He had no military

He had "no military"? Then who the hell was shooting at us when we first went in? Wrong again col. This is getting to be a common occurrence for you!

It was NOT our responsibility to enforce U N Resolutions. Show me where the U N designated the United States the enforcement agent of the U N?

Now you're talking out your "butt", cause your mouth be knowing better. It "damn" sure IS our responcibility to enforce UN resolutions! Ours and ANY other country that is part of the UN security council.

WRONG. The security Council is the ONLY agency that can inforce U N resolutions under UN command

Correctimundo! And take a guess who's part of the "security council?

I just love how the evil right wing Bush managed to get Bill Clinton, Hillary, Mrs. Albright, the French Government, the British Government, and the Russian government all in on his scheme to mislead the the American People! Amazing that he started way back in the mid-nineties as well. Really people, maybe you all never watched the news back then, but I remember it pretty well.

Hey Col Gene, thank god you had no imput during WWII. Cause there was no proof Hitler killed millions before we got into Germany, and You would have retreated from Normandy. By the way, I only have stats from Jan. of last year, but 270 mass graves found at that time, with an estimated 400,000 people in them. Add that to those killed in the Iran-Iraq War Saddam started, (1,000,000 to 2,000,000 killed and 100,000 kurds) and the 1st Gulf War he started, (roughly estimated around 25,000) thats anywhere from 1,500,000 to 2,500,000. As for documents linking Saddam to the killings, I guess they'd need to be cleared with NBC before you'd believe 'em, huh? While I'm on a roll, as you so stated elegently fiscal concern about this war, there's no need to go liberate the starving in Africa, cause we may lose some guys, and it will cost alot.

One more little note. Just because he didn't have WMD, didn't mean he wouldn't. If you paid attention to the final UN report on WMD in Iraq, and I know you did, you would destinctly remember that Saddam had carefully maintained the infastructure to rapidly develop a new stockpile as soon as the sanctions failed. So, I guess thats why the Voters put Bush back in office in November of Last Year. At least 51% of us get it. I wonder which guy you voted for?

Peaze Out
Dimez

drmiler

Saddam's military was delt with in short order and he had NOTHING that was capable of attacking the United States. He was NO threat and it is time that you, Bush and all the other Bushies admit this war was an error that has cost lives and enough money to rebuild our country from the storms of the past two years.

The number of people Saddam killed in his country has NOTHING to do with our security. Bush said, "We had to remove Saddam because HE WAS A THREAT TO AMERICA!" HOW?????????

You can not spin this, Bush was wrong no matter how this war turns out!

Will you go and tell the Iraqi's that they should be living under Saddam?

Bush said, "We had to remove Saddam because HE WAS A THREAT TO AMERICA!" HOW?????????

Col, the democrats said Saddam was a threat also. Why are you not questioning them also? Is it because you are a liberal hypocrit?

HE WAS A THREAT TO AMERICA!" HOW?????????

HE WAS A THREAT TO FREEDOM!!!! THEREFORE HE WAS A THREAT TO AMERICA!!!!

HE WAS ALSO A THREAT TO ALLIES OF AMERICA.......THEREFORE HE WAS A THREAT TO AMERICA!!!!

Gene... you are soooooooooooooooooooo far off base on this one... you are making the entire Left look like idiots.

but, but, but....Manopeace...

Col Gene is a moderate republican...he has no ties to the left at all....

Manopeace


You are the idiot. By your rational, we would be at WAR with at least 10 countries NOW. Iraq was NOTHING like a danger to this country. Hell there is no bigger threat to WORLD freedom then China. They are also a threat to our allies. Most of our Allies did not support this war. War is a LAST resort. You can not tell me that in early 2003 that we were at that point in Iraq. The No fly zone was in place and the U N had inspectors in Iraq. This was an ELECTIVE WAR and Bush should NEVER have become President. Look at what he is doing with the NSA. Bush has violated the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold. Just like the one he took when he was commissioned in the National Guard and then disobeyed the orders he said he would obey! There was a legal way to get wire taps to protect the country. Bush ignored the Courts and violated our laws. We have secret legal decisions and orders from the President. Sounds like the old KGB.

drmiler Saddam's military was delt with in short order and he had NOTHING that was capable of attacking the United States. He was NO threat and it is time that you, Bush and all the other Bushies admit this war was an error that has cost lives and enough money to rebuild our country from the storms of the past two years

But that's not what you said is it? You said and I quote:

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!!!!!

Face it col, once again you've been shown to be wrong. Does it bother you that both the left the right AND the middle say you should basically just shut up. They are all finding you to be a wack job.

Drmiler

I said ther very same thing in both posts. We had NO reason to attack Iraq and it is time for Bush to admit our invasion was a mistake! I said he has NO MILITARY that was threat to the U S which is correct. He had no offecsive capability to attack us. He was NOT a DANGER to us.

Drmiler I said ther very same thing in both posts. We had NO reason to attack Iraq and it is time for Bush to admit our invasion was a mistake! I said he has NO MILITARY that was threat to the U S which is correct. He had no offecsive capability to attack us. He was NOT a DANGER to us.

Are you being deliberatly stupid or what? You did NOT say the same thing in both posts! In the first you say he had NO military. In the second you say his military was "dealt with in short order". You can't have it both ways. It's one or the other.

I said he has NO MILITARY that was threat to the U S which is correct. He

You NEVER said any such thing nor did you even imply it.

The subject of this Blog is that Bush admitted that all the information he used to go to war about how Saddam was a threat was incorrect. Then he said he was correct to go to war. If there was no WMD there was NO threat. Then our invasion was a error. I said Saddam was not a threat because he did not have the weapons or the military to attack the U S. that is correct you dummy. The few military he had was nothing as we saw when we invaded Iraq.

The subject of this Blog is that Bush admitted that all the information he used to go to war about how Saddam was a threat was incorrect. Then he said he was correct to go to war. If there was no WMD there was NO threat. Then our invasion was a error. I said Saddam was not a threat because he did not have the weapons or the military to attack the U S. that is correct you dummy. The few military he had was nothing as we saw when we invaded Iraq.

Yet once again you dance around the point I was making. You said " NO MILITARY" you did NOT qualify it or quantify it. You said "NO" as in none.

Is that better or do you need me to draw it in crayon for you as usual? Quite a few more than just 10.

Yes it is quite a few more than 10 (although i was talking about bodies per grave)and its also quite a different quote entirely. Still 400,000 is not millions. So for the slow ones like me perhaps you could do the math for us Dr Milliar.

When does millions = 400,000?

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.

I do have my facts straight Milliar. Clearly it is you who is bent out of shape. In your original quote there was no suggestion of a figure and in all subsequent quotes you have yet to be able to deliver the supposedly millions of dead. Like i said frankly the explaination is quite simple.

Quite simply, if you're goig to use quotes in an attempt to reinforce your points then make sure they do. That is what i was calling you on. And that is what you are still wrong about.... and thank you but i have your words right in front of me so i crayon drawing shall not be neccessary.

... I agree tht the US should not be in Iraq today, BUT Sadaam was a threat.

To the American people ....How?

Many people tend to forget that we must all work together to defend ourselves against people like Saddam.

You seem to have forgotten that the invasion was by in large internationally condemed.
The US was not "working together" at all. It was a unilateral action undertaken by it and a handful of other renigade nations.

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.

Really? Is that why Prince Bandihar, the Saudi Ambassador at the time was on CNN thanking the FBI for their assistance in getting the Saudi nationals out of the country?

represents a grave threat to America

How?

We actually did go to enforce U.N. Resolution 1441. Why is your memory so selective?

Lmao. I cant believe anyone pro-invasion would dare suggest they did so to protect or enforce UN initatives. The invasion and those that participated in it practically told the UN to go fuck itself. Calling it irrelavent. 2150 dead for an irrelevant cause. Thats nice.

Well since the UN does not have it's own military someone had to. And since Saddam was so interested in attacking our jets that made us the perfect enforcement agent, which BTW Britain is also involve, you seem to keep forgetting that. We are part of the U.N. and so that automaticaly makes us one of the many enforcement agents, whether you like it or not.

As above. Bullshit.

(400,000 and that was 2003. how many more since then?).

30,000 at least.

You said "NO" as in none.

This from a guy saying "millions" as in "400,000".

What i will say Col Gene is that Bush is not at all a buffoon. The problem is that you are judging him using a set of criteria based on propaganda.

Whereas Bushs' primary concerns in the region actually revolve around oil, the protection of Israel and tying up a few loose ends in terms of US Global Hegemony.

By these standards hes doing marvellously well. I think you underestimate the power and intelligence of those backing Bush by suggesting that things are not going according to plan or that this was in any way a mistake in terms of its primary purpose.

If you wish to judge him according to a series of stand behind the flag and shout "democracy for all" type standards then you will surely be forever confused.

That of course is the greatest danger. That even those who were and are opposed to the invasion still dont see it for what it really is. I think if you compare notes with Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, various other defence contractors and the Carlyle Group, you'll get a very different picture of just how successful this invasion has been.

2150 + 30,000 dead. Pfft. Who cares. Not their children and think of all that fabulous profit.