HUssein couldnt have moved the weapons? and dont say we were watching him, because under cover of darkness sats arent that effective.
If you base your entire argument against the war and Bush on WMD's you are in trouble. More evidence exist that they are WMD's than not. And article written by a reporter is NOT evidence. Use reports to back up your claims if needed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm

No WMD in Iraq, source claims^

I believe there is more evidence that he didn't have WMD's...then he did.

You've given me reports that say he didn't have WMD's, but that they didn't account for everything. That is not hard evidence, and not good evidence to go to war on.

David Kay, Blix and almost all UN inspectors said Saddam didn't have WMD's.

Colin Powell even says that Iraq most likely didn't have them before the war.

And satellites would have been able to pick up any suspicious activities of shipping the weapons or hiding them.

Originally posted by Overdose
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm

No WMD in Iraq, source claims^

I believe there is more evidence that he didn't have WMD's...then he did.

You've given me reports that say he didn't have WMD's, but that they didn't account for everything. That is not hard evidence, and not good evidence to go to war on.

David Kay, Blix and almost all UN inspectors said Saddam didn't have WMD's.

Colin Powell even says that Iraq most likely didn't have them before the war.

And satellites would have been able to pick up any suspicious activities of shipping the weapons or hiding them.
Wrong Blix never said he didnt have them in any official documents and neither did kay or Poweel but they have made remarks that they may not have existed.
I know that if we hadnt attacked Iraq and he helped Al Qaeda deliver a chem attack on our people you would be one of the first to say Bush failed us and let Iraq attack us. With you guys there is no winning is there? Kind of like my kids, no matter what I say or do I am wrong.

"I think that the vast majority of people are feeling that there is very little likelihood that they had anything, and the biggest chance is that they destroyed them in 1991," he said.

http://www.dawn.com/2003/12/24/int2.htm

---------------------

The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according to an interview broadcast yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C1044511%2C00.html
----------------

"We have not found at this point actual weapons," the expert told reporters after giving closed door briefings to the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees on the work of the Iraq Survey Group.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C4057%2C7447463%255E2%2C00.html

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Overdose
[B]"I think that the vast majority of people are feeling that there is very little likelihood that they had anything, and the biggest chance is that they destroyed them in 1991," he said.

Destroyed them in 91? ok then lets look at some facts supplied by Blix, he said in 00 that Hussein was still hiding his wmd's, and again in 02. So what was he hiding?

I guess he was hiding something that isn't in Iraq?

Or maybe he was hiding something, that Bush knew exactly where it was!

Because he told us he knew Saddam had weapons. He didn't say he was hiding or "could have them" but that he DOES have them and that he knows exactly where they are.

But, funny...were are all the "missing" weapons that Bush knew "exactly" where they were?

He moved them, dont you see that when we went to the places they were supposed to be we found traces of the chems but not the weapons themselves. SO it is quite obvious they have been moved, most likely sent to Syria or the hands of Al Qaeda. Dont you dare say that well now he has made us more unsafe, because he said they were there amd if Hussein gave them to Al Qaeda that proves everything I said about Hussein because he would have to done this before we attacked. SO then I guess he was a threat and had ties to AL Qaeda.

He moved them? And what source, or documentation do you have to support that? Maybe he really did disarm? Ever think of that?

But even if he did move them, the reason we invaded Iraq is because saddam possessed WMD’s, that you say were moved. So then I guess Bush’s reasoning for the war is just fake and wrong.

Besides, if you believe he could secretly move them to Syria or to the hands of Al Qaeda you’re not thinking clearly.
With satellites, and the UN being in Iraq, it would have been hard. You cannot just take huge WMD's and transport it away.

But regardless why didn’t President Bush use this? Why did he tell the American public he “had them” and that he knew “exactly where they were”. But now you say they were moved?

Well then how do we know where they are if you only have assumptions to where they are located at.

Getting Saddam out of power didn’t make us more safe, because, he didn’t have the weapons…and we should have focused (if they were moved) to that spot.

But you give me links to say he did have weapons, to support Bush's reasons? But now say they were moved, so he really didn’t have weapons??

What is it that you dont get about how long it takes to move weapons? Could have been done in a week. So we are sitting in Kuwait waiting to attack Iraq and he is moving the weapons, so we go in and the weapons are on the way out the back. Remember that Turkey didnt want troops coming in through there so we didnt have the chance to cut the retreat or run to Syria.
Facts? search it, I have posted the reports from Mossad and from Syrian defectors that say the weapons are there.
Ok lets go to Syria, I am up for it how about you?
By the way take a break and go to Chat Central and sign the Beirut Stamp petition

Ever heard of satellites? Or maybe those countries would have found or saw them doing this? It's not that hard to tell if he is transporting weapons.

Honestly, we haven't found weapons, and I've explained my case for why he didn't have them. You believe they were not in Iraq, and Bush's claims were MUCH different. I keep having to repeat myself and it's getting old.

here you go, a quote by David Kay, wow go figure.


David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of

Now the links


WMD's in Syria (http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/2003/October/WMD/wmd.html)


WMd's moved (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq2)

Do you NOT understand that Bush’s reason for the Iraq War was because Saddam had weapons?

Now you are saying that he didn’t have weapons and they moved. Well then we had NO reason to go into Iraq, with all the reports saying he didn’t have WMD’s.

Bush reasons were wrong, and backed by false intelligence. We should go after the WMD’s and follow them. But funny, President Bush never once mentioned this…hmm? I wonder why? Maybe he just wanted to get Saddam, and he pulled any reason he could to attack him, when really the Weapons were in Syria…and Saddam did disarm as the UN reported. Making the 10,000 Iraqi deaths, prisoner abuse, and our 500 billion dollar deficit useless. We saved them from a bad man, but again, that was not the first reason nor a concern of Americans and the Bush Administration.

Originally posted by Overdose
Ever heard of satellites? Or maybe those countries would have found or saw them doing this? It's not that hard to tell if he is transporting weapons.

Honestly, we haven't found weapons, and I've explained my case for why he didn't have them. You believe they were not in Iraq, and Bush's claims were MUCH different. I keep having to repeat myself and it's getting old.
Ok so dont say anymore, but ignoring the evidence in the UN report is making a mistake, and saying that Bush and Powell and so on said they are no WMD's makes no sense to me, this is the administration that you said lied in this very thread. SO do you believe them or not? And sign the Stamp Petition. It wont hurt you and we need it to help us remember that we are good guys.

The evidence that said he didn't have weapons? Or the evidence that they weren't able to account for everything (which we now know, was never in Iraq). Bush said he did have weapons and we knew where they were. And we sure as hell didn't know where they were. Powell’s evidence that he gave the UN, he has now said that Iraq most likely never had WMD's...so how do you explain that?

You are missing the point, in a past life(10 years ago) I was an investigator at Walt Disney World, we dealt with all sorts of crimes including homicide.
So the ability to look at evidence and process it is something I am good with. When you see that it says 1 metric ton is missing and then a report that says we have pics of a large amount of trucks going into Syria at the begining of the war means that it is most likely that he moved them as we came in from the south. Syria is along the northeastern border.
And when you say that Syria would have known, well yea, they knew and allowed him to. Syria has been a host to terrorism ever since WWII when they used ex nazis to aid them.
So look at the evidence with open eyes ignore the party rhetoric and tell me what you see. I did it that way, I am not a republican.

"most likely"...I think that speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
You are missing the point, in a past life(10 years ago) I was an investigator at Walt Disney World, we dealt with all sorts of crimes including homicide.
So the ability to look at evidence and process it is something I am good with. When you see that it says 1 metric ton is missing and then a report that says we have pics of a large amount of trucks going into Syria at the begining of the war means that it is most likely that he moved them as we came in from the south. Syria is along the northeastern border.
In that case, the U.S. government made a HUGE FUCKING MISTAKE by invading Iraq and not chasing those trucks. We should have invaded Syria, in that case, if we knew Iraq was shipping the weapons over there.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
In that case, the U.S. government made a HUGE FUCKING MISTAKE by invading Iraq and not chasing those trucks. We should have invaded Syria, in that case, if we knew Iraq was shipping the weapons over there.
The trucks were reported crossing the border as we attacked on the south. But yes we should continue on in to Syria, but as I said the other day that we might be running ops into Syria to secure the sites prior to going in and looking stupid again. Maybe why the admin is saying that they were wrong. A lie to find the truth is acceptable.

So a lie to find the trugh is acceptable? I'm sure it is.

Originally posted by Overdose
S lie to find the trugh is acceptable? I'm sure it is.
Yes done everyday in police work, if I as an investigator tells a suspect that I know he did it and I have him on tape and he admits to commiting the crime, who was hurt?
If the President says we were wrong and there are no weapons, so he can conduct ops to find and secure those weapons. Who was hurt, in both cases only the bad guys lose.

Or the 10,000 innocent lives that were lost in Iraq.

proof?

By the way what do you have against the petition I asked you to sign? or if you did I thank you.
Kind of like a collection leter huh?
Pay your bill now loser. If you already have then we thank you.. LOL

BV all you are saying is that all the reasons for the Iraq War are just to go into Syria. And if that is the case, then the 10,000 innocent victims killed were for a selfish cause.

Saddam did not have WMD’s and he was no threat, and he may have given them away, but that is a “maybe” and I don’t support a war that is on assumptions.

This war has no truth behind it, and you are just supporting that Saddam didn’t have weapons and that Bush didn’t know where they were.

This table lists the names of 692 civilians killed as a result of the US-led military intervention in Iraq up to February 29th 2004. These names appear in press and media reports from Iraq as recorded by www.iraqbodycount.net (IBC). Full names are listed for 468 dead. To these are added a further 224 dead for whom a partial name or familial relationship has been established. Where gender was recorded, 421 of those killed were male and 106 were female. At least 94 of the dead were less than 18 years old.

As of the same date, the maximum number of all civilian deaths recorded by IBC stood at 10,093. The people so far named represent less than seven per cent of the civilians killed.

To those who knew and loved them, we add our sorrow and condolences.

The Iraq Body Count team.


Dont post from anti-war.com that might be just a little slanted go to some real sources. And by the way anti-war says might and includes those killed by Iraqi militias and terrorists.

bla, bla, bla
Bush had no reason to go into Iraq. I've proven it over and over, and you admit it was just to go into Syria and that is just sad.

Originally posted by Overdose
BV all you are saying is that all the reasons for the Iraq War are just to go into Syria. And if that is the case, then the 10,000 innocent victims killed were for a selfish cause.

Saddam did not have WMD’s and he was no threat, and he may have given them away, but that is a “maybe” and I don’t support a war that is on assumptions.

This war has no truth behind it, and you are just supporting that Saddam didn’t have weapons and that Bush didn’t know where they were.

It is sad that we were responsible for 692 civilain deaths not the 10k you mention the rest were killed by Husseins regime and other groups. Not my count, that is from an independent group.
As for the reason we went int I said the trucks went out after we went in from the south and Syria is on the otherside. So if you think that someone is to blame for not stopping them then blame Turkey who wouldnt let the 4th ID who was supposed to come in from the north and may have cut of the convoy of WMD's.

Originally posted by Overdose
bla, bla, bla
Bush had no reason to go into Iraq. I've proven it over and over, and you admit it was just to go into Syria and that is just sad.
Wow everyone told me to cut you slack, but I guess it was not needed because you can put together a good and rational argument. Let me say to you that I have admitted that the admin made mistakes. I, unlike you are not afraid to admit that I may be wrong but you dont even listen to the evidence I have placed in front of you. I never said we shouldnt have gone into Iraq not in one place anywhere on here. I have said that the WMD went out as we went in and you said blah blah blah. I guess you were stumped by that huh.
I will wait till you can put together a logical response.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I have said that the WMD went out as we went in and you said blah blah blah. I guess you were stumped by that huh.
I will wait till you can put together a logical response.

I said bla, bla bla, because I just don't believe it. And if the WMD's had went out, and we know this now, maybe we should go after that? But we haven't. Plus Bush has not mentioned one thing about that, so it must not be that important, even though he claimed the WMD threat that was non-existent.

I have given you a possible explaination. But you chose to ignore it, but you cant just pretend I didnt say it.
I guess no matter what you say I win, why? because I said so. I dont get how you process information, if it conflicts with your DU mantra do you just reject it without consideration? I would hope not, most people wouldnt do that at least not most rational people. And I hope that the generation that will inheirit the country would put more thought into the problems that will face you. Those WMD's will come back to hurt you and if you get your way so will Hussein.

I just have to laugh, because the links I gave were hardly from Left Wing sites. You say I don't listen to your facts, and you don't listen to mine.

Saddam didn't have the weapons, so it won't bite me in the "ass". Thanks, though.

Originally posted by Overdose
I just have to laugh, because the links I gave were hardly from Left Wing sites. You say I don't listen to your facts, and you don't listen to mine.

Saddam didn't have the weapons, so it won't bite me in the "ass". Thanks, though.
Shut up you are truly a child. How dare you insult those who have died in the name of peace because you dont know what a joke is.
I am sure you have no clue what it is like to lay there, your body broken blood everywhere, the smell of death in the air. All you can think about is your family, the ones back home thinking it is all ok. But here you lay maybe dying, screams filling the air, your best friends slowly bleeding to death all because we did what the UN asked us to.
And I asked you to sign a petition to support those that didnt come back and you think it is a favor to me? It should be done because you have compassion for those that have given you freedom. But since I said to quit gawking at a post and put :lolhit: after it so even you would know it was a joke.
I am sorry that you feel the way you do.

You are blowing thing way out of proportion, creating a propaganda story to try and create persuasion on your side of the argument. Say all you want, and make your story exaggerate the truth. The story isn’t even realistic. The fact is Saddam didn’t have WMD’s, when Bush said he did. I’ve proven it over and over again. So sure, ignorance is bliss, hun. I do not know where to sign the petition, because you didn’t give a link or else I would have.

Have fun, BV.

wow look at the threads I said chat central but please dont do me any favors. I am not blowing it out of shape at all, you have no clue what it is like to put anything on the line for your country to defend yourself to take anothers life and live with it. I am sure that if you are ever faced with this you would do the right thing but to always put down what you do not know is wrong, I do not know how you can even judge what happened 10 years ago, or before your life began. Books give one point of view unless you look for other sources, and I doubt you would do that.

BV, I know about 5 people who have come back from Iraq...and I've talked to them about all of these situations. They all believe Iraq didn't have WMD's and that we didn't need to be in Iraq.

So trust me, I've asked people who have been in Iraq their opinions, and I'm sure many people who come out of Iraq think differently, but these happen to be from some Republicans, who voted for Bush last time, then served in Iraq, and now come back disagreeing with the war because they believe we had no evidence to go into Iraq, and believe we should be spending our time in other areas of the world, truly stopping terrorism.

You can say what you want, but to say that the WMD's didnt exist is just stupid. He had them before he had them a year before, proof is that he kept inspectors away from hot sites. You dont bar people from nothing, but you would like me, a rational person(most of the time except when someone pushes my big button), that he disarmed and he that he kept the inspectors out of areas for fun? Sorry I am not quite that guillable

BV, you keep on forgetting that Bush said he knew exactly where they were, and that he 100% had WMD’s. That was false, we didn't know where they were, nor if he had any.

The fact is, he didn't have any, in those "hot spots" because we have searched and have found nothing. If he moved them away, we should be there not in Iraq.

All the UN inspectors said he didn't have weapons, and they reported he was letting the UN inspect more in 2000. Plus he was willing to go to the UN and America and debate and provide evidence of his disarmament....which he was never allowed to do…or given a chance to support his claim.

Bush on the other hand had no intelligence backing up his claims. All he had was that they couldn’t account for all the weapons, which is not evidence to go to war on.

Stop, I have given you the link to Blix's report that said he felt that over 1 metric ton of VX was missing. That was one month before we attacked Iraq, were did it go? Did it go to Syria while we came in from the south? Did it go to Al Qaeda and is being moved around Iraq? A metric ton would be easy to move and conceal. Iraq is more than a couple of blocks big. We could surveil the entire country and not find 10 tanks easily so why do you think it would be hard to hide chemicals, bio's that can be concelaed in a pack of smokes? or maybe 1000 packs of smokes?

He "felt" but he is also the one that said Iraq didn't have any WMD's, at all. So to launch a war on one guys "feeling" is just irresponsible when all other reports are saying he does not have WMD's. Bush said he “had” WMD’s and he “knew where they were” and that is not the case. He never said anything regarding Blix’s report, so the reasons Bush presented were not valid.

Sorry you are wrong, Bush refered to the Blix report many times before the war. Blix never said they didnt have WMD's in any official document, this is a tool used by politicians who dont want to lie under oath. But you will never believe it so I am done with this thread or until someone can show me a report that says Iraq never had WMD's.
Again to quote a person who you said lies in the title of the thread is not a good point to make. If you only believe Bush when he says what you want to hear then you have showed the flaws in your own argument.

Bush said he had WMD's and he knew where they were and that is not the case and he had no evidence to back it up.

And when did I quote Bush, as in supporting my argument? I said, Bush said things that were not true because he did not know where they were in Iraq. And if Bush went to war because Belix "believed" he shipped WMD's, that is just sad.

"David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]


flip flopping CiC your thread and many times in the thread you quoted members of his admin saying that there are no WMD's so when is it ok to believe tha man you call a liar?

Or they could have never been there at all, when Bush said they were. He said that Saddam had weapons, and he is only saying they are hidden or that they are gone because it will "save his ass" But I shall be giving you a lot of evidence in a short while (I’m working on some), about Saddam not being a threat. If I can’t find anything new, then we will have to agree to disagree because we’ve both presented both sides well.

yep I am done on this one, so pick a new topic to drive me nuts with.

I shall

:)

make a thread in chat central called the OD B_V Show or something so we can debate..... :hitout:

Don't worry I'll be getting some good things to post, just you wait.

make a thread in chat central called the OD B_V Show or something so we can debate.....

Why bother, looks like you guys already had it out here!

You know what I don't get about Overdose? He damns Bush, Clinton and everyone that said that Iraq had WMD for making an assumption. He then proceeds to assume that Iraq actually did the right thing and destroyed their WMD (though there is absolutely no evidence that was done).

I wonder what Overdose would say if the administration had assumed the way that Ovedose has. Let me create a little scenario for you all!

Let's assume Iraq had actually destroyed their WMD. A year goes by. Then one day a terrorist group blows a bomb up in the middle of Washington DC that contains a nasty chemical weapon, killing thousands and creating another 9-11 for us. What do you think a guy like Overdose would have said then? I can see it now. Post after post from Overdose wondering why the administration had made assumptions....damn the Republicans for not making sure that Iraq didn't have WMD, they KNEW that a bunch were missing, why didn't they find them?

Does that sound about right?

Let's face it. Maybe the administration made a mistake. But if they did, they erred on the said of caution. It's a helluva lot better to invade and find nothing then to sit around doing nothing, just hoping to God they don't have any WMD.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Let's face it. Maybe the administration made a mistake. But if they did, they erred on the said of caution. It's a helluva lot better to invade and find nothing then to sit around doing nothing, just hoping to God they don't have any WMD.

Well said...this has been my argument all along. However I have deep concern that we did not find any WMD in Iraq. I am a firm believer that Saddam did have them prior to the war and that they may now be in the very hands of the people we did not want them in.

Originally posted by Karankawa

You know what I don't get about Overdose? He damns Bush, Clinton and everyone that said that Iraq had WMD for making an assumption. He then proceeds to assume that Iraq actually did the right thing and destroyed their WMD (though there is absolutely no evidence that was done).

I wouldn't go so far as to say there is absolutely no evidence. The fact that we can't seem to find any at least shows that Saddam doesn't have the thousands of tons of weapons we say he did.

I wonder what Overdose would say if the administration had assumed the way that Ovedose has. Let me create a little scenario for you all!

Let's assume Iraq had actually destroyed their WMD. A year goes by. Then one day a terrorist group blows a bomb up in the middle of Washington DC that contains a nasty chemical weapon, killing thousands and creating another 9-11 for us. What do you think a guy like Overdose would have said then? I can see it now. Post after post from Overdose wondering why the administration had made assumptions....damn the Republicans for not making sure that Iraq didn't have WMD, they KNEW that a bunch were missing, why didn't they find them?

Does that sound about right?

I'm curious Karankawa. How is it that you can say it's wrong for Overdose to make assumptions and prove your point by stating your asumptions about what he would say in a given hypothetical situation? How is it that your assumptions are more accurate than his?

Let's face it. Maybe the administration made a mistake. But if they did, they erred on the said of caution. It's a helluva lot better to invade and find nothing then to sit around doing nothing, just hoping to God they don't have any WMD.

I'm not sure you'd feel that what the administration did was "a helluva lot better" if it was your country that was invaded.

Our country should not base a decision to go to war on assumptions, or on the fact that we're pretty sure another country has WMD's. We should only go to war to prevent an actual threat to our country not imagined ones. If the administration made "a mistake" (or more likely several of them), then it should admit that mistake, and try to make it right, rather than sitting around and "hoping to God" that the WMD's turn up in the future.

If we as a nation are going to take it upon ourselves to attack countries that may pose a threat to us, I don't think it's unreasonable for the citizens of this country to expect our government to know what the hell it's talking about.

Let me create a little scenario for you...

What would have happened if we had conducted the Cold War with the same level of intelligence gathering that we used to justify the war in Iraq? Who would we have nuked first?

Let's face it. Maybe the administration made a mistake. But if they did, they erred on the said of caution. It's a helluva lot better to invade and find nothing then to sit around doing nothing, just hoping to God they don't have any WMD. Originally posted by The Republican
Well said...this has been my argument all along. However I have deep concern that we did not find any WMD in Iraq. I am a firm believer that Saddam did have them prior to the war and that they may now be in the very hands of the people we did not want them in. and how many of your children are you willing to risk behind that assumption.....what o.d. is saying is that we went to w a r ! war! that is no small thing. and on an assumption ? give me a break ! we could have just gone after saddam covertly instead of risking all of those young fathers and mothers lives behind this bag of lies ! everyone except bush said that he may have had them but he dont have them any more.....bush didnt risk one bush life, he risks your childrens lives so that his daughters can stay here and be little drunks.!!.....your children !!

Originally posted by korg
and how many of your children are you willing to risk behind that assumption.....what o.d. is saying is that we went to w a r ! war! that is no small thing. and on an assumption ? give me a break ! we could have just gone after saddam covertly instead of risking all of those young fathers and mothers lives behind this bag of lies ! everyone except bush said that he may have had them but he dont have them any more.....bush didnt risk one bush life, he risks your childrens lives so that his daughters can stay here and be little drunks.!!.....your children !!

Well I have my first son on the way so currently I have no children to risk. I do however have a brother, who is not military, that if there were a draft would probably be one of the first to go, and I have no problem with that. If I did have children and they wanted to go into the military I would not oppose that, if they were drafted I would tell them to do the right thing and to serve. I am willing to loose my life and the life of my children and siblings in defense of this country. What I am not willing to do is sit by idle and believe the words of a madman who has used WMD in war against Iran and against his own people and denied the UN to accurately determine and destroy all of his WMD for 14 years just so one of his weapons could be used against the US and thousands more of our innocent civilians could be needlessly killed.

Originally posted by The Republican
Well I have my first son on the way so currently I have no children to risk. I do however have a brother, who is not military, that if there were a draft would probably be one of the first to go, and I have no problem with that. If I did have children and they wanted to go into the military I would not oppose that, if they were drafted I would tell them to do the right thing and to serve. I am willing to loose my life and the life of my children and siblings in defense of this country. What I am not willing to do is sit by idle and believe the words of a madman who has used WMD in war against Iran and against his own people and denied the UN to accurately determine and destroy all of his WMD for 14 years just so one of his weapons could be used against the US and thousands more of our innocent civilians could be needlessly killed. yeah, anyone would say that about the country in a truthful situation. but here's the thing, and i'll end it here for me.....this is a lie. and i will not want one of my children losing their lives over a lie...you can go right ahead...like i said, bush dont care, none of his are going, want proof......HE DIDNT GO !....believe it or not, there are worst people than saddam hussein out there, and we're not rushing to do that......this man, nor his country , had nothing to do with 9-11. maybe some of his countryman, because alqaida is not a country......we should have taken care of the problem at hand....bin laden. you people want so bad for there to be a connection between the two.....but there isnt. being two bad people dont make them linked. being two bad middleeasterns....dont make them linked. bush lied, and your children would die in vein. !

Originally posted by korg
yeah, anyone would say that about the country in a truthful situation. but here's the thing, and i'll end it here for me.....this is a lie. and i will not want one of my children losing their lives over a lie...you can go right ahead...like i said, bush dont care, none of his are going, want proof......HE DIDNT GO !....believe it or not, there are worst people than saddam hussein out there, and we're not rushing to do that......this man, nor his country , had nothing to do with 9-11. maybe some of his countryman, because alqaida is not a country......we should have taken care of the problem at hand....bin laden. you people want so bad for there to be a connection between the two.....but there isnt. being two bad people dont make them linked. being two bad middleeasterns....dont make them linked. bush lied, and your children would die in vein. !

Well I respectfully don't see it like you do. And I will leave it at that.