Of course Saddam had them. He used them on his own people.

I can think of a hundred thousand reasons why Saddam needed
to be stopped. Can you doubt it?

I don't believe Bush lied. He made the right decision based on
the information he had. I also know that much of the intelligence
the President has at his disposal will never be revealed to insure
it won't be compromised.

Bush sent a message to the world. Tyrants will be punished.

I can only fault him for taking so long to respond. He has more
patience that I. He showed great diplomatic restraint. He shows
the proper resolve now, not to let thugs rule by terror.

I fault many other nations for failing to step forward and
address issues like this throughout the world. The USA can't
do it alone. It is too bad the UN is inept and unable to take
decisive action when it needs to be done.

Donal wrote

Tell me, Bart! Do you still believe that Saddam had WMD?

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
...
Of course Saddam had them. He used them on his own people.

When did he use them on his own people?

Why did the Allies do nothing at the time?


I can think of a hundred thousand reasons why Saddam needed
to be stopped. Can you doubt it?

Yes.

In international law there is only *one* acceptable reason to invade a
sovereign state.

If you can think of more than one reason, then you are favouring the
disregard of international law.



I don't believe Bush lied.

Really? He said that Saddam had WMD. Do you still believe that Saddam had
WMD when the invasion occurred?


He made the right decision based on
the information he had. I also know that much of the intelligence
the President has at his disposal will never be revealed to insure
it won't be compromised.

Nonsense!



Bush sent a message to the world. Tyrants will be punished.

No .... the message is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.


I can only fault him for taking so long to respond. He has more
patience that I. He showed great diplomatic restraint. He shows
the proper resolve now, not to let thugs rule by terror.

He is a thug. He rules Iraq by terror.



I fault many other nations for failing to step forward and
address issues like this throughout the world. The USA can't
do it alone. It is too bad the UN is inept and unable to take
decisive action when it needs to be done.

So, you are saying that a mental defective, like Bush, can override the UN??



Regards

Donal
--

"Bart Senior" wrote

I can think of a hundred thousand reasons why Saddam needed
to be stopped. Can you doubt it?

Then please share them with us. Frankly, I cannot come up with a single
reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after
Saddam, let alone spend millions of dollars and hundreds of American lives -
not to mention Iraqis.

Frankly, I cannot come up with a single
reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after
Saddam......


You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you
remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him?
Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what the
liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those seeking
Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post make
me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind.

They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead of
100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now
if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something.
We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes
trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Frankly, I cannot come up with a single
reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after
Saddam......


You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you
remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him?
Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what
the
liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those
seeking
Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post
make
me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind.

That's bull****, and everyone who has read your carping knows it. If the US
had 100k troops in Afghanistan, you'd be carping about readiness elsewhere,
Pakistan's rights, etc.

They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead of
100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now
if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something.
We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes
trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Frankly, I cannot come up with a single
reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after
Saddam......


You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you
remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him?
Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what
the
liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those
seeking
Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post
make
me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind.

They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead
of
100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now
if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something.
We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes
trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke.


Bush has 10,000 people looking for Bin Laden (one man) and you still want
more!!! Wow, you are pretty hard to please I would say.

I know you said they are also keeping Afghanistan stable, but they are
looking for ole Bin too.

FamilySailor wrote:
Bush has 10,000 people looking for Bin Laden (one man) and you still want
more!!! Wow, you are pretty hard to please I would say.

I know you said they are also keeping Afghanistan stable, but they are
looking for ole Bin too.

I see, the Army has it's troops multitasking now?

Most of the Army's approx 11,500 men in Afghanistan are assigned to keep
the Karzai gov't stable & in power; training the new Afghan national
army. Exactly how many are hunting for Osama Bin Laden is not clear
(funny how the Army likes to obfuscate these things) but it's probably
not more than 1500 and definitely not more than 3,000... that would be
over 25% of deployed strength.

An argument could be made that it is a job for the most elite units, not
mass numbers, but would more troops decrease the odds???

If Bush & Cheney had not gone on their little spree in Iraq, for reasons
they cannot seem to explain, there would be plenty of troops to hunt
OBL. As it is, we have to rely on Pakistan to do it. And you know they
are one of our biggest friends, right?!?

Sometimes the "logic" of you Bush/Cheney fans is really amazing.

DSK

Yeah, I do want more. I want what's appropriate to the threat. We had
100K+ in Iraq to catch one guy, someone who had nothing to do with
9/11 or WMDs.

Isn't that the point? They're unable to keep AG stable, because in part
there are not enough troops.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead
of
100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now
if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something.
We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes
trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke.


Bush has 10,000 people looking for Bin Laden (one man) and you still want
more!!! Wow, you are pretty hard to please I would say.

I know you said they are also keeping Afghanistan stable, but they are
looking for ole Bin too.

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...

You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you
remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him?
Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what
the
liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those
seeking
Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post
make
me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind.

Do you really believe that Iraq hasn't distracted attention from the hunt
for Bin Laden?

The word "stupid" comes to mind..... so does the word "gullible" ..... along
with the phrase "two short planks".

Before the invasion of Iraq, we were told that Saddam had connections with
Bin Laden.

We now know that US administrations provided more support (financial and
technical) for Bin Laden than Iraq ever did.


Regards


Donal
--