Skip to comments.
IRAQ HAD NO STOCKPILES...SO WHAT?
Neal Nize ^
| 10/7/04
| Neal Boortz
Posted on 10/07/2004 6:31:27 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
Doesnt nerve gas count as a WMD? What about teh book a "Bomb in My Gargen?" Isn't that about a nuclear device in a scientists back yard? We can either wait and and brace ourselves and then play defense or we can keep the score up like Steve Spurrier? I like the latter.
To: NotchJohnson
Stockpiles .... I just hate that word.
Clearly their were WMDs there but now its move the goal post time.
The whole thing just drives me nuts.
Everybody forgets about the resolutions and the SAMs being fired at our jets etc.
2
posted on
10/07/2004 6:33:48 AM PDT
by
hawkaw
To: NotchJohnson
Not sure why Sadaam outfitted his troops with gas masks then.
And the joke is supposed to be on us? Seems like the whole story is not out yet, that's all.
To: NotchJohnson
Saddam killed millions, used chemical weapons, invaded a neighboring country, attacked Israel with scud missiles, and violated the cease-fire from the first Gulf War. He needed to go, and the world is a better place for him being out of the picture.
4
posted on
10/07/2004 6:36:07 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
(It's sad that the news media treats Michael Jackson better than our military.)
To: ThirstyMan
Not sure why Sadaam outfitted his troops with gas masks then. Now there's a great point I've not heard mentioned since we entered Iraq.
To: NotchJohnson; All
I heard on Fox and Friends that it clearly states that Saddam was planning to re-introduce them as soon as the sanctions were lifted. He was in co-hoots with France, Germany, Russia, China and the U.N. to get the sanctions lifted by paying them off with money that was skimmed off the Oil for Food program. Eventually the sanctions would have been lifted if we hadn't have gone to war and Saddam would have stared to make them. I wish Bush would mention this in the debate. The Oil for Food program scandal is out there in the public now. It's not a secret.
6
posted on
10/07/2004 6:36:42 AM PDT
by
areafiftyone
(Democrats = the hamster is dead but the wheel is still spinning)
To: NotchJohnson
IRAQ HAD NO STOCKPILES...SO WHAT? So what? Over a thousand U.S. soldiers are dead and thousands more wounded for reasons that prove to be untrue, and all Neal can say about that is "So what?" According to the report all it took to keep a lid on Hussein's WMD program was UN santions. Wouldn't keeping those in place have been cheaper than the invasion?
7
posted on
10/07/2004 6:37:13 AM PDT
by
Non-Sequitur
(Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
To: NotchJohnson
As Dick Morris said on Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor Saint FDR did not attack Japan, he attacked Germany and Italy.
Fascism had many fronts, just as Islamofascist terrorism has many fronts. Iraq was the most logical first target because it was a piece of cake to defeat, and it gives us a base of operations in the heart of Islamofascist Land.
We have troops right next door to Iran now, and if they come up with a nuke, we will take it out.
Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, which alone justifies taking out Saddam.
8
posted on
10/07/2004 6:38:33 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
To: NotchJohnson
CIA adviser says Iraq had no banned weapons since 1991 Is this the same "slam dunk" CIA?
I am beginning to question how ruthless and unethical the CIA is. I always thought it was rather silly to suggest that the CIA was involved with assassinating President Kennedy but I am beginning to have my doubts.
The CIA is far more involved in politics than I ever imagined. This group failed the American people. This is one very incompetent group.
9
posted on
10/07/2004 6:41:18 AM PDT
by
boycott
To: NotchJohnson
But what's also interesting in this case, is that some of the other more important testimony by Duelfer is being ignored. For instance, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he merely put them on hold. As soon as the heat was off, he was going to start making nuclear weapons. He had the ability and the desire.That was exactly the point I thought was so important. IMO, there is no difference between him haveing them and just waiting for a chance to get them. I wondered, why aren't they hammering that part of the report up more.
Becky
To: Non-Sequitur
So what? Over a thousand U.S. soldiers are dead and thousands more wounded for reasons that prove to be untrue, and all Neal can say about that is "So what?" According to the report all it took to keep a lid on Hussein's WMD program was UN santions. Wouldn't keeping those in place have been cheaper than the invasion? When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Saint FDR did not attack Japan, he attacked Germany.
Was Saint FDR wrong?
11
posted on
10/07/2004 6:43:08 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Becky,
There is a template for the media. Only report the points that would hurt Bush. It is amazing he is not losing to Kerry and very welll may beat him.
To: NotchJohnson
I will never be satisfied until someone explains what Iraq did with the
anthrax. I never get a rat's ass about "stockpiles" of chemically-armed shells on missiles that could go a few hundred miles. It was
always about anthrax (and perhaps smallpox) for me.
And the thing is, I see no way that any amount of "inspections" or "reports" could clear Saddam of having had anthrax. This stuff is just not big.
People have this idea that "WMD" are BIG THINGS sitting in a BIG warehouse so, if you don't find anything like that, then No WMD.
This is not true - at all - when we are talking about anthrax.
Do you hear me, "inspectors"? Tell me where the f**king anthrax went and then maybe I'll start to care what you say.
To: NotchJohnson
Let's be honest about something. Most of us who supported the war in Iraq did so because we knew that Saddam had to go. I myself took the viewpoint that Saddam probably did not have any "significant" WMDs at the time (except mustard gas and maybe some other chemical weapons), but would very gladly produce more dangerous WMDs and in the cloak of the night, pass them off to Extremist organizations who would use them in Isreal or the United States.
let's face it, as organized and as large as Al Queda was in Afghanistan and around the world, they could never build the facilities to create a nuclear weapon. Their only hope, and the only hope of terrorists organizations to get their hands on a significant WMD, is to receive one from a sympathetic Nation-State with the capabilities to produce them. This is the reason why Iran and N.Korea are very serious problems.
Finding stockpiles would have legitimized the publically states reasons for invading Iraq, but not finding them does NOT de-legitimize those non-publicly stated reasons for going into Iraq. The read-between-the-lines reasons for invading Iraq was to stabilize the middle-east for democracy and destabilize the middle east for subversive and extremeist organizations.
DNC error
14
posted on
10/07/2004 6:45:55 AM PDT
by
z3n
To: NotchJohnson
Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction. just ask the guys who had their hands cut off for speaking out.
15
posted on
10/07/2004 6:45:59 AM PDT
by
Rakkasan1
(Justice of the Piece:If Marx is your hero, Kerry is your candidate.)
To: NotchJohnson
If they are not in another terrorist supporting nation or still buried in the desert, then the scientist were ripping off Saddam because he sure wanted WMD's.
What about the 500 tons of Uranium? I wonder if that doesn't count because the international community said it's "OK" for the Iraqis to have that?
San Diego Union Tribune
16
posted on
10/07/2004 6:46:05 AM PDT
by
DocRock
('X' marks the spot... where Charley, Frances and Jeanne crossed paths and where I live!)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Saint FDR did not attack Japan, he attacked Germany. Morris is wrong. We declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us on December 11th.
17
posted on
10/07/2004 6:46:42 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
(It's sad that the news media treats Michael Jackson better than our military.)
To: NotchJohnson
You are right "WHO CARES' if there wasn't any stockpiles of WMD's. I believe the real reason that we chose Irac was th draw the terrorist to one place. I heard some use the analogy that if you wanted to catch flies you hung the fly paper outside so that it would catch the flies before they came inside. The plan has worked perfect. We are a military family so I do no dismiss the loss of everyone of the brave that has lost their lives in this was, but we loose thousands and thousands of young people every year to pointless deaths such as, teenagedrivers, drunks not to mention the loss of life from shootings and other forms of violence.
To: Rakkasan1
To: NotchJohnson; Non-Sequitur
Heard someone say yesterday, Saddam was a WMD and we found him. I agree with you we need to articulate our reasons for war in a better way, and the (high) costs need to be justified in a better way.
See my post #10 over there:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237707/posts
20
posted on
10/07/2004 6:47:12 AM PDT
by
beckaz
(MSM: We have and are yesterday's news)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson