Who said this?

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by john9001
10bears , you silly , john heinz-kerry has been saying Iraq was no threat, now he says it was such a big threat that bush should have sent in more troops to fight "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".
 

when did he say Iraq was no threat?

I remember him saying we should have exhausted the other options to deal with Iraq

[lazs2]

red bottom.... most wars are considered successful when the enemy can no longer raise an army.

lazs

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by lazs2
red bottom.... most wars are considered successful when the enemy can no longer raise an army.

lazs

I stand corrected, the American forces are merely engaged in war games with the innocent, law abiding citizens of Fallujah, who are only posing as insurgents that have occupied the city.

[10Bears]

LOL, is “information resistance” a polite way of saying... um.. never mind. John Iraq was not a threat to anyone they couldn’t launch an attack on Lichenstine.. If they had any WMD at all it would be a couple of buckets of bug spray left over from ... well from when Reagan gave it to them in the 80’s.

Of course if you insist on adapting the Japanese foreign policy of the early 40’s, you should at least have the where with all to have the correct number of troops to do the job. One job description would be to secure “all” the ammo dumps just in the slight chance, as remote as it may be, that some folks might object to being overthrown and occupied by a foreign power.

this is really funny.... Bush led probly(sic) the most sucessful (sic) and least expensive in American lives, war of all time and now some of you wussies (sic) are saying he didn't do enough?

lazs

Absolutely correct Lazs.. well if you take away Operation Desert Storm or Operation Allied Force.. Operation Allied Force was 1,125 times MORE successful.  You probably don’t remember that.. At the time you were fixated on another man’s genitals.

[john9001]

10bears, reports say there were/are 500 ammo dumps in Iraq, how many troops do you need to "secure" them?

i need a number, 200,000,   500,000,   1 million,  2 million?

[Elfie]

If they had any WMD at all it would be a couple of buckets of bug spray left over from ... well from when Reagan gave it to them in the 80’s.

It's already been shown that chemicals the US sold to Iraq were sold to them for agricultural uses. Some of the chemicals had a dual-use. None of the chemicals we sold them were critical ingredients for the manufacture of chemical weapons.

We also sold Iraq Anthrax spores to use in making Anthrax vaccine for livestock.

[10Bears]

Well John that was the question put to General Shasikilli (spelling) by Sen. Levin during the Senate Foreign relationship committee meeting.. He said between 400 to 500 thousand troops.. The administration got beet faced mad and had him early retired.

(source: “Rumfield’s War”  pbs.org)

[10Bears]

Elfie number one the guy that laid a reef on the graves of SS soldiers did not sell he gave Saddam these chemicals.

Number two this is a cover story.

Number three these chemicals came at the same time the Iran/Iraq war was flaring up

Number four we wanted to punish Iran for that business back there with the embassy

[Torque]

Originally posted by Elfie
It's already been shown that chemicals the US sold to Iraq were sold to them for agricultural uses. Some of the chemicals had a dual-use. None of the chemicals we sold them were critical ingredients for the manufacture of chemical weapons.

We also sold Iraq Anthrax spores to use in making Anthrax vaccine for livestock.

Yeah sure, hmmm...i know the Brits asked you to do it again, LaRf!

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news12.htm

[Pongo]

Any real supporter of Bush that knew him and his record and supported him for who he is wouldnt make up crap about their being evidence to support WMD. The whole point of the man is that he does what he wants and he says what he has to to get to do what he wants.
There is no policy, evidence or rational behind what he does. He does it because he wants to.
All these clowns that insist there must have been good evidence really must not support who Bush is. Evidence, plans, rational, consensus, constraints.
Those of for the other guy. No honest Bush supporter would require them, or imply that Bush had or valued them.