Quote:
Originally posted by ZetaAce
I don't agree with all of Belafonte's comments, I think he stepped over the line, especially with the house slave remark, but he makes some valid points about Colin's dissapearance and change in stance regarding the Iraq situation. We're talking about an administration that said in July 2001 that Iraq was not a threat, and now a year and some change later they are the big enemy? I want to know exactly what changed between now and then, because from what I can see, not a darn thing has changed except Bush's rhetoric. (Not to mention the Cold Warrior's (Condoleeza Rice) rhetoric.  )
ZA
|
I think that leaders are allowed to change stances when new evidence is presented. For example, in Turkey they just arrested a group of men that were smuggling uranium towards Iraq... If there's anything we can do at this point to keep this technology out of the hands of terrorists we must do it now. If we do not act soon, Saddam will have nuclear weapons. And after this there is not a damned thing we can really do to prevent a nuclear attack here in the US.
In WWII when the Nazi's were ignored for so long there were people like you with the exact same argument. Then he invaded Austria and they still said since he was no threat to the US we should do nothing! What's it going to take? A nuke in NYC?