so where are the WMD.

After all the hype about getting Saddam for his WMD. The only thing the news is keeping us informed of is the oil fields we have secured. Whats up with that? I want to see some anthrax,VX gas,or nuclear bombs found. If we don't find it. We may have just turned into the Sapranos.

 

dear moron, the WMD's have been lobbed at our troops and civilians already. {scuds, am al samoud} what a loser.

 

Even the POS Blix came out and said that Hussein has WMD and our troops need to be on the alert when seizing them.

 

You might want to consider that there's probably a better than even chance that Saddam is lying stiff on a board in a Baghdad morgue at the moment, unable to give the command to use them, and that the remains of his regime have a better sense of self-preservation than he had and have not pulled the trigger.

Don't worry, they'll be found.

 

Dude, the war just started. Do you think the Iraquis have their WMDs neatly stacked on roadside stands labeled "get your weapons of mass destruction here?" The stuff is stashed away. It WILL be found. The inspectors (aka stooges) would never have found shit no matter how long we allowed them to look. Why? Because as long as Hussein was in power, he was in control. And as long as he's in controil, he can conceal the WMDs. It won't be until the coalition is in full control that these things will come to light. And then, it will be time to use a few precision-guided missiles on Paris for the help they've been providing.

 

They will be found. I just hope they aren't used on the troops.

See Ya,

Darrin Talbott

 

Re: Re: so where are the WMD.

Back in the 60s I used to hide my stash shortly after using it, then forget where I put everything

 

this war is about more than just WMD

 

shhhhh. team atomic says it's about oil shhhhhhhh.

 

Actually, can anyone want to explain to me what the war is about...???

My take on the war is the fact that I feel that the Bush administration needed to do something with this issue because of the slacking economy. They were backed into a corner. You don't tell your citizens about this horrible dangerous country (that has BEEN dangerous for the past 20 years...)...and then not do anything about it. The only way to get this over and done with is by invading Iraq. The collective apprehension and anxiety of the US public could only be calmed down by a full fledged war on Iraq.

And i still haven't figured out what 9/11 has to do with Iraq. I know there is a strong possibility of Iraq helping to fund 9/11...but they're not the only one. And let's not forget that the guy behind 9/11 is still out there. But noonw is mentioning that part...

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong...but this is my view on it.

I'm open to suggestions though...

 

Haga... do you enjoy getting flamed?

Like you I have my doubts, also I don't trust GW's motives on this thing, but I really can't believe he'd start a war to cover his ass on the economy

 

The war is over Bon Jovi tickets. Brad bought the last two and Saddam and his chickee wanted to go. Saddam digs hair bands. Saddam threatened to use his potato gun of mass destruction against Bon Jovi (after all, if Saddam can't take his chickee and possibly score, no one is going). We need our Bon Jovi since they are a national treasure.
As for the WMD, Maybe the troops haven't checked under Saddam's bed? That's where I keep my Sarin (my nukes are in the laundry room with a trigger lock).

 

In a nutshell:
Iraq has constantly violated the the terms stated in the surrender at the close of the Gulf War.
Read all the horror stories about Saddam and his two sons. They should be liquidated on general principle.

9/11 changed our rules of engagement. If we sense danger on the horizon, we are going to take pre-emptive action instead of "nobly" waiting until we are attacked.
Saddam Hussein could have easily allowed the fruits of his weapons research fall discreetly into the hands of an organization like al Qaeda. Iraq as a country might not seem to be a threat in the days leading up to the war, but as a supplier to terrorist organizations had Saddam been left alone.........
Dubya isn't very articulate as far as making the case (kind of a refreshing change from those lengthy discourses on why a BJ isn't really sex. ), but if you want to hear a strong case made, listen to Tony Blair.

 

Re: Re: Re: so where are the WMD.

I've been there. Man, have I been there.

 

Posted by JohnnyB:

Iraq has constantly violated the the terms stated in the surrender at the close of the Gulf War.

...but US violated the terms with NATO. Wouldn't that make US the bad guy as well...

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they???

As for the terrorists...who else supported AlQueda??
And how come they are not being held responsible as harshly as Iraq is ???

 

What it is exactly about is subject to change. It started as WMD but the administration has found out that people aren't overly supportive about that - here or overseas.

You don't hear as much talk about WMDs these days from the administration. The mantra is now more about "liberation" and "freeing the Iraqi people" which has a much more benevolent sound to it and scores MUCH higher in opinion polls. Public relations is a powerful tool.

 

"The mantra is now more about "liberation" and "freeing the Iraqi people" which has a much more benevolent sound to it and scores MUCH higher in opinion polls."

Interesting concept you have.... that Bush is driven by the polls. If he was, by your estimate of the HUGE number of people against the war, Bush never would have let us go in, in the first place. You seem to be mistaking Bush for the guy before.

Here's a new thought for you... it wasn't just Bush that's decided to go into Iraq. It was the American People that decided this. Bush may have been the insrument through which it was ordered, but the real fact is that WE are going into Iraq. Legally and morally, this is an action of the American People, led by the President of the United States.

The American People decided that there was enough question about Saddam's possession of WMD's to just say to hell with it and go look. That looking isn't done yet. It really hasn't even begun and won't, in earnest until the fighting is done.

That a vicious dictator is eliminated and his enslaved people are freed is just gravy. That democracy is inserted to the region is more gravy.

 

Huh? When did we surrender to NATO?

Weak. Sounds like that Sonny Bono anti-drug film they made us watch in the 60's

Like Afghanistan? All in due time. I figure that since North Korea is in the back yard of Russia, China, Japan and South Korea, we're giving them a chance to share in the heavy lifting!

 

Oh, is Dick Morris working for the Bush Administration now?

 

Actually I meant U.N. They didn't want us to go to war, but we still did. I thought it was supposed to go under a vote, and be an uninamonus (sp??) decision.

Like Afghanistan? All in due time. I figure that since North Korea is in the back yard of Russia, China, Japan and South Korea, we're giving them a chance to share in the heavy lifting!

I'm not trying to agrue with you, but I'm just trying to understand your stance on the issue.

I think what most people in Europe worry about is when "enough is enough". How many countries will US try to "libirate" before it becomes an issue of US trying to invade other countries for it's own economical gain???

The fact that there is no solid stance US has given for taking action against Iraq ia what worries me.