Oh REALLY? Then please explain this! That is "if" you can: Explain what Dr Millar? How on earth does your quote refute the quote you took from Col G? Where in your quote is there a figure given? A mass grave is a grave with more than a few people in it. So 10 for instance. Thats hardly millions. Frankly the explaination is dead simple

Or maybe this link is better for you. It has "pictures" of the mass graves and they contain a LOT more than 10 people. You know, if you're going to call me on something that's fine. But do "try" to have your facts straight before you do.

If GWB had been President on Dec 7, 1941 he would have invaded China. After they are all Orientals.

If Col Gene had been President on Dec 7, 1941, he would have surrendered on Dec 8, 1941, and America would now be a part of the Great Imperial Japan

If GWB had been President on Dec 7, 1941 he would have invaded China. After they are all Orientals.

Invaded China? You got your history wrong. The Japanese were the fascists.

Yes I disagree that "Saddam was a threat".

Shooting missles at Israel does not count as a threat? Killing innocent Kurds does not count as a threat?
I think you have some soul searching to do... OK... I agree tht the US should not be in Iraq today, BUT Sadaam was a threat.

Give me a link that documents he killed millions.

If he killed only ONE he is a threat!

Manopeace has a point.

Saddam killed many people for no reason other than that he didn't like them. Even if he had killed only one person for that reason (and no other), he would be a threat.

Many people tend to forget that we must all work together to defend ourselves against people like Saddam. To say that he is not a threat to the US because he only fires missiles at Israel is just another example for the truth of pastor Niemoeller's famous saying.

And that ignores the fact that he also targeted British and American aircraft.

Manopeace has a point.

Well, thank you Andrew... this is the first time we agreed on anything! There is hope yet!

Drmiler

You have NOT given proof that Saddam killed "Millions" We all agree that Saddam was an evil person just like many other in this world. The reason Bush gave to invade Iraq was because HE WAS A DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES! How does him attacking Israel or killing his own people endanger the US? If that were true what about North Korea, Iran, Seria and many countries in Africa. They kill their own people and attack other countries. Some of them have the WMD that Saddam did not have like Iran and North Korea..

On December 8, 1941 I would have done just like we did by attacking those that were a danger to the United States not by attack another country and use up our military power on the wrong country like Bush did in Iraq.

Had the US attacked Japan once it was clear that Japan was a threat (to anybody!), the US could have saved a lot of American and foreign lives (not that there is a difference between them).

They were the ONLY group that was allowed to leave the U S in the days after 9/11.

That is a lie col. In fact, it's a Michael Moore lie. I see now that you do in fact get your "facts" from people like Michael Moore and liberal websites.

That conspiracy theory has been debunked so many times col, but that doesn't matter right?

That is correct. However, Saddam did not have an Army (of any strength), Air Force or Navy. Unlike Japan he was not creating a military power that was a threat to the United States. Of all the potential problem countries in the world, Iraq was low on that list and there was no reason to attack Iraq in early 2003. What was the urgency to act in early 2003? We had the UN Inspectors back in Iraq and the no fly zones. This war was an ELECTIVE war aginst a country that was no threat to America. Bush was wrong to attack Iraq. Congress would NEVER have approved attacking Iraq for any reason other then a danger to the U S. Not for Free elections, Not to enforce U N Resolutions, Not because he was Evil.

Congress would NEVER have approved attacking Iraq for any reason other then a danger to the U S. Not for Free elections, Not to enforce U N Resolutions, Not because he was Evil.

Col and your hindsight. You know nothing col.

The Congress voted to support the war.
Democrats said Saddam was a threat.
Democrats said Saddam had WMD.
Clinton indicted Saddam had ties to al-qaeda.

You col, are a hypocrit and democratic apologist.

Anyways col. It doesn't matter. We are in Iraq and Bush will be President until '08. There is nothing you or your mindless blogs can do about it.

Congress voted to support the war BECAUSE of WMD and the claim that Iraq was a threat to the U S.

Bush has used three reasons for this war.

WMD and threst
Saddam was Evil and broke U N Resolutions
Establish a democratic Iraq with free elections.

Congress voted to support the war BECAUSE of WMD and the claim that Iraq was a threat to the U S.

Col, Congress was not misled, lied to, or anything else the radical left tells you. You don't know what Congress would and wouldn't have voted for. Now get back to your pointless rants.

Col, why are you using Michael Moore lies in your posts. I guess you like being proved wrong.

Because the "moderate republican" Col Gene is about as moderate as Michael Moore's left hand.

For someone to take to heart the crap that spews out of Michael Moore's crusty mouth has to be far-left.....far far left.

Like the fairytale kingdom of Far Far A-Left

Because the only things the old Col is really telling us is his version of the Big Bad Wolf and the Three Little Pigs

Every member of Congress I heard talk about the War resolution said the same thing-- they voted because they were told Saddam had WMD and was a threat to this country. Neither of those things are true and that means if the facts were known, there would not have been a vote to go to war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one said they voted for war so the Iraqi people could vote or because Saddam was evil or violated UN Resolutions. This has NOTHING to do with the Right or left. These are the facts and you can replay what Bush, Cheney and Rummy said in late 2002 and early 2003 before we went to war!

Every member of Congress I heard talk about the War resolution said the same thing-- they voted because they were told Saddam had WMD and was a threat to this country. Neither of those things are true and that means if the facts were known, there would not have been a vote to go to war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess you just heard Ted Kennedy and Pelosi then. I have heard just the opposite.

Neither of those things are true and that means if the facts were known, there would not have been a vote to go to war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's only your opinion col. Stop trying to present it as fact.

Show me where ANY members of Congress said at the time of the vote that they voted to go to war for ANY reason other then WMD and that Iraq was a threat to This Country? You are all guilty of what the GOP claims the Democrats do-- Try and Change Histrory.

You are all guilty of what the GOP claims the Democrats do-- Try and Change Histrory.

And you are guilty of what all liberals do. Lie and distort facts because you can't stand up for anything.

Show me where ANY members of Congress said at the time of the vote that they voted to go to war for ANY reason other then WMD and that Iraq was a threat to This Country?

You are confusing yourself now col. You claimed before that they voted only for WMD's, now it's both WMD's and a threat. What a hypocrit.

But since you asked.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

The threat was because of the WMD. SHOW me ANY Member of Congress that said the voted for the war for ANY reason 0ther then WMD and the threat to this country!

Unless you can prove that , you are all full of BS.

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, "

Stop being such a hypocrit. Saddam was a threat, so you point is done as usual. You lost again col.

You still haven't proven any of your points. How pathetic.

How was Saddam a threat? He had no military or WMD. Face it we went to war for no good reason. We went to war predicated on conditions that DID NOT EXIST. What is pathetic is that we sent our brave military into harms way and there was no threat and therefore NO REASON to send them to war. In 2003, NO ONE said we are risking our military to spread Democracy in Iraq. NO ONE said we were sending our military to their death to enforce U N Resolutions or because Saddam was an Evil Dictator. WE SAID WE ARE SENDING THEM to defend America and now find out that there was NOTING to defend aginst in Iraq!!!!!