Exactly my point. He had these weapons, this is indisputable. We had serial numbers, batch numbers on this stuff. Then it disappeared. Were did it go ? What happened to Scud #3456 ?
What happened to Chemical drum #7779 ?

Think about searching the entire states of Nevada and Arizona looking for these things that someone is trying to hide.

:) Sadam, most certainly did have WMDs'!!!!!

It is a proven fact!!!!!


And we do have evidence!!!!!

Swimmer, my brother John was in the 1st Marine Div. He went in country on March 1st 1969, unlike others in his infantry unit he had the company of his best friend since Kindergarten, David Roy ( they were our next door neighbors) They went through grammar school, high school and joined the Marines together. Boot camp at Parris Island, advanced infantry training at Camp Le Jeune to San Diego then Nam. John stepped on a land mine on his 2nd patrol and (supposedly) was killed instantly. David was there right behind him when it happened and wrote us a letter a few days later describing the events. On March 21st, ten days later, David was back on patrol as a point man and was killed when a fire fight broke out and he was mortally wounded from a head shot. John's name can be found on panel 26W line 86 and David's name can be found on panel 29W line14.:(

I know, I know...at one point I said the exact same thing.

But most experts agree that little of his bio/chemical weapons would be of much use today, they don't have much of a shelf life.

Don't you find it odd that the UN inspectors found nothing, David Kay with complete and unfettered access for over a year have found nothing, and the new guy who took his place has found nothing of any substance.

Wouldn't you think they could find 1 person out of 20 Million who would stand up to take the reward and tell us where something is?

Don't you think even if it had been moved that we would find some evidence that something had once been there?

So far Zero, Nada, Zilch, Squat.

Read the bi-partisan report on Iraq's WMD. Our only real evidence that Iraq had WMD was that he had them in 1990. The rest was mostly assumption and unverified stories.

It was extremely weak.

I would have personally supported a US led coalition to remove Saddam for UN violations alone, but that's not what was sold. It was the threat that Saddam could deploy WMD in 45 min that drove our timetable. It was the threat of a mushroom cloud in the hands of al Qaida that drove our timetable.

These threats were proven to be absurd distortions not supported by intel or facts.

The World was completely behind us in Afghanistan because we had a clear mandate, so don't say the UN is useless. It's the only Global authority capable of granting legitimacy to such actions, it's our own creation, and it's all we have. For the US to strike pre-emptively against the wishes of the World is always an option, but is the most serious of options. Bush provided no evidence to justify ditching the World and going in with just the UK.

Subverting the UN process to invade when Bush wanted to has done incredible damage to our International credibility and has given our enemies a window of opportunity to exploit which is wide open. In removing Saddam without the World at our side we have given Bin Laden exactly what he asked for.

This is the beef Independents like myself have with Bush over Iraq. It's not that we're pussys or don't see threats, but if you have to fool people to get your way, perhaps something isn't right. The decision to remove Saddam was made long before 9/11, I don't want a President that uses war as a means to an agenda. This is extremely transparent and extremely dangerous.

If our plan is to transform the Middle East by bombing them into Democracy against their wishes, we're making a huge mistake. The notion that they'll be better off for it sound a lot like the master whipping the slave in Roots. Your name is Toby! it's not gonna work and is only going to cause more terror at home if we intend to have an open society and respect the constitution.

-spence

Gee whiz,Cheney likes hitting below the belt, and by the way ...who was VP when 9/11 happened ?

:) Who was the President that could have taken out "Osama"!!!???
But let him go instead!!!!!

You are correct "CLINTON!!!!"

Spence,
If al Qaida want's chem or bio weapons I'm sure Syria and Iran can give them all they want. We don't seem to be doing much about those guys though. Oh yes, they actually have the ability to fight back

- you really think so? After Iraq? Rememebr, Hussein was THE military power in the Middle East, then he was found hiding in a ditch. You think the leaders of Syria and Iran would DARE give any type OF WMD to any terrorists? It aint goign to happen, and you know why? Because Bush said that all countries who harbor or support terrorists will be treated just like terrorist. And he kept his word.
Once again, dont take my words for thsi, read the Ed Koch letter I posted. Read what an 80yr old Democrat and extremely popular and infulential leader had to say.

"Subverting the UN process to invade when Bush wanted to has done incredible damage to our International credibility and has given our enemies a window of opportunity to exploit which is wide open." -Spence

Yea, because UN resolutions do sooooo much. They are a piece of paper, and if you don't want to abide, then don't. We enforced the UN sanctions. The UN security counsel signed our bill to force Saddam to find his WMD or else. The UN signed and delivered this to Hussien. Not solely a U.S. mandate, a UN mandate. So Saddam blew off the UN again and we took him out of the picture.

How many UN resolutions were written telling Gaddafi to get rid of his WMD capability and stop harboring terrorist? Alot. Oh, so after Iraq got invaded, guess who else came around with the white flag? That's right, Mummar. So we put muscle to the resolutions.

UN resolutions might represent "legitimacy" to you.

I think "legitimacy" is a Tomahawk cruise missle, a M-1 Abrams , a F-18 Super Hornet and ordnance on target.

You go Chief:claps:

So should we dissolve all International law, Geneva convention etc... That's what you're calling for right?

-spence

Thanks for the clarification. Good work with those 16 inchers :kewl:

Nope. and you have never met me so your comment is way out of line.

Jigman

Fly Rod, you are going to have to explain that one further. My understanding was that Bin Ladin was offered up to the US under Clinton, but, at that time, had done nothing to the US. We had no reason to take him. Check back a bit further, who helped train Bin Ladin?

Jigman

You know Spence, I spent about 4 years of my life floating around the Northern Persian Gulf enforcing UN Resolutions. I remember having 38 Iraqi oil smugglers parked in our holding area. We would take their ships to the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain and they would sell the ships right back to the Iraqi's. The best thing we could do was take them to Kuwait, because they would kill the crew. (after we left). This during the "oil for food" program. I know that some of these guys were just trying to make a living, but give me a break. It would have made alot bigger impression on them if we would have sunk everyone of those oil tankers.

What I'm saying Spence is that a UN mandate or resolution or sanction means nothing unless someone (like us) goes in and blows something up. Now the UN mandates mean something.
Ask Gaddafi.


Jigman, you're right I don't know you. Sorry about the pot smoking reference. We might have trained OBL to fight Soviets. You know that before WWII some Japanese Admiral named Yamoto went to the US Navy war college.

Chief, I completely agree that UN resolutions without a real threat of violence are worthless. This is exactly the reason Kerry voted to give President Bush authority before He went to the UN to get the inspectors back in.

When and how you use that force is an entirely different matter.

The President promised to build a strong coalition and put the war before a UN vote which he never did because it was clear we didn't have the evidence to justify an immediate invasion.

It was at best extremely reckless, and now we're paying the price.

-spence

Spence

What is the price for your freedom?


Others paid it for you.

No we all pay. We fund the war and loose family members and friends. While the military does the dirty work, elected and appointed civilians send them.

Iraq has been exposed as an idiological war, not a pre-emptive one. The worst thing we can do to our troops is sent them to war on an overstated case, without proper planning and without proper equipment.

-spence

The DEM'S keep talking about proper equipment for the military but they are the one's who have been rapping the military for close to 40 year's now to fund BS social programs, They are the last one who should be pointing a finger unless they are looking in the mirror.

You Go KLMulder

Care to back this up KL because it sounds like a bunch of hot air.

-spence

What has this war cost you Spence ? Do you know anyone that has been KIA ? Did you spend anytime over there ? Have your taxes gone up?

Every time we get a Democrat President our military goes straight down the toilet.

You've all been Bushwacked into thinking the militiary is the biggest issue in this country. What about the schools? The economy? What about morals? What about healthcare?

That's right, Bush has done nothing on these issues, and needs to distract the American populace with any other issue. It has been a brilliant campaign by the Repubs, and Bush will be elected in November. All I can hope for is that W's second term is a major wakeup call to Americans that the system has been broken by partisan politics, and it's time to become involved and educated on the issues.

I farted and it stinks !

healthcare
 

what about it? you work you pay for your own healthcare. you dont work the GOV't gives you healthcare. so whats the problem?

oops
 

i mean state gives you health care if you dont work.

well said :kewl: