If there's no WMD, Bush loses my vote.

[Spiffor]

I'm glad to see that you are a man of principles, Lancer.

But I expect WMDs to be conveniently discovered a few months before the election too. Most probably not a huge arsenal that who'd have destroyed the world, but a few barrels or chemical ****.

Saddam most probably had traces of chemical weapons research, and these traces will conveniently be displayed at the best moment for Bush's political career. My scenario anyways.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Fez

Well I am assuming they do because things just don't disappear in thin air.

If you've never seen them in the first place the tricks quite easy

[Lancer]

reds, that's the kind of BS that makes the lefties world go round. You all get stoned and think **** up that just wouldn't be possible.

Even Reagan with the arms for hostages came out, and that was fairly lame. Maybe even a good idea...

[Boris Godunov]

A couple of nights ago I was at a cast party for one of my opera productions. I was seated across from a woman who was in the chorus and her husband. I had recalled the woman wearing a shirt in rehearsals that said "Proud to Support my Son in Iraq" or something. So I asked what their story was.

They had both a son and a daughter over there, and the son was apparently involved with the recent find of the stash of money. The daughter is on her way home, I think.

When I asked them about the search for WMD, both became quite indignant. They were, to be blunt, very upset they had not been found and were beginning to believe the administration had lied. The consequence is that they were seeing that their children had been sent into to harms way for a lie, and they were most angry about it. The husband was particularly rankled, as he had done 3 tours (!) in Vietnam and didn't like the idea of American soldiers getting killed when they didn't need to. He also expressed that, since the Iraqis crumpled so easily, he doesn't believe a bit of the talk about them being a threat to anyone.

Food for thought, at least.

[Giancarlo]

Cyclotron: I felt there was enough evidence. And no my reason is not flawed. Sorry I am not backing down from this position. They are there and I am confident they will be found. Give it time.... Saddam and his men could of easily buried the stuff under a school or something...

And by the way people, it takes time to search a country the size of California.. they'll have to search that tunnel system next... if they haven't started already.

[Lancer]

Spiffor, that's just BS.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Lancer
reds, that's the kind of BS that makes the lefties world go round. You all get stoned and think **** up that just wouldn't be possible.

Even Reagan with the arms for hostages came out, and that was fairly lame. Maybe even a good idea...

Don't get me wrong Lancer, I think he had Bio-Chemical weapons, I DON"T think Bush/Blair had the intel/proof/whatever that they say they did, QED we were lied to.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But I expect WMDs to be conveniently discovered a few months before the election too. Most probably not a huge arsenal that who'd have destroyed the world, but a few barrels or chemical ****.

Saddam most probably had traces of chemical weapons research, and these traces will conveniently be displayed at the best moment for Bush's political career. My scenario anyways.

This is what I think... Bush knows what to pull.. who knows US forces probably discovered something already but the adminstration is not releasing info to the public and waiting for the right moment. That is politics.

[Cyclotron]

Spiffor, it depends on what people remember. If people remember vaguely that there were some chemical thingies or something in Iraq, and Bush shows them some, there will be no anger.

If people remember Powell's lists of all the gallons of nerve gas and sh*t, and Bush shows them a handful of "weapons supplies," then I think the jig is up for Bush in 2004.

[Giancarlo]

I am sorry cyclo, but the jig won't be up for Bush in 2004 either way. The democrats are far too weak to present a viable candidate.

[Lancer]

reds, that's the thing. As pres you play the hunch if you have the balls (Clinton never did) and that may be what Bush did. However if he is wrong, he's soo wrong that the price must be paid.

Napoleon with his lucky generals, same thing.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Fez
Cyclotron: I felt there was enough evidence. And no my reason is not flawed. Sorry I am not backing down from this position. They are there and I am confident they will be found. Give it time.... Saddam and his men could of easily buried the stuff under a school or something...

I don't blame you for thinking there was enough evidence, I suppose that's your decision as a critically thinking human being. I do not, however, think that you should assume these weapons exist and dismiss the idea that they never did out of hand.

As for time, they have until Nov. 2004. Although even that probably won't get my vote, since I'm dissatisfied in other ways.

And by the way people, it takes time to search a country the size of California.. they'll have to search that tunnel system next... if they haven't started already.

They have near complete control of the country, and several top advisors in custody. It's odd they haven't found at least something...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


I don't blame you for thinking there was enough evidence, I suppose that's your decision as a critically thinking human being. I do not, however, think that you should assume these weapons exist and dismiss the idea that they never did out of hand.

I have gone over things carefully and thought about it. I do dismiss the claim that these weapons haven't existed. I am confident they do.

As for time, they have until Nov. 2004. Although even that probably won't get my vote, since I'm dissatisfied in other ways.

Anybody up for bets on October 2004 they will suddenly appear?

They have near complete control of the country, and several top advisors in custody. It's odd they haven't found at least something...

You don't know if they haven't already found something nor do I as I am not there. That capture of 400 loyalists recently might even prove better. At least one or two will talk.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Lancer
reds, that's the thing. As pres you play the hunch if you have the balls (Clinton never did) and that may be what Bush did. However if he is wrong, he's soo wrong that the price must be paid.

Napoleon with his lucky generals, same thing.

I don't know what went on in the US so much, but in the UK we were always being promised 'documents' that never came.

As soon as you lie your country in order to do what you think is right for them, you're a dictator in my book.

Mr Bonaparte fits the bill.....

[Lancer]

Fez, it was the same way w/Bush1. Clinton was and is a bit of fluff who couldn't have been worse. He rode an economy that was on its way up, and even he couldn't **** it up. He was a pretty boy for the feminist left and the gays, so they still have it on for him. Sure, there is nobody to run against Bush2, but last time, nobody did ok, because his constituants were so corrupted.