Sadam had NO weapons of mass distruction..?

Question

Dont you think thats when Bush should have been impeached?
How many soldiers have we lost because of Bush!!!

Michael Moore tard,,I am a 46 year old women & dont insult my parents.And my Dad is in heaven azzhole.

Rick M>That is my favorite site,,Thx for posting it.

Brad B>you have me all wrong,,I appreciate what the soldiers are doing.Dont tell me what I think & feel.You do not know me.

Answer 1

The f*cking criminal should have been removed from office the day after he stole the 2000 election! He's responsible for the deaths of over 3000 soldiers, and the 3000 lives he took on 9/11/2001.

Answer 2

The conflict on Iraq became declared shortly after 9/11 (which Saddam had no longer something to do with) and there have been no weapons of mass destruction! So, no, i do no longer think of the killing of 1000's of harmless lives (troops and civilians) may be justified.

Answer 3

You have no idea what you are talking about. You most likely don't even know anyone that has gone to Iraq.

Fact: All of the Anthrax that Iraq was believed to have had could be condesed to powder form and fit in a suitcase.
Fact: Iraq time and time again refused full UN inspection on suspected weapons sites

I have stood on top of planes that Sadam buried in the desert. Chemical weapons (WMD) were used on the people of Iraq - Kurds. Weapons could have and were easily moved out of Iraq.

I have fought and will again fight in Iraq. If you coudl see some of the good we are doing you would change your tune, but you rely on the drive-by media for all of your info and od none of the research yourself. You spout Liberal talking points that are played out. You have no repect for freedom, for liberty and you cannot understand what it means to help bring that to another nation that has only know tyranny.
Grow up a bit, open your eyes, use your own mind, and do not hold false convictions that you do not understand

Answer 4

Well you would think. The whole Congress pulled Clinton onto the carpet because he simply got a blow... job in the Oval Office.

But I guess Republicans are immune to impeachment. Lies to Congress, the United Nations, and worst of all to the American people don't measure up to an impeachable offense compared to a little nookie on the side.

During the last election the Republican run media took on Kerry and his combat record. He did his duty. He came from a rich family. He could have used his family power. He was wounded. He did save lives. Whether he deserved a medal or not. Well the bottom line was that he did his job.

Look at the sleazeballs raising the fuss though. Every single major post in the second Executive Cabinet was occupied by people who consciously avoided combat. Cheney managed five deferrments. And Bush was missing from the Texas National Air Guard to Alabama despite the fact that they didn't have any airplanes at the time. I guess they couldn't find the country saloon where he spent his military time.

Should he be impeached? Damn rights. Will he be? No. The Republican fundamentalist Christians now control too much of the country to ever let that happen.

Answer 5

I recall an Iraqi officer boasting gleefully shortly after the UN inspectors were kicked out in 1998 about how they didn't find it all.

I recall all those UNSC nations voted unanimously for all 17 BINDING Resolutions against Saddam's Iraq over 13 years for not disarming of WMD as he'd agreed to.

I recall President Clinton on regime change in Iraq. 31 Oct 1998 Iraq Liberation Act http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Answer 6

What did he use on the Kurds?

If Saddam had no WMD he should have proved it. He had over a decade to conform to the UN resolutions and yet he refused.

You seem to be willing to let nations live in the grey area but the world is a black and white place. You either condone terrorism or you condemn it. There is NO middle ground. Saddam did not condemn it.

The only place soldiers die in vain is in the heads of people who think like you.

Answer 7

just becuz saddam didnt hav any WMDs doesnt mean that waging a war against Hussein was a bad idea. Look, Suddam hessein was killing every1, hes a f*cking ruthless dictator, the world is way better without him, besides, almost all the other political leaders agreed that invading was a good idea. Though now the war is getting foolish. And oh wow, we lost a lot of soldiers, didnt that happen like, every war. and why are you talking about suddam, he got hanged a while ago.

Answer 8

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm Weapons of mass destruction does not mean only nuclear. I have no clue where people get this idea. Chemical weapons are also weapons of mass destruction. The reason they are called weapons of mass destruction is they are able to kill many at one time. People would have been screaming very loudly if Bush had did nothing. Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but it gives us nothing for the future.

Answer 9

He used them against the Kurds 20 years ago. Somehow I don't think they were looking for those WMDs. The so-called "proof" that we went to war over wasn't based on chemical weapons used in the 80s.

Answer 10

Its a war, there have to be casualties and its true that most people supported the war in 2003 and know don't want to take responsibility for it! Sadam also was a merciless dictator who killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians and harbored terrorism!! Who knows how long it would have been before sadam did get WMD!!

Answer 11

Bologna ! You are one more lemming who listens to everything you hear, everything you see, but never takes the time to verify a thing! Good sources have come forward to dispel this story. It has been offered by high military authority in Saddam's own army that WMD were sent off to Syria just before the American invasion in 03.

I find this information very credible, given that Saddam did the same thing with his airplanes just before the Desert Storm invasion. Only then, he flew his planes to Iran, and never did recover them, as the story goes.