[TLBSHOW]

Anyone else thinking this way? Help!!


Nope! No one is thinking that way on this issue.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I sure wouldn't like it either. Having said that, to my mind there were other valid reasons to go in...one of them being that Saddam has always been a big supporter of terrorism. How does one have a War on Terror without taking out the sponsors? To me it was more important to take him out before he got the weapons. Believing that, I find it hypocritical to ignore Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians. THAT galls me.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I sure wouldn't like it either. Having said that, to my mind there were other valid reasons to go in...one of them being that Saddam has always been a big supporter of terrorism. How does one have a War on Terror without taking out the sponsors? To me it was more important to take him out before he got the weapons. Believing that, I find it hypocritical to ignore Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians, etc. THAT galls me.

[nopardons]

Are you certain that you really ARE a Conservative and that you belong here ?

We, as a nation, weren't " lied to " and the win / win situation, re the Iraq War, is that America is no longer viewed as a " paper tiger ", Saddam's regime is gone,Saddam's no longer sending money to the families of Pali suicide bomer killers, and this president just may pull off an Israeli/Pali peace plan. That's just for starters, newbie.

[america-rules]

A friend called me today and said what do you think of the WMD scam. I said are you questioning Presidant Clinton, VP Gore, the UN and the Clinton CIA ? He says what you mean. I said just look up Rush's site and you'll see many times where Clinton said Iraq has WMD etc and the line goes silent. He changed the subject !

[RJayneJ]

Exactly who is lying? George Bush the elder? Bill Clinton? The UN? They all claimed that Iraq had WMD. None made any stronger argument that they had them than Bill Clinton, so that would be a good place to start since he preceeds this president.

Quote of the Day by friendly

[Pro-Bush]

Patients...President Bush is very smart. He is setting up the Press and Democrats. Evidence will surface in July.

[stockpixx]

Are you a democratic plant???
You seem like one...
I love this Pres and it has only been like what 2 months???
Go back to DU where you belong OK???

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Do you smell something?

Is your skin tingling?

Just curious.

[wardaddy]

1) Lots of chem suits all over Iraq.
2) Aired communications between command in Iraq instructing them to prepare such weapons.
3) Use of said weapons before on Iraqi citizens and Iranians
4) Atomic Reactor thankfully destroyed by Israel with our birds 20 years ago.
5) Public testimony from a variety of defectors
6) UN Inspectors even claiming there was ample evidence before.
7) Abnormal levels of mustard and other nerve agents present in the Tigris and Euphrates

I could go on and on....nobody lied to you. These weapons are hidden well or were taken into Syria or elsewhere or destroyed perhaps after the invasion or more likely a combination of the above.

But above all I don't give a shite, we got rid of a terr sponsor, freed some folks living under a family of maniacs and sent a collassal message to our foes and the namby pambies that we are their overlords!!!

(sort of kidding on that last...couldn't resist)

[gaucho]

Lied is a strong word in this case. Assumptions may have been made that weapons where present and there was every indication to believe they where. Intelligence and reports from defectors certainly gave the impression that there was WMD development during the Clinton Administration and the current Bush Administration. Saddam certainly didn't help matters by playing cat and mouse games. Given the type of person Saddam is, his sponsorship of terrorism and his brutality (not to mention the links to WTC 93 and 2001) I think that President Bush did the right thing in taking him down. When it comes to evil people like Saddam, it's better to err on the side of our protection.

For example, the mobile facilities the US Armed Forces found which where just like the ones that Powell described at the UN in Feb where suspicious. If they really had nothing to hide, how come Saddam didn't produce these mobile facilities for inspection?

[Paleo Conservative]

It was Iraq that had the burden of proof to show it no longer had WMD. It kicked out UN inspectors in the 90s sent to make sure Iraq complied with the terms of the cease fire. I really don't care if Saddam did destroy all his WMD (which I seriously doubt). The world is better off without Saddam and his Baathist party. Both should have been eliminated back in 1991, but we didn't get rid of Hussein due to the concerns of some of the UN coalition partners.

Saddam's representatives signed a cease fire at Saffwan, Iraq in 1991. In that cease fire agreement, the Iraqi government was required to eliminate all WMD and submit to UN inspections to prove he no longer posessed them. The acts of intimidation against UN inspectors and throwing out were in fact violations of the cease fire agreement hence reason for resuming hostilities.

Unfortunately the US administration lacked cojones just like the French and British administrations in 1935 lacked cojones when Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by annexing and militarizing the Saar land. The lack of intervention in 1935 by the British and French against Germany when it was relatively militarily weak eventually lead to the outbreak of World War II. Perhaps you should read up on the history of the 1930s and how World War II could have been avoided.

[Consort]

I'd hate to think that I was lied to.

Than consider that Bush may have been lied to. You can do that without being loud.

But if it comes out that there was really no evidence...

WMDs were used in the past, there is no evidence that they were destroyed, etc, etc...That has all been acknowledged. You would see that if you weren't thinking so loudly.

... I'll be VERY P.O.'ed.

Get your priorities straight. There is enough to get p.o.'ed about with the Democrats to keep you p.o.'ed for the rest of your life. Why would you want to add to that misery by also being p.o.'ed by the Republicans? Are you a glutton for punishment?

[Northern Yankee]

Let not your heart be troubled.

In Oct. of 98 many prominant Dems signed a document stating that action needed to be taken because of the build up of WMD. The UN also noted that these weapons existed, and therefore inspections needed to take place to see that the agreements after the 91 Gulf War were being followed by Huessein.

Look if you were Saddam, would you want these weapons to be found, if you knew your regime was being threatened?!

Bush would not risk war unless he had good solid reasons why we needed to intervene.

If there were no weapons in Iraq, don't you think Saddam would have opened up his country completely to weapons inspections, rather than risk a war with the United States?

He had to know what was at stake!

[WFTR]

Regarding WMDs, Iraq had an obligation under the previous treaty to prove that they didn't have any WMDs. They failed to do so and were therefore in violation. They also promised not to have certain kinds of rockets, and they actually fired those rockets during the war. Iraq is a big country, and they had many months during which they pretty much knew that we were coming someday and would likely win. Rather than use weapons that couldn't save them, they played a PR game and quietly destroyed them. They likely hid the stuff needed to restart the program in the event that we didn't overthrow their regime.

Iraq was a friend of Al Qaeda. If we are going to win the war against terrorism, we must attack the terrorists and their friends at every good opportunity. We must keep attacking and killing them until they are all dead or until they surrender. Even if there had never been WMDs, attacking an ally of Al Qaeda was a good policy. We showed those worthless losers that being our enemy is a dangerous thing.

As we discover more mass graves of people killed in the Iraqi holocaust, it amazes me that people are still harping so much about the WMDs. I sometimes think that if FDR had been a conservative, these people would have stood in the ashes of the concentration camps and questioned whether we were right to defeat Hitler. We did the right thing in putting the former Iraqi regime out of power. We destroyed a madman's power base, somewhat avenged many who had died, and saved many who would have been killed in the future.

We did the right thing. All of this questioning is ridiculous.

Saving a few more jobs
Bill