<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Well I guess that is a possibility if Iraq had them. I guess by taking out Saddam we have allowed is WMD to fall into the hands of terrorist who would be more willing to use them than Saddam. At least Saddam had something to lose by using them, that was his power over Iraq and that is why he could have been contained. Terrorist usually don't have anything to lose. Lets say Saddam had WMD, and we can't find them well than some terrorist must have taken them.

I still don't think he had any, the UN inspectors should have been left to do their jobs because there is a possibility that by removing Saddam any WMD he had have fallen into more sinister hands. </font>

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...11/455210.html

Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they've fallen into terrorists' hands. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

"The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are," Martin told a crowd of about 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal. "That means terrorists have access to all of that."

'NOT OUT OF IT YET'

The PM's comments run counter to opinions expressed by leaders in such countries as France and Germany who have accused the U.S. and Britain of fudging evidence of WMDs to justify the war against Iraq.

When asked to assess the threat level since Saddam was captured by U.S. troops, Martin said he believes it has increased.

"I believe that terrorism will be, for our generation, what the Cold War was to generations that preceded us," he said. "I don't think we're out of it yet."


Martin disagreed with former prime minister Jean Chretien, who publicly blamed poverty for terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks. "The cause of terrorism is not poverty, it is hatred."

He said he'll lead the charge to convince countries to join forces to combat terrorism and make sure the Third World has the tools to stamp it out.

Martin said he's lobbying the international community to set up an informal organization to tackle world issues such as terrorism.

GETS NOD FROM BUSH

He said he got the nod from U.S. President George Bush during his visit last month to Washington, D.C., and will take his idea to the European Union and Latin America next.

[ 05-11-2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

So, if he had them it was wrong to go in, and if he didn't have them it was wrong to go in. Now I grok -- thanks for clearing that all up. My country's so lucky to have all you smart people from other countries to tell us what to do -- we'd never figure anything out on our own.

[ 05-11-2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I would figure that as a lawyer you encounter many situations were you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. I thought people paid you to figure out the best solutions in those situations plus some damage control afterwards.

Going in guns cocked in a blaze of glory without support from most of your friends was not the best way to do this. If WMD were to be found, the borders would have to be secure first to keep people from getting out with them (If you had worked on getting more allies to participate even if it meant waiting longer this would be more doable as you could have more troops for border patrols). If you are going in for WMD are you not going to ensure they stay in the country and not fall into terrorist hands? If WMD were the #1 priority how would they fall into terrorist hands or was it Saddam who was the #1 priority?
</font>

[ 05-11-2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

I knew something was up when there was that foiled attack in Jordan.

If terrorists have gotten their hands on the WoMD, when would that have happened? Prior to the war, during or after?

People are entitled to post their opinions here Timber. We wouldn't deign to tell you what to do - like you'd ever admit you were wrong anyway.

Donut, I take slight offense at that -- I think I readily admit when I am wrong, and that it wouldn't take long to dig up evidence. Now, as we all do, if I can re-cast what I said to no longer be wrong, I'll do that of course.

Anyway, pritchke you mentioned friends. We have friends? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Who knew?

You know pritchke, there could be the possibility that Bush screwed up and Saddam had no WMDs? That would mean all my blind devotion to an impudent fool would be wasted! Dammit! If I didn't have freedom of speech then I couldn't think these evil thoughts... Oh, wait, we don't have freedom of speech! Yay! Praise the Patriot Act!

[ 05-11-2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Dalamar Stormcrow ]

Actually I was talking about your Government rather than you personally.

We are your friends when you want something from us. That is a neo-conservative policy. You form alliances when and where you need them.

But has the world of politics ever been any other way? Friendship and politics are different things...

Yeah. Silly, silly countries.... but replace "wrong" with "right" and it makes perfect sense, no?
I'm almost certain that "telling you what to do" is just as much minding our own business as "invading Iraq."