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

[Pekka]

Wolfy? Paul Wolfowitz? No... I mean the people who are in charge of Pentagon, and keeping up with the latest information and keeping in touch with the gov. Those people.

[CyberGnu]

Fez, Sounds like a good choice

What about if he starts banging the drums of war against Syria or Iran with the exact same line, though? "We now know that Iran has WMD's, and we need to invade". Would you support that, even though his previous claims are unsubstantiated?

[Giancarlo]

Cybergnu: I would go along with it. Yes I would support an invasion of Iran. It is known Iran was always year ahead of Iraq, and the IAEA did object to the fact they weren't cooperating.. correct me if I am wrong.

[Zkribbler]

I have never doubted for a second that Saddam had WMD. To think otherwise, would mean believing Saddam when he said he destroyed them. Does anyone think that Saddam would ever (a) destroy his weapons of mass destruction or (b) tell the truth?? His mindset wouldn't let him do either.

Those weapons will show up, somewhere, sometime. I'd stake Fez's life on it.

Here're the problems I have with the Prez:

(1) Before the war, Bush said we knew Saddam had weapons and we knew where they were.

(2) We went to war because Bush said the U.S. was in imminent danger of attack. Bush claimed there was an Iraq-Al Qaida connection, and that there was a grave danger Saddam would give or sell WMD to Usama ben Laden, who would use them on the U.S. Post-war: No hint of that link has turned up.

[CyberGnu]

Ahh, but if we are going to equate the situations, we have to assume that the IAEA goes back to Iran and concludes that there are no WMD's in Iran...

But Bush says they do, based on secret intelligence. Question is, how can you believe him since it seems much more likely he lied in the first case? Shouldn't we at least require the intelligence be showed publically first? (Or, in secret to intelligence agencies in France, Germany etc).

[CyberGnu]

Zkribbler, even pre-war no link turned up... Which the prez was fully aware of. Just look at his state of the union address, where he deliberately avoided claiming that such a link existed, but instead rhetorically linked Al Qaida and Iraq by putting them in the same sentence.


What is wrong in believeing him when he said he destroyed them? The man was paranoid, not a pathological liar...

And I think his paranoia is the most convincing argument FOR the destruction of the WMD's. Strategilly, they were pretty much useless. Sure, he could use them to kill a few thousand defenseless kurds, but his army could have accomplished the same thing conventionally. The only external enemy he had to worry about was the US, and he knew fully well that if even one tank of Anthrax turned up he would be in deep ****. So the WMD's were much more of a danger to Saddam than to anyone else.

However, if he meekly destroyed them he would loose face in the arab world. So instead he most likely destroyed whatever he had at the end of Desert Storm but didn't tell anyone, instead leading the inspectors o a merry goose chase, and gaining quite a bit of respect from the arab world for his chutzpah.

His only miscalculation was to count on the President of the United States to be a sane and rational fellow... Bet he was suprised when the towers came down, Bush failed to find Osama and decided that unless he could nail someone to the wall he would be toast in the next election...

[Odin]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
What is wrong in believeing him when he said he destroyed them? The man was paranoid, not a pathological liar...

And I think his paranoia is the most convincing argument FOR the destruction of the WMD's. Strategilly, they were pretty much useless. Sure, he could use them to kill a few thousand defenseless kurds, but his army could have accomplished the same thing conventionally. The only external enemy he had to worry about was the US, and he knew fully well that if even one tank of Anthrax turned up he would be in deep ****. So the WMD's were much more of a danger to Saddam than to anyone else.

However, if he meekly destroyed them he would loose face in the arab world. So instead he most likely destroyed whatever he had at the end of Desert Storm but didn't tell anyone, instead leading the inspectors o a merry goose chase, and gaining quite a bit of respect from the arab world for his chutzpah.

His only miscalculation was to count on the President of the United States to be a sane and rational fellow... Bet he was suprised when the towers came down, Bush failed to find Osama and decided that unless he could nail someone to the wall he would be toast in the next election...

Exactly what I was going to say.

Saddam was a paranoid @sshole, but he was no idiot.

[CyberGnu]

Exactly

[Jon Miller]

I will be voting socialist or green most likely

however, if neccesary I will be prepared to vote democrat

Jon Miller

[Dis]

I hear you.

I won't vote democrat though

I will go with a third party candidate- ie throw my vote away

[Atahualpa]

A threat to the U.S.!!!
That's giving me the greatest laugh I ever had. The US is a nation full of paranoids.
The US has the ability to destroy entire enemy cities within seconds and still does fear. There cant be just more military that is EVER giving the american poeople a feeling of savety from anything. Increase the military spending to 50% of the budget the US still wont be save. Its so ridiculous the best thing would be to drop any military spending because obviously its completely worthless. It just does not give you ANY form of safety when the US has to attack a country like Iraq because it is believed they have WMD.
Dont you think the french are a greater threat?

Nobody is a threat to the USA. Al Qeada is nothing. There are 250 Million people in the US, now how many did they kill?
How many people die because of shootings in the USA every year? How many people die because of USA's generous welfare-system or live next to the minimum-existance level? That numbers are 100 times higher than 9/11 victims.
The USA is the only threat to the USA! And the biggest too.
Whats the name of the snake that bites itself? I think the US should adopt this for their flag.

There are only 2 ways to be secure. 1. is the US controls the whole world (wouldnt be possible with all the ethnic differences and nukes floating around) and 2. the US destroys the whole world (and itself).
Okay there is a 3rd way: GET AND KEEP FRIENDS!!! If the US wouldnt be acting in its own best interest all the time it would get much more friends. If the whole world is a friend to you, you have nothing to fear.
But of course that requires more brain than to go after iraq every 10 years and brain seems to be very rare in the Bush administration.

edit: I hope I elminated every "you" that was not refering to lancer but to the united states. I apologize if I missed one. It is the US I am talking about. Lancer himself doesnt have the power to elminate a whole city within seconds ahm you dont have, do you lancer?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Soul Survivor
they're in syria now, lets invade them!

Unpatriotic french communist cheese-eating kraut jap dogpig!!!! Theyre in IRAN....We have to invade IRAN

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

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Dissident
I hear you.

I won't vote democrat though

I will go with a third party candidate- ie throw my vote away

Throw your vote away!
Dont say that because you are already taking into account how other people will vote meaning you will predict a picture of the result before the election has started. And with that picture in mind your free-choice is limited a LOT.

Do what YOU think is the right and best choice and DO NOT give a DAMN what others will vote.
If you think that way you'll realize the outcome is completely unclear. And if everybody would think that way I am sure (100%) that you have much more choices. If none of the choices appeal to you then vote rubbish (a vote that counts as vote but not really because you, for example, ticked 2 candidates. I dont know the english term).

The current situation in the US would mean that there are only 2 sides to each problem (and the two seem to be more and more identical the closer you look - okay thats from michael moore).

Here in Austria we have 4 parties and neither does have _THE_ answer. Either the US is lucky or we just suck

Choice is only yours if you do not care about what others will do

[Dis]

some of you will see the threat to the U.S. when a nuke is detonated in a U.S. city

It is coming, trust me, it is coming.

[Elden]

WoMDs will be found when Bush gets around to planting them.