osprey wrote:

Katt wrote:

<trader4@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1120223005.071981.39600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

"It's possible he may have been working towards getting them, (WMDs)

suppose. "

Working toward getting them? There is absolutely no question that

HAD WMDs. He used them on the Kurds. UN weapons inspectors found

after the first gulf war and spent a decade playing cat and mouse

Sadam, trying to enforce his agreement to fully disclose and

them. Hans Blix on the eve of the war stated that Sadam was still

being forthcoming in providing required information and cooperation.
There was no question that there was sufficient cause to go to war

Sadam. Whether it was the best decision or worth it only history

tell. But, I can tell you one thing. If components of a WMD used
against the US were traced back to Iraq someday, guys like you who

at Bush now, would be calling for his impeachment for not protecting
the US against so obvious a threat.

I can't believe people are still coming up with this horseshit: no

the timeline; imaginary WMDs; misrepresenting what Blix said;

cause to go to war'; the works. *Fascinating*. Doesn't even deserve

any more...

I can't believe people are still naive as to how dangerous Saddam has
been and could still be. It's what Saddam counted on, he wanted people
to think he was not a threat so people would ignore him. It appears as
if his strategy worked well with some.

And with the present administration, not likely to ever
hear the entire truth.

I can't believe people are still naive as to how dangerous Saddam has
been and could still be. It's what Saddam counted on, he wanted people
to think he was not a threat so people would ignore him. It appears as
if his strategy worked well with some.

"It's possible he may have been working towards getting them, (WMDs) I
suppose. "

Working toward getting them? There is absolutely no question that he
HAD WMDs.

He used them on the Kurds. UN weapons inspectors found them after the
first gulf war and spent a decade playing cat and mouse with Sadam,
trying to enforce his agreement to fully disclose and eliminate them.
Hans Blix on the eve of the war stated that Sadam was still not being
forthcoming in providing required information and cooperation. There was
no question that there was sufficient cause to go to war with Sadam.
Whether it was the best decision or worth it only history will tell.
But, I can tell you one thing. If components of a WMD used against the
US were traced back to Iraq someday, guys like you who carp at Bush now,
would be calling for his impeachment for not protecting the US against
so obvious a threat.

"You have many good points as usual, Osprey, but I think we should have
concentrated on arresting the man responsible for 9/11, Osama bin
Laden, first. If Bush had just done that and *then* gone after Saddam,
I would have a lot more respect for him. "

Great idea. I suppose in WWII, we should have gone after Japan first
and ignored Hitler until we were done there.

With all the resources of the US, you think we can't do two things at a
time, one of which is hunt down a single man?

And the obstacles to finding OBL have nothing to do with resources being
used in Iraq, unless you believe we should launch an invasion on places
like Pakistan, where he may be hiding. But, you know what the best part
is? Your use of the term "arrest" for dealing with OBL. Just like Rove
said, liberals just don't get it. They don't realize this is a war on
terrorism, not a police case. He and his followers don't need to be
arrested, they need to be destroyed, before they destroy us.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:47:46 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
in message news:<1120207666.640507.128300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...

Bill Baker wrote:

Mickey wrote:

"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.01.00.52.19.812155@postini.spamcon.org...

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net>
wrote in message news:<XuKdnUxRtYdTsVnfRVn-tg@comcast.com>...

"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.30.17.06.16.7564@postini.spamcon.org...

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:59:20 -0400, "Mickey"
<mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<LfKdnRxLU_JFuVnfRVn-qA@comcast.com>...

I thnk he was. The fact that he got SO many votes, and still
wasn't really
close says a lot. I thnk the religious right was far too well
organized this time around, Bush was their poster child.

But he *was* really close. He only lost by 3 million votes, the
smallest margin of victory for a sitting president since Truman
defeated Dewey. In terms of percentage, Bush won by the smallest
margin of victory in U.S. history. That says a lot, considering
wartime presidents never lose an election, and usually win it by a
much wider margin.

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is an idiot of nearly epic
proportions. I dispise his stance on just about everything, especially
his goose stepping devotion to tax cuts for the rich. The ONLY topic I
agree with him on is his stance against terrorists and his move to
remove the Butcher of Baghdad.

Well, I think we had no business being in Iraq, and that Bush dropped
the ball on the terrorists. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Saddam is
no longer in power, I just think we went about it the wrong way and that
Iraq may pay dearly for our mistake.

This is just my personal opinion on Iraq.

Did I believe Saddam had WMD? Yes

Many people did. Myself, I had doubts.

Do I think it possible he had them or was working towards getting them?
Yes, I do.

It's possible he may have been working towards getting them, I suppose.

I base this on Saddam's history of using WMD and his many lies. I also
base this on his actions with kicking out the U.N. and trying to push the
U.S.
I also think it is very possible that if he did have WMD they are either
buried or they are somewhere else like Syria. If that is true, it raises
more concerns. Who has access to them and can they be placed on the black
market and terrorist get a hold of them.

I have feelings on both sides on the war in Iraq. Like you, I am glad
Saddam is not in power. I also question the war as well and wonder if it
is all worth it. I know it's hard to agree, but I think in the long run
we will see that going in was the right thing to do. I also think it may
show that we really didn't have too many options.

I believe that the war goes further than just searching for WMD.

We were given a black eye on 9/11. Our Government knew for years it was
coming, we just didn't know the when, where, how, who, and what. Our
Government, and it goes back years, failed in many ways. I think one of
the biggest blunders was the intelligence problems and lack of
communication between the FBI and the CIA.

After 9/11, Bush knew as well as other leaders that we were at war. The
main problem is not knowing the enemy. Sure we all knew about OBL;
however, OBL is not the only problem. Al Queda was too well organized and
spread out all over the world.
Several times Bush mentioned that we will not fight this war on U.S. soil.
I think that Iraq was planned long before 9/11 as a staging ground for the
war if we were ever attacked. I think the reasons for going in were long
planned, we just needed the spark to light the fuse. 9/11 provided that
spark.
Iraq is center and easily accessible for terrorist to go into. I think
that one of the hidden agenda's of going into Iraq was to get the
terrorist to come to us and we fight them there. Just my opinion, based on
observations and events.

We will never stop terrorism, we can't prevent terrorist from attacking
the U.S.

Right now, my main concern is North Korea, Iran (especially after the
election), and China.
Iraq, we will be there for a while. Right or wrong, I think most
American's agree we got to stay there until the job is done.

You have many good points as usual, Osprey, but I think we should have
concentrated on arresting the man responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Laden,
first.

have a lot more respect for him.