Quote Originally Posted by ACArmstrong
I have a lot of friends and family in the US military. In past elections, I think your statement might be true, but in this one - I think it's not. Every person I know connected to the military in some way or another says that the buzz is and has been for a while that Bush and his cronies are going to get them "killed for nothing." Most of them think he's a little bit nuts, and most of them are life-long Republicans who will be either vote against Bush or just not vote at all.
Oh, I have no doubts there are people in the military who are opposed to Bush, but for the most part the troops do not believe they are in a vietnam kind of scenario and will support Bush and keep on pushing as long as they need to in order to finish the job.

And, I'll go back to it again (just for the record). Saddam had no WMD or WMD programs - or haven't you seen the report? He got rid of them as long ago as 1991. So, sanctions did work and were working. Now, I'm not defending Saddam, but he really had no choice but to lie. His arch enemy that the US helped him defeat in the eighties (Iran) has been chomping at the bit to get a piece of Iraq since Gulf War I. He had to pretend that he had WMD in order to stay in power. If he tells the truth - he loses. Why would he do that?
Sorry, but I can't buy this. The guy defied UN resolution after resolution. How many more must he defy before something had to be done? Would you prefer he had another 12 years to do this? We certainly wouldn't have tolerated something of this nature this after Japan surrendered, and so why should we now? Saddam was hindering weapons inspections, firing at our planes, and obviously had plans to develop WMDs. Whether or not he had WMDs is really secondary to his defiance of the resolutions, which is the real justification for taking him out. Ånd, I might add, the search ain't over yet.

I've been saying this to folks for almost a year now - because it just seemed logical to me. Why would SH come clean? Why would SH admit to having weapons and lose control of his dictatorship to his own people or a foreign power? He wouldn't and didn't. Secondly, if you follow this line of logic and SH DID have WMD, why on earth would he give even ONE of them up to the likes of Al Queda or Osama Bin Laden? If you have WMD, you're in control of whoever could be on the receiving end of that WMD. Once you give over control of any WMD, YOU could be on the receiving end of that WMD, and therefore, you have lost the power of that WMD. While SH was a sociopath - I don't think he was stupid.
The burden of proof was upon Saddam, not us. And there was a reason why we had the final resolution drafted against him. He had the chance to come clean, and if he would have come clean, then he could have saved his country from war. But this is a man who first of all was inflated with his own ego, and therefore wasn't about to confess anything to us. Second, he didn't give a rat's behind for his own people, so why would he care to even spare them war? Third, I think you underestimate the mindset of people like Saddam. Why wouldn't he give a WMD to terrorists? He knew he was on his way out, so given the fact that he had nothing else to lose what would it matter to him to give WMDs to terrorists who could strike a blow upon their two mutual enemies: the U.S. and Israel?

Of course, that's what W's administration expected from the country - just to stupidly follow along and never question his war. Thank God half the country didn't.
I think that's a bit condescending to people like me. I study the issues, I don't just "stupidly" follow along. The same is true with the other half of the country, my friend. Simply because they don't agree with you doesn't imply the administration has pulled a fast one over us. Please try to give us a little credit.

Ray