[quote="Cpl. Eames":ee663][quote="Sgt Stryker":ee663][quote="Cpt. Zapotoski":ee663]You stupid fucks, you guys are dumber then a box of rocks. The point is: Saddam was in the process of creating WMD, and if he did he would of most certaintly gave them to terroists. Then what would the terroists do?? Fucking land one in one of our bays back home. Then that'd wipe out half of our country east or west coast and then people would blame President Bush for not taking action against Saddam or the Terroists a few years back.

It's called being "prepared" you ignorant bastards. We're not going to sit around with our thumbs up our asses waiting for the next terroist attack. I'm just glad 9/11 was just two planes hitting two buildings... not two nukes taking out both of our coasts.[/quote:ee663]

you should get your head out of your afterburner groundpounder!
they didn't have the ability to make replacement parts for Soviet era tanks, most of their intact armor was broken down.
You don't expect them to build a nuke or chemical weapons if they can't fix a goddamn tank![/quote:ee663]

The real fact of the matter is that its a well known fact that sadam has had in his possesion wmd's and has used them before....if sadam didnt have wmd why wouldnt he let the un inspectors in?? Why did he keep delaying allowing them to come into iraq?? Maybe so he can hide them in some bunker in the middle of the dessert, or send them to another country...or better yet even sell them off?? If he wasnt hiding something why would he not allow the weapon inspectors in?? We went after him because he didnt comply, which by un law should have resulted in the security council taking action against iraq, but wait france and germany didnt want that...they didnt want to end their lucrative buisness ties to sadam, and what happend to nato? I thought when one nato country went to war the others were automaticly suposed to come to their aid...where are our nato allies with the exception of the uk and its common wealth (excluding canada) when we need them now in iraq? They are screwing us over forgeting all we have done for them in the past, the fucking ingrates...after we liberated the fucking cowaradly french and occupied western germany...under the marshall plan we payed for the rebuilding of western europe, and how are they repaying us now??!!! After 9-11 where 3000 americans died the adminstration took alot of heat for not being prepared and forseeing this attack, we don't play games anymore...as long as we suspect someone of harboring and suporting terrorist then we should attack them because we can't afford to let another 9-11 happen, ever.[/quote:ee663]

he had weapons that WE GAVE HIM TO FIGHT IRAN,
those were long ago expended in:
1. the Iran Iraq war
2. attacks on Kurds
3. what our troops blew up in 1991


I wouldn't doubt my intel if I were you, I have been studying war and weaponry since I was six years old, I know damn well what I'm talking about.

If Bush was genuinely concerned abotu terrorists getting WMDs, he'd put pressure on Iran, they have a much more advanced chemical industry, their government is about as extremist as you can get, and their nuclear program has been confirmed by several intelligence sources. Of course our leadership just needs to put on a act of fighting terrorism to get re-elected. We didn't even get Afghanistan squared away and here we are in a long drawn out occupation, while we only have a handful of troops in Afghanistan trying to destroy Al Quaeda.

As far as your UN coment, yes Iraq was humiliating the UN, however any invasion plan would have to have been pushed through the security council.
HINT: intelligent people don't believe in the WMD line, try to convince them to act because of Saddam's human rights record.
Bush, however, being the brilliant negotiator he is, ended up humiliating the UN more than Iraq did, now the UN nations don't want to send peacekeepers for the simple fact that Bush ignored the UN. Thanks a lot Mr. President, I know our troops sure appreciate the extra load rolleyes: