My opinion has been confirmed by events on the ground. The ease with which we defeated Saddam and the fact there was no WMD!

Your opinion does not match the facts. Prior to the continuation of the Gulf war Saddam said he had WMD and broke his agreement to allow the UN to destroy those weapons. Where did those weapons that Saddam said he had go? Or is your contention that the UN, France, Germany, Russia, Iraq, Spain, all lie about what they knew Iraq had in order to allow Mr. Bush to go to war? You see if Mr. Bush lied to go to war then Iraq had to lie about what WMD the nation had.

The fact that 140,000 American troops could destroy Saddam's military in two months PROVES that he was NO threat to this country.

I understand your desire to remain ignorant of the truth but keep in mind that a threat is any word or action that causes one to fear. Saddam threatened to give or sell WMD in his stockpile to AQ and other terrorist groups. It does not mean that he has a hope in hell of winning a battle in order to be a threat. I could threaten to punch you in the nose but I don't know where you live. It is not a big threat but should I see you and you know what I look like you would feel the threat more strongly. His threats were laughed at until 9/11 we could see how he could carry out the threat without doing more than handing over a truck load of toys. Are you suggesting that he did not have the ability to send a truck load of WMD to some place? If you believe this then where did the WMD he said he had go? I guess he had the ability to transport them. It also looks like he carried out the threat since we can't find what he said he had.

We went AGINST the UN and were NEVER the enforcement agent for the UN. The UN resolutions have NOTHING to do with Saddam being a danger to the U.S.

Saddam could not sell what he did not have! North Korea is a far more likely agent to sell WMD then Iraq. We attacked a country that was NO danger to America and have KILLED 3,000 Americans and injured 22,000 for NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The UN resolutions have NOTHING to do with Saddam being a danger to the U.S."

I eagerly await your article condemning the celebrity cause of trying to get the US to intervene in the Darfur situation. Obviously Darfur isn't a threat to the US. Or is that off limits because it is a quasi-Liberal cause?

P.S.:

Scientists find stem cell source in amniotic fluid.

Saddam could not sell what he did not have! North Korea is a far more likely agent to sell WMD then Iraq. We attacked a country that was NO danger to America and have KILLED 3,000 Americans and injured 22,000 for NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As I told you before, Saddams WMD's were never accounted for.  The question is what did he do with his WMD's, because he had them before.

What is the point of having the U.N. if the resolutions it passes are not enforced?  Who is going to enforce the U.N. resolutions?  I would say U.N. peacekeepers but they are far too busy raping women to be bothered with something like that.

I eagerly await your article condemning the celebrity cause of trying to get the US to intervene in the Darfur situation. Obviously Darfur isn't a threat to the US. Or is that off limits because it is a quasi-Liberal cause?

Hmm...

Scientists find stem cell source in amniotic fluid.

yeah, i saw that on the news the other day,,,very promising research...it could, possibly, put this controversy to rest eventually if later tests reflect early results, that have been quite stellar.

but i do believe the jury is still out on this one,,,but excellent point from this week's buried headlines as we all focus on Iraq.

IslamdDog

At the time Bush invaded Iraq the U N Inspectors had returned to Iraq and had Bush allowed them more time we would have learned what we know today- The was no WMD. There was NO reason that we had to invade Iraq in March 2003. There was no danger or urgency for us to rush into war. We were not attacked by Saddam or in any danger of being attacked by him. This was a war of choice not necessity!

The only WMD we were sure Saddam EVER had was poison gas which he used against the Kurds. That is the ONLY WMD we found in Iraq in those old artillery shells. There was NEVER any proof Saddam had Bio or nuclear weapons.

There was NEVER any proof Saddam had Bio or nuclear weapons.

There "was" however Saddam's word that he had the bio weapons. But you're right about him never actually having nukes.

At the time Bush invaded Iraq the U N Inspectors had returned to Iraq and had Bush allowed them more time we would have learned what we know today- The was no WMD. There was NO reason that we had to invade Iraq in March 2003. There was no danger or urgency for us to rush into war. We were not attacked by Saddam or in any danger of being attacked by him. This was a war of choice not necessity!

There was no reason to attack the taliban according to your standards col. 

You can complain all you want, but it will not change anything.  We are there and you guys had your chance to vote out Bush, and it didn't happpen.  At least we have one branch of government who wants a victory. 

The only WMD we were sure Saddam EVER had was poison gas which he used against the Kurds. That is the ONLY WMD we found in Iraq in those old artillery shells. There was NEVER any proof Saddam had Bio or nuclear weapons.

There was proof col, but you choose not to see it because it goes against your talking points.  Hillary Clinton told me Saddam was developing weapons and was a threat, there was no reason for her to lie to me col. 

"We were not attacked by Saddam or in any danger of being attacked by him. This was a war of choice not necessity!"

You wanna rattle off a list of the wars we've fought that began without a danger of being attacked? Could you quote where in the handbook you are reading from that such is a requirement? You're acting as if your point has some sort of meaning, but damned if I can figure out what it is.

You let me know when you figure out what page and paragraph that "only when in danger of attack" thing is on, mmkay? We had a ceasefire, and he violated it, often. We didn't need any other reason.

IslandDog

There was every reason to attack the Taliban because they provided al Quadra the ability to plan the attack on 9/11. There was NO SUCH thing by Saddam and Iraq.

Bakerstreet

The Iraq War was Preemptive and against a country that did not have the ability to attack the United States. It would be like attacking China after December 7, 1941. If we start attacking any country that has dangerous weapons and leaders that wish us harm, we better start the DRAFT and build about a 20 Million person Army, expend the navy to about 1,000 ships, triple the Air Force. We need to go on a “war footing” like in 1941.

There was no reason to invade Iraq in March 2003. We were NOT in ANY Immediate danger. In fact we were not in any danger from being attacked by Iraq. It was all Hype. Bush and Cheney had the Intelligence that said Saddam had no nuclear capability but that used the terror of mushroom clouds to get Congress and the American People to allow us to invade Iraq. That was a LIE and is cause to impeach both Bush and Cheney!

Baker, Armitage and Powell, all of whom were a lot more informed then Bush, warned him of the danger of invading Iraq. Every warning they gave Bush has come to pass. Bush had NO experience in either Foreign policy or Military planning. He failed to listen to those that had the experience and now we see the results!

" It would be like attacking China after December 7, 1941."

Or like... attacking Korea after WW2. Or attacking Iraq after it invaded Kuwait. Or Bosnia. Or the invasion of Grenada.

You're good at repeating yourself, no doubt, but again I'll ask you where you come up with this rule that you can only get into wars with people who are an immediate danger to you?


...and again, I'll ask why you aren't railing against people who are demanding our involvement in Darfur? Do they feel threatened by Darfur? Does Darfur have WMDs?

There was every reason to attack the Taliban because they provided al Quadra the ability to plan the attack on 9/11. There was NO SUCH thing by Saddam and Iraq.

Saddam supported and funded terrorism also col.  You keep repeating the same thing, but you have already had your chance to vote for a democratic President, and you lost.  It's time to move on and get over it.

Bakerstreet

You avoid the issue-- How were we in danger from being attacked by Saddam? That is the JUSTIFICATION Bush gave to Congress and the American People to attack Iraq. That justification was a LIE and Bush knew the nuclear threat, which was the major danger he and Cheney said existed, did not exist. If we could look ahead we may be attacking Pakistan for example. Just think of that country under a government like the one in Iran? If YOU believe that is not possible you are kidding yourself. We must act on the information available at the time we make a choice. That information in 2003 did not justify attacking Iraq and the dangers of doing so were clearly pointed out to Bush who ignored those warnings. What we see today is the result of leadership totally devoid of any real experience and one who refused to head the advice from those with the experience.

No, you avoid the issue. Where is it written that we can only attack people that directly threaten us?

and again, I'll ask why you aren't railing against people who are demanding our involvement in Darfur? Do they feel threatened by Darfur? Does Darfur have WMDs?

are you talking strictly military involvement?

i'm not sure what exactly is the best course of action there (and i don't claim to be an expert, i know a few things like a lot of people,,,)but i'm not convinced that a military ground invasion is the way to go...i do think we can help in some way, just not convinced on how...your thoughts?

Bakerstreet

As I said if we are to begin attacking countries that do not directly threaten us we become what we are fighting against. As the world's only Super Power, such a policy will bring other countries, including our allies, to distrust our actions. The American People will not support such a policy. Our military can not deal with such a policy. It is one thing to send our military into danger when we are in danger. That was NOT the case in Iraq.

The CLAIM by Bush and Cheney that we were in immediate danger (Mushroom clouds) was a LIE and you and I know it was just that. The Intelligence was not wrong about the fact that Saddam did not have such weapons in 2002 or that he DID NOT HAVE program in 2002 to develop such weapons. The only thing Bush points to is a “Desire” by Saddam to have such weapons. Many dictators would like to have a few such weapons to keep them in power. In addition, as I have pointed out, far more knowledgeable people warned of the danger of invading Iraq just like they warned Bush 41. We are not safer AFTER this war and the Bush Foreign Policy through the Middle East is a complete failure. There is NOT A SINGLE area where his foreign policies have helped make us safer!

Me neither. I think it is a lot like Rwanda, frankly, and while there is a moral imperative to do something, there probably isn't any good answer. Kind of like the situation with Saddam starving his nation to death and building his resources during the sanctions.

"As I said if we are to begin attacking countries that do not directly threaten us we become what we are fighting against.

Then you have to admit that for the last century we have been what we are fighting against, period. Of the major wars we've fought, we've only been preemptively attacked in what, one? Two if you count Afghanistan.

If you count WW1, then you have to admit that with the downing of our jetliners we PASSED UP several opportunities for war. In reality, no, we dig into wars quite often when we aren't directly threatened. Picking out Bush ignores other presidents that have done the same.

As I said if we are to begin attacking countries that do not directly threaten us we become what we are fighting against. As the world's only Super Power, such a policy will bring other countries, including our allies, to distrust our actions. The American People will not support such a policy. Our military can not deal with such a policy. It is one thing to send our military into danger when we are in danger. That was NOT the case in Iraq. The CLAIM by Bush and Cheney that we were in immediate danger(Mushroom clouds) was a LIE and you and I know it was just that. The Intelligence was not wrong about the fact that Saddam did not have such weapons in 2002 or that he DID NOT HAVE program in 2002 to develop such weapons. The only thing Bush points to is a “Desire” by Saddam to have such weapons. Many dictators would like to have a few such weapons to keep them in power. In addition, as I have pointed out, far more knowledgeable people warned of the danger of invading Iraq just like they warned Bush 41. We are not safer AFTER this war and the Bush Foreign Policy through the Middle East is a complete failure. There is NOT A SINGLE area where his foreign policies have helped make us safer!

Okay, COL. I'll repeat Bakerstreet's question. IF we must be under direct, imminent threat before acting, why are you not decrying all of the bleeding hearts that demand action be taken in Darfur? I have yet to see how a small, African country that's in worse condition than Appalachian America (sorry Baker, one of the first examples I could think of from personal experience) is a threat to us. Yet, we're being encouraged (okay, it's more like they're DEMANDING us) to intervene.

So, disregarding the human rights violations (a point in the favor of going into both Iraq and Darfur, btw), the violations of an internationally sactioned cease fire, the support and training of terrorist organizations, and the complete disregard for any of the UN Sanctions/aid programs, what WOULD you consider a valid reason for going in? Oh, right. Nothing. According to you, a country would have to be a clear and present danger before we'd step in.

Okay, so WWII Germany, Panama, Grenada, Spanish-American War, Civil War (technically by your definition) and even the Revolutionary War. All of these should've been avoided? 'cause there was not Clear and Present Danger?

I got one thing for you, then. Learn how to say "Long live the Queen!"

WW I and WW II, The First Gulf War and Korea were very different from Iraq. They were clear and present dangers. The American Revolution and our Civil War were to establish and maintain our country. The Revolutionary War was to liberate us from King George III? Who fought our Civil War? We can not police the human rights and depose dictators that abuse their people. We can not fight other countries Civil Wars the way we are in Iraq!

We have enough to deal with the needs of this country which we ignore i.e. rebuilding the Gulf after Katrina or rebuilding the ageing infrastructure in our country! Just think of the $500 Billion we wasted in Iraq. That could have completely rebuilt EVERY home and business in the Gulf Area and we would have had change left! Add the future cost from Iraq and we could have paid to protect our ports and borders.

The Bush legacy will be one of an arrogant and ineffective leader. A man that made everything he touched worse for our country. The Next several presidents and congresses will be stuck fixing the things GWB destroyed!!!!! The cost to the American Taxpayer will be enormous and will take decades to fix!

Oh the drama.

WW I and WW II, The First Gulf War and Korea were very different from Iraq. They were clear and present dangers. The American Revolution and our Civil War were to establish and maintain our country. The Revolutionary War was to liberate us from King George III? Who fought our Civil War? We can not police the human rights and depose dictators that abuse their people. We can not fight other countries Civil Wars the way we are in Iraq!

So then you're saying that Germany was a threat to the US in WW1&2? Baloney! And the same with our Revolutionary War. There was NO threat to us! According to your doctrine the Rev War should have "never" been fought. I also noted that you completely skipped over the Spanish American war & the War of 1812. Was there a danger to the US at that time? NO! Just a bunch of greedy Americans who wanted more land for the first one. And NO danger to US on the 1812 one.

drmiler

Only a FOOL would equate Iraq with WWI, WWII The American Revolution, Korea or the Our Civil War. Dream on you FOOL!

"Only a FOOL would equate Iraq with WWI, WWII The American Revolution, Korea or the Our Civil War. Dream on you FOOL!"/

You are asserting that it is morally wrong to go to war unless there is a direct threat, col. Then, when faced with the fact that we have gone to lots of wars without being directly threatened, you say there's no comparison and call names.

You're the one making the assertion that we needed to fit some sort of criteria, then you ignore the fact that your imposed criteria has never really been required.