


PS: It would have been better for Joe if he'd just said that the Duelfer Report states "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks". He should not have been so condescending to Ariana Huffington.

10 comments :

Jon Claerbout said...

Saddam had oil. North Korea has starvation and nuclear products. I figured there was a fair chance of them striking a deal.

Ayrab jayrab said...

fair enough mojo,

so using your logic, america should NOT have nuclear weapons either since they have killed 200,000 innocent people in hiroshima and nagasaki. if america aquires nuclear weapons then using YOUR logic countries should occupy america.

Ayrab Jayrab said...

And this is why I support Irans right to nuclear weapons. Is it fair that Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran does not? Iran has every right to have nuclear weapons.

Iraqi Mojo said...

My logic? It is Joe Lieberman's logic, Ayrab Jayrab. My logic dictates that if you're going to bomb the shiite out of a country to defeat its army and expel it from Kuwait, you might as well go ahead and topple the regime that's been strangling that country for 12 years and leading it to war and ruin.

Logic also dictates that Joe Lieberman, being a Jew who supports Israel, would naturally vote to overthrow a regime that's been supporting the families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up on Israeli buses and in Israeli cafes.

But you pose a valid question. Would Iran be justified in invading the US because the US has WMD? It's not that simple.

Ayrab Jayrab said...

look how you skew history. The americans sanctioned Iraq for 12 years which caused major damage. I remember I couldnt even donate PENCILS to iraq at that time. the sanctions resulted in at least half a million children dying as a direct result to the sanctions.

secondly, you are using double standards for the US.

Iraqi Mojo said...

I skew history? Did the US not bomb the shiite out of Iraq in 1991 and allow the murderous dictator Saddam to stay in control? How did I skew history?

Sanctions further ruined the country. The US administration realized that either sanctions had to end or Saddam's regime had to end. Bill Clinton wanted to liberate Iraq too.

C.H. said...

The regime spinning centrifuges and spewing dogmatic idiocy throughout the international commuity is not "Iran". Please remember to separate Iran from the sickening regime holding it hostage.

Maury said...

North Korea is different. There's enough artillery overlooking Seoul to kill millions of civilians in less than an hour. That, and the fact that China can put up more of a scuffle than they did 50 years ago. If it were possible to invade North Korea without millions of casualties, it would have happened already.

What's wrong with saying you'd vote for the war again on humanitarian grounds? I think all those asshole dictators need to go....one by one. Sadman was a good start, but there are plenty more to go.

Ayrab Jayrab said...

Maury
then why is the US government supporting dictators?

The truth is it is all a play of words. There's dictators America like due to puppet governments, and theirs dictators America doesnt like due to not being puppets.

Don Cox said...

"then why is the US government supporting dictators?"

I think the main reason is the (lazy) wish to have just one person to talk to in each country. The same laziness is seen in the media: "Iran does this", "Egypt does that" - as though there were no political arguments going on in each state.

In an extreme dictatorship, there really are no arguments going on, and the dictator is the country.

Simples.