IRAQ HAD NO STOCKPILES...SO WHAT?

Neal Nize ^ | 10/7/04 | Neal Boortz

[jgorris]

There are no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

No stockpiles found so far. However, what wasn't dumped down the Euphrates river the first few days of the war will eventually be dug up or will eventually be discovered to have been moved to, or through Syria.

[Mark17]

Lucky they didn't get put through a shredder or get dismantled by a pack of dogs.

Yes, you are right. It amazes me how evil some people can be. I am sure there is a very hot corner of Hell, reserved for him and other scum sucking dirt bags like him.

[Mark17]

Hands, ears, tongues, penises, tesicles, fingers, toes, heads, arms, legs - and then the shredders - oh, and don't forget the mass graves with bullet ridden bodies and gassed victims

Yes, he is a real POS. Unfortunately, he is not alone in the world.

[Rakkasan1]

...hope there's room for his sons. they were even worse than
pops.

[Mark17]

...hope there's room for his sons. they were even worse than pops.

I have no doubt they are feeling the flames, as we speak.

[Vineyard]

So you have no problem with Saddam continuing to gain billions of dollars via oil sales (masked by the UN scammed program), and he diverts money to terrorists.

So you have no problems with Saddam encouraging suicide bomber/terrorist attacks by his grants of $25,000 to families of suicide bombers.

So you have no problem with the fact that Saddam would typically kill between 5,000 and 10,000 per month as a way of controlling/terrorizing the Iraqi population.

So you wouldn't have problems with Saddam slipping money to the Al Qaeda organization.

Sounds perfectly reasonable and logical for anyone seeking the Neville Chamberlain Award in International Politics.

Hey people ... I have figured it out.... Michael181Dus must be either Kerry or Edwards lurking here at FreeRepublic!!!

[Michael81Dus]

Have you intentionally misinterpreted my post?
But yeah, you´re right, I´m Edwards - and FR is the reason why I´ve missed so many Senate votes in the last sessions! Seriously, I think that this war could have been delayed for 6-12 months, to prepare better for the after-war-time and to prepare the public better for what came then. If you don´t agree, fine. But don´t put me under the charge of approving crimes.

[zook]

"This guy obviously hasn't lost any kids in Iraq, sent there because we were told Saddam was an imminent threat who had WMDs."

I have friends and family in Iraq. I'm proud and they are proud of what they have accomplished over there. We could not keep sanctions on Iraq indefinitely. Saddam would soon have retooled and restarted his WMD programs (and that's stated in the latest report).

You're lying about "imminent threat" and you know it. As the president has stated and as any real conservative understands, America can't wait for threats to become imminent.

[Vineyard]

I am not trying to mis-represent your post ... but your logic is faulty.

Either we do something about taking Saddam out because he represents a big risk ... or we tolerate those risks and the continued crimes against humanity that he continues to perpetuate.

Kerry and Edwards want to have it both ways ... but at present, they sound like we should have done nothing. And therefore they don't give a damn about the potential murders of (assuming ONLY 5,000 Iraqis killed per month) - about 90,000 Iraqis during the period between when we took out his regime and now. Sure, there have been deaths... but they are a fraction of what would have occurred otherwise. Sure, it has been costly in terms of American soldiers and taxpayer dollars ... but with Saddam slipping terrorist millions of dollars, the terrorists might have been able to strike us here at home - untold devastation and loss of life - perhaps equal to or worse than 9/11 - but for the fact that the terrorists are drawn, like flys to flypaper, to Iraq to try and keep us from being successful there lest they loose big time if a democracy is established in the Middle East.

The military, for the most part, is PROUD! to be there an be making a difference. The military supports Pres. Bush by a 4 to 1 margin (that 80% pro, 20% anti). The military is all-volunteer ... and the morale of the troops in Iraq is high because they feel that they are making a difference. BUT THAT DAMN TRAITOR KERRY IS UNDERCUTTING THEM ... JUST LIKE HE DID IN 1971, with his LYING testimony.

Bottom line ... President Bush took legitimate action when he did ... and Monday Morning Quarterbacking can still come up with a wrong answer. Our nation, and the world, is a safer place because of actions that Pres. Bush took. The Iraqi people - at least about 95% of them, are thankful for what we did.

Mike

[tob2]

No stock piles of complete WMD? What about the bits and pieces found in schools, hospitals, private residences? What about airplanes Saddam wasn't supposed to have found buried in the sand? Hey, how about checking to see whats in the sand! What about small test-tube size vials of biological WMD? A test tube can be hid in your robe. And what about the fact that lots of stuff was shipped out of the country as the U.S.A. was advancing on Baghdad?

These people who claim there were no WMD are as delusional as those who refuse to believe the Holocaust happened.