Mother Earth was never that safe to begin with - and not because of the perceived Iraqi WMDs, but because of our own WMDs, the unaccounted for WMDs once in Russia's hands Bush (and other administrations) have failed to track down, nuke capabilities in Iran, N. Korea, China, India, Pakistan, and various genocidal practices on the African continent. And that's just to name a few countries who are known or perceived threats.

So, in the grand scheme of WMDs, Iraq was small potatoes. Conversely, in the grand scheme of oil producers (#2 in the world), Iraq is huge.

Bush should just be honest: if he had said oil is a WMD, then I don't think we'd have nearly as many problems with his presidency as we do now.

BTW: your 0.0009 figure, if correct - and it doesn't really matter if it is or is not correct - still is a danger. Why? Because they're unaccounted for in their 400-ton state - and presumably while on Bush's watch. 400-tons. Hmmm? What American interest can that blow up in a terrorist attack?

France has nuclear weapons too.

BFD, you say?

Well that is exactly my point.

When assessing a threat potential, you have to consider the dictator (or country) AS WELL as the amount of threatening material. . . .all that oil can BUY what ever Saddam wanted.

Saddam was PO'd that we kicked his butt out of Kuwait, and we were keeping him contained, for the most part.

Saddam was itching to see the US get hit.
Saddam also wanted nukes, so that the region, and the world would let him take over neighbors more easily.

Really dd, is it easier to deal with a guy like Saddam before, or after he has nukes?

There are two fundamental problems with your fixation on Saddam.

1) Your assessment on Iraq is still conjecture as to what Saddam had. Namely he had nothing - that's been proven. Anything else is pure speculation. You have to get beyond "if" unless this argument is intended to be pure speculation and philosophy, which it is.

2) Many other nuclear threats exist other than the "if" of Saddam. That is not, by any means, speculation.

Its for the troops, its for my neighborhood, its for my unemployed and uninsured friends and family, its for the environment of my state, and its for the world community in which I live.

So frihghtened are the Bushies that they pull the #1 anti-democratic argument: you shouldn't change leaders in wartime. Which is tantamount to saying: if you want a second term, start a war.
How pathetic.

Yes, Island. I think Kerry and his (as yet unnamed) team could do a better job. Quite frankly, and I believe this is the objective view even though I realize that neither you nor I are particularly objective, Bush has done an abysmal job of managing this "war." Just about each and every aspect of it has been botched. Of course, you are going to say that the ENTIRE world is mistaken, but the fact is that that entire world believes that Bush is an imbecile.

And if the Saddam nuclear threat was the problem, then it will be difficult to explain why he chose Iraq and not North Korea. When Dubya was making the decision to invade Iraq, N. Korea was absolutely TAUNTING him. They were test firing missiles out over the pacific ocean during the weeks and months Dubya was (supposedly) considering his decision. They were essentially waving their arms at us saying "here we are, and we have nukes, and we are developing a delivery system"

So, none of the "administration"s explanations wash.

Yeah, I get that; though you are missing the point. I specifically said, they wouldn't , want a transion to KEERRRRY!

You know, that guy who SOLD OUT the military, on more than one occation. Same guy who lobbied for Purple Hearts. The same guy who Fabricates a SilverStar with a V for valore. What a Dork.

Do you remember the lack of respect the military had for Clinton? All Clinton did was run and hide. Kerry ATTACKED the military, time and again.

Are you suggesting Bush did NOT seek more support?

The only president I remember running away and hiding when faced with a crisis was bush immediatly after 9/11.

Right after sitting around doing nothing while our country was being attacked of course.

ha! :D

so did he sit . .. or run and hide? :rolleyes:

I really do believe he had not much of a choice. Security does their job.

Well, my friend, in contrast to Bush, Kerry at least was in a position to lobby for Purple Hearts or fabricate a SilverStar (where did that come from? did I miss a smear campaign by the evangelical lobotomists for thruth?)
But let's not revisit that. This country has rapidly become a very nasty place to live in. And it will always amaze me that the conservatives champion someone so spineless, so without any cojones, such a papa's boy as Bush. Never mind he's as inarticulate as my door knob. A whimp!

Yeah, is our military incompetent too?

"...that guy who SOLD OUT the military, on more than one occation. "

Island,
Look up the congressional record and you might find that Senator Cheney also voted against some military programs. Do you accuse him of selling out? Do you see liberals accuse Cheney of selling out because of his Senate voting record? I haven't. Kerry has voted over 6,000 times on various issues throughout his Senate career; sometimes for, sometimes against military spending. It all depends. Is that difficult to understand?

Let's put this in perspective. After the cold war was over, there was no further need to build up arms, on either side. You may have disagreed, but that was the position of our government. Downsizing the military was prudent in many cases; in others, more arguable. Downsizing also contributed to writing down the national debt which was quite high under Reagan's defense spending.

It would help if you were more specific and less black and white, although I understand that B&W requires less thought and is embraced by a large number of our citizens.

Sherwood

Is that difficult to understand?
 

So your argument is; Senator Cheney sold-out toooo. He voted against some military programs, toooo. (?)

I cannot believe you would distort, to such an extreme, to equate Cheneys votes against some military programs to John Kerrys LIFE of screwing the military!

AHHg .. . it doesn't matter. My point still stands. . ..Regardless of degree of sell-out, our current soldiers VASTLY prefer George W. BUSH to that sellout John Forbes Kerry.


!

Where the hell have you been?

Saddam could give a crap about the U.S. He was concerned with Iran and their hundreds-year-old conflicts, as well as being "on top" in the middle east. This is why he was so reluctant with the UN.

When he saw Iran was building and was allowed to, Saddam was trying to acquire so he could compete with Iran.

He was a narcissist. However, he actually wanted to open dialog with the U.S. and had made attempts in the past.


If you're so concerned about this, you really really should be worrying about Iran. Saddam was secular, plus he was wanting to normalize relations with the western world...all the while...Iran and their extremist views (have been for a very long time)...are almost there.......

Thats true cool chick, but iran is pro-bush and that appears to give you a free pass with this administration.

Yeah, and the word "naïve" is to be used for someone other than you. :rolleyes:

Ever been with a cop when he's got a chatty perp' in the back?

. . .say man, day wadn't my drrruuggs . . deez? . .I be wear'n my friends panSLAM! (up goes the dividing window) :D

I imagine you would be there saying; b'b'but he just wanted to open a dialog.

Sucker.

Just in: Russians ‘may have taken Iraq explosives’

"So your argument is; Senator Cheney sold-out toooo."

Uh, no. I merely pointed out that Cheney voted against military spending too on occasion. However, Cheney sold out the country in other ways closely related to this thread.

Island. You're saying that everything that Kerry did while in the Senate was anti-military? Gee, again, that sounds black and white to me. He did vote to allow GW to negotiate with Hussein. Unfortunately, his vote couldn't include provisions GW had to adhere to (.e.g. last resort) before launching the attack.

"Regardless of degree of sell-out, our current soldiers VASTLY prefer George W. BUSH to that sellout John Forbes Kerry."

Okay, perhaps the majority of military personnel prefer Bush. Do the majority also prefer the administration's stop loss program? Do the majority prefer fighting battles in towns, accepting casualties, then being told to cease fire, pull out and start over again? Reminds me of VN. Do the majority prefer being attacked with the same weapons we sold to Iraq just a few years before?

Our military is made up of young people, most barely out of high school, mostly unsophisticated and are trained to follow orders. Do you presume they have the where-with-all to understand the larger scope of GWs program and how they and the American people are being yanked around? It's on the record that the administration sidestepped military and State dept. experts and micro-managed what you see today. I understand that many military personnel and citizens go along with that.

Sherwood

Naive? Drugs? I READ. Try it sometime.

In Saddam's view, Washington and Baghdad should have been close allies. He could have helped curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He offered to become America's "best friend in the region bar none." He was certain U.S. forces would never invade.





Saddam Told Interrogators of Iran Fixation

Saddam Hussein was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. And even as the United States fixated on him, he was fixated on his neighboring enemy, Iran.

That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam's hopes, dreams and insecurities.

The report suggests that Saddam tried to improve relations with the United States in the 1990s, yet basked in his standing as the only leader to stand up to the world's superpower.

It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq.