[emcon5]

Originally posted by 944S Boyeee
I cannot reply to those "answers" because they only seek to make EVERYTHING happening in this war justified.

I never said everything in the war is justified. I am saying that the war itself certainly is justified. If you can give an example of something deliberate that the coalition has done that isn't justified, I am all ears.

I know that Saddam MAY have weapons (joke snipped)

Again with "may." Iraq has Chemical and Biological weapons. Everyone knows they have them. Nobody is saying they don't have them, except Iraq. If they have no chemical weapons, why would they need all those chemical warfare suits and all that atropine in the hospital Iraq was using as a military base? You can bet that given enough time, they would have nuclear weapons as well.

and I know Saddam is "terror-related" and I know Saddam is bad. I have swallowed the pill and except the fact that all the "antiwar" arguements are not solid. Why can't you except the fact that there may be some bad points to what the American Government is doing?

I do accept that fact. I just haven't heard anything yet that is a bad point. All I hear is "Bush is like Hitler," "No war for oil," "give peace a chance." and "can I interest you in some literature on how wonderfull Marxism is?" and, no, I am not kidding. You can watch a video from the San Francisco "peace" protests here. Yes, this is the same "peace protest" where the police found molotov cocktails.

If you are interested, there is more Iraq reading here: US State Department fact sheets May I suggest you start with "A Decade of Deception and Defiance," it gives a chronology of Security Council resolutions for the past decade, and how they have been voilated. You can then read more about the gassing of Kurds (you know, with the weapons they "MAY" have), and how swell they treat women.

At least be a man and admit that someone else may actually have a point.....and a clue.

I will admit others have a point, when they have one (you may notice I agreed with you on point #2). As to the clue, I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, but your comments in the other thread and your continued use of the word "may" regarding Iraq's chemical weapons even when provided with evidence doesn't seem to support this assertion. I am waiting to be proven wrong.

You know, I don't need to do "web searches" to learn things......I'm Canadian, we actually study other cultures in our schools.

Insult my intelligence all you want - it still won't make you any smarter - and that's not an insult about your intelligence level. I can separate someones intellect level from their opinions. I suspect you to be quite smart.....I may not agree with your opinions, but I don't let that allow me to form an opinion on how smart you are. See, I'm not THAT dumb!

The "do a web search" comment was out of line. I am sorry for that.

However, it does not excuse this:

Originally posted by 944S Boyeee in another thread. (emphasis mine)
Regardless of whom Saddam gassed - I agree that it was wrong. I guess I just question why he really did it and if that reason is a valid enough one and/or do those action represent Saddam's desire to fund Terrorists and/or attack America? I mean - do his actions during that situation reflect enough "madness" or is it something that had to be done for a particular reason other than just the pure madness?

I ask again, what exactly would be a valid reason to launch a mustard gas and cyanide attack on a village full of women and children?

Tom