Kennedy's latest remarks

[Mulan]

Originally Posted by fallout

Saddam definetly had WMDs.

This is nearly a religion for you, fallout. Keep the faith, brother.

Then WHERE THE H*LL ARE THEY? If they existed and have been given to terrorist organizations, why aren't we at level Orange or Red??

Originally Posted by Mulan

If they existed and have been given to terrorist organizations, why aren't we at level Orange or Red??

If they don't exist, Hussein was pretty stupid to not provide full disclosure about their destruction. He might still be in power today.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Yoda

If they don't exist, Hussein was pretty stupid to not provide full disclosure about their destruction. He might still be in power today.

Who said he wasn't stupid? Or, maybe he isn't stupid but miscalculated by thinking that the fear of these WMD's would keep him safe. Isn't that what other crazy leaders of poor, weak countries try to do?

[fallout]

Originally Posted by Mulan

This is nearly a religion for you, fallout. Keep the faith, brother.

Then WHERE THE H*LL ARE THEY? If they existed and have been given to terrorist organizations, why aren't we at level Orange or Red??

We are at yellow, last time I checked. I think that is 3 out of 5. Pretty high for the strongest country in the world, I would think.

I agree that wjere the hell are they is an important question. I think Bush is not following the Bush doctrine of getting them at any cost, since he stopped at the borders of Syria etc.. when looking for them. Politically, he felt he had to. If these weapons are really imminenet to be used against us, why let a stupid border stop us from goigng and getting them? Another reason not to like W, I guess.

As for them not existing, that is a very naive notion. We have stacks of bodies to prove they did, hell we probably even gave some to him, once upon a time. Saddam documented the pile of them he had, and then said what WMD's? It is ridiculous to think that there are no WMDs.

The democrats coiuld score higher points in my opinion by charging forward with, Bush didn't find the weapons and so we are still not safe, rather then the wweapons never existed. I believe this area has been covered exhaustively.

[fallout]

Originally Posted by Harry

Who said he wasn't stupid? Or, maybe he isn't stupid but miscalculated by thinking that the fear of these WMD's would keep him safe. Isn't that what other crazy leaders of poor, weak countries try to do?

Iraq was neither poor nor weak. Saddam was brutal, but I didsagree with characterizing him as stupid. On what would you base that assesment?

[Harry]

Originally Posted by fallout

Iraq was neither poor nor weak. Saddam was brutal, but I didsagree with characterizing him as stupid. On what would you base that assesment?

You don't think that post GWI Iraq was poor and weak? I didn't say he was or wasn't stupid. I offered possible explanations for him pretending to have WMD's.

[fallout]

Originally Posted by Harry

You don't think that post GWI Iraq was poor and weak? I didn't say he was or wasn't stupid. I offered possible explanations for him pretending to have WMD's.

The country was very rich. The problem was one guy had all the money. I am surprised, that you being the good little socialist you are, would not be more happy about Saddam being gone so that all the future oil revenues can be spread more evenly to the citizens. Iraq was never poor. Iraqi citizens were.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by fallout

The country was very rich. The problem was one guy had all the money. I am surprised, that you being the good little socialist you are, would not be more happy about Saddam being gone so that all the future oil revenues can be spread more evenly to the citizens. Iraq was never poor. Iraqi citizens were.

Calling me a socialist does nothing to support your case that Iraq was wealthy. Iraq was a poor, weakened 3rd world country when the US attacked this year. Apparently they didn't even have WMDs. Saddam tried to bluff and lost. It happens. Admit your boy George was wrong and move on.

[fallout]

Calling you a socialist is simply stating a fact. By the way, you saying "your boy george" is in fact stating a lie. He is not my boy, and just in case you haven't been paying attention, I was and remian against the US having/sending troops to Iraq.

As for Iraq being poor, have you forgoteen that this country sits on more oil then any other country in the world? The only reason it was "poor" was the leader of the country wanted it that way.

As for Saddam Hussein bluffing, where were you and your heroes with this claim when they all voted for military action in Iraq and you sat quietly by. Truly pathetic how you can't see past party lines, ever.

Originally Posted by fallout

As for Iraq being poor, have you forgoteen that this country sits on more oil then any other country in the world?

Second after Saudi, aren't they?