I am not willing to assume that Saddam really did have WMD when it has yet to be proven to be the case. If it turns out that Bush was right, then he was right. But just like in a court of law, Saddam is not guilty of having WMD until Bush has proven so beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't like Saddam, and I agree with everyone who says that he's a really bad guy that deserved to be removed from power for the betterment of Iraq. At the same time though our country can't go to war without backing up our reasons with facts. All I want is facts and so far there are none. If it turns out that Saddam actually had WMD then Bush will be vinticated. Until that happens I will not make assumptions about what kind of weapons Saddam did or did not have.

 

Didn't Iraq have a kick ass economy like 25 years ago - before Saddam took control? I know that its got an absolutely massive oil reserve, its a rich country, just waiting to be tapped for oil.

Since Saddam was running the country and the economy on his own terms solely, he really wasnt generating any healthy economic activity over there. (Meaning that neighboring Middle Eastern nations weren't benefitting, nor were many of his people.) Thats my main guess as to why the US govt has taken that course of action - they wanted to pry open the economic potential of that country wide open.

 

but isnt it known that he did have them and that we gave it to him, with this known fact it is safe to say that he might still have unless he destroyed them under the order of the UN (which in my eyes is unlikely considering the kind of man he was).

 

You are correct in your assumption...he was a shady individual who had an agenda of his own.

However, the problem with this logic is that if he was such a shady individual then why did the US give him these WMDs then turn around and tell him he couldn't have them years later.

These items given him, unless properly maintained degrade over a period of time. Given his countries history with the maintenence, strength and knowledge base it is unlikely that proper maintenence was given, therefore even if he had these weapons still in his stockpile they would be inneffective at best

 

:lmao: agreed but since i may be correct in my assumption why is so hard for everyone else to believe that this may be true? why the skepticism? i observe that there is such hate towards bush that those that dont like him are blind to the facts that are known to us all.

on a side note i dont think there has been a president that people have been committed to so strongly to poke fun of and embarrass, point at hand OLDMAN's latest post about a bush doll thread titled Dubya. why the animosity? sure you dont like him, but i dont believe that this kind of attention has ever been given to any other president before.

 

Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan, Nixon, Gerald Ford... from what I've seen, it's pretty much been the same intensity, but Bush has done a good job of polarizing people into verbally loving him or hating him, and they didn't have Flash for presidents before Clinton

 

:lmao::rofl:

 

Because giving a guilty verdict without a proper trial or evidence is not the way things work....at least its not supposed to work that way.

Bush gets no more hate than Clinton did..or Reagan, or Bush Sr. or Nixon or Ford or many of our other Presidents in the past. The only difference now is the medium in which we can express our distaste as well as the number of people it reaches

 

i want to kick you all in the nuts:db:

 

I want to see you try