Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisCantSkate
i love how you jumped to the conclusion that they have already found proof, if you actually read that artical it says they found a shell that supposably had the chems in it. now i know major details are important.
if this ends up being real... good. we might not look like the biggest douches in the universe after all. however people jumping to conclusions about partial proof on something is what got us fucked up in the first place. if we actually found wepaons of mass destruction in the first place then i would be on a completly different side of this argument, howver we jumped to conclusions one and it made us look like complete jackasses to the rest of the world, and now your doing the exact same thing. i was watching the various news channels i flip through when theres nothing else on and didnt once see anything about this. makes me kinda wonder why the media hasnt jumped on this "proof" of WMD presence in iraq. hell the artical just mentions it in the 4th paragraph (not checking it, dont quote me on where it is). for some reason this "proof" dosnt seem as solid as your building it up to be
once again, if this is true and there actually were weapons in iraq since the begining of this psuedo-war, then we are actually somewhat justified in diong what we did. but im not jumping to any conslusions till i see undenyable proof.
|
Ahh, thank you too much sir. Finally some logic around here.