01-16-2003, 01:17 AM
Quote:It also hasn't been proven true that Saddam has nukes, bio, or chemical weapons. It also hasn't been proven true that bin Laden was directly connected to 911 for that matter. You said earlier something to the effect of, Saddam not cooperating with inspectors essentially proves his guilt. Wouldn't Bush's pandering to the oil industry work the same way, logically?
... Here's where I get to use the bullets button for the first time :thumbs-up:
<ul>The US doesn't even need to prove that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has to simply prove that he does not have weapons of mass destruction, that he has destroyed all facilities, and that he is not re-arming. If he cannot prove that, we can resume war.
I alluded to earlier that is is suspicious that the FBI has not added the September 11th attacks to the numerous list of crimes that Osama bin Laden is wanted for. If there is that evidence, how come the FBI still only wants him for the embassy and Cole bombings?
Because Saddam Hussein did not cooperate with weapons inspectors, he does not wish to prove himself. If he does not prove Iraq has abided by the ceasefire, then he is in breach of the ceasefire and we can resume war. It proves that Saddam Hussein is guilty of not cooperating with weapons inspectors. That is in breach of the ceasefire. President George W. Bush pandering to oil companies makes him guilty of pandering to oil companies, which is not in breach of the cease-fire. It does not make him guilty of going to war with Iraq over oil. </ul>
Now, if there was evidence that this war was about oil, I would then be against it, because oil is an outdated form of energy, a product which causes pollution and put our economy in the hands of dictators, terrorists, and racists. Oil is not a reason to go to war. But, it has yet to be proven that this war is about oil.