You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #36: i've argued that there was no need for ADDITIONAL threats... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. i've argued that there was no need for ADDITIONAL threats...
Edited on Tue Aug-10-04 12:30 AM by mike_c
...i.e. the IWR. Saddam Hussein had already complied with the U.N. disarmament mandate. What did the IWR achieve that had not already been achieved, other than giving the neocons the green light to advance the PNAC war for ME hegemony? Not one damned thing.

edit-- throttling down, but without the WMD's, what need was there to apply additional threat of force in October 2002? All indications are that Iraq was disarmed by 1998 or '99 at the latest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC