User: poopoodoodoo

We sold him the chemicals. From the Sunday Herald (Scotland): "The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning."

We've been duped all right, but not for the reasons stated in this poll. The war on terror is a great dupe. Another dupe is that we have a functioning democracy. I agree the Democrats are unlikely to make any real change in the country's direction, but then....when we voted we didn't really have any other choice did we?

OK, but what's the tie in to Alfred E. Neumann? Isn't he the character on MAD magazine?

Was the threat of a relatively few radicals with AK-47's and the ability to make and use improvised explosive devices really so great that all this was necessary? Could you imagine our position if we'd invested the resources we've used in Iraq into a realistic defense of terrorism? These questions of course are moot, because the terrorist threat is now more real and we've already invested our resources into destroying and rebuilding Iraq.

I don't think pulling out now is going to either make it better or worse, it'll just make it different. The damage to Iraq and the US is done and a certain amount of negative outcome is inevitable. I guess the questions are: do we think it's worth trading any more US lives and dollars for the economic benefit of relatively few or having a militarily strategic territory? Do we get any safer by staying?

Does that mean that if you believe something exists then it does exist?