Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

rabbitproof · 07-11-2008, 01:35 PM

Maybe becauseeeeeee.... from your links...

"As far as the (nuclear) proliferation threat goes, natural uranium is not of direct use in a nuclear weapon," U.S. embassy spokeswoman Leslie Phillips said.

The Bush administration's claim that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons was a primary justification it gave for the invasion to topple his regime, but no evidence has been found that Saddam continued a nuclear weapons programme after 1991.

---

So to make an analogy, the charge or 'reason' to invade Iraq was that Saddam was loading his gun and could/would shoot someone, not that he had the materials to build some bullets, right? Or did that change the first time the Mission was Accomplished?

07-11-2008, 01:35 PM	#11
rabbitproof Diamond Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: now, here Posts: 7,720	Maybe becauseeeeeee.... from your links... "As far as the (nuclear) proliferation threat goes, natural uranium is not of direct use in a nuclear weapon," U.S. embassy spokeswoman Leslie Phillips said. The Bush administration's claim that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons was a primary justification it gave for the invasion to topple his regime, but no evidence has been found that Saddam continued a nuclear weapons programme after 1991. --- So to make an analogy, the charge or 'reason' to invade Iraq was that Saddam was loading his gun and could/would shoot someone, not that he had the materials to build some bullets, right? Or did that change the first time the Mission was Accomplished? __________________ watch your thoughts, they become your words Last edited by rabbitproof; 07-11-2008 at 01:37 PM.