Quote:

---

What do you think the chances of that happening are?

---

Somewhere between zero and none, I'd have to say.

$2.25 a gallon?? Damn, its still around 2.07 down here. I am heading up to NH today though and Connecticuts probably where I'm going to have to fill up on the way.

I took your advice and saw a doctor Dax and i am happy to to agree with you when you said,

Quote:

---

When this thread started two years ago, a lot of people were telling us what jackaasses we were for saying there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Some of those people are still insisting that Saddam was 45 minutes away from launching a nuke attack on America.
However, just because we were lied to and conned into supporting the Iraq invasion, that doesn't mean GWB is a bad President, does it? He never had sex in the oval office as far as we know. He's made the world a better place. Everyone feels safer now. Everyone is doing better economically now. Educational levels have risen, so kids are smarter. More jobs. Stock market doing fabulously well. Gas prices at their lowest level in 10 years. So what's to worry, eh?

---

Lets not forget China telling you America to eat her shorts when it comes to its currency which is now crippling your economy and you America cant do a god damn thing can you?

P.s.Calling Biff.

[edited to correctly attribute quote]

Was there a point to the last few posts?

The simple fact of the matter is that the war in Iraq WAS NOT predicated solely on the basis of WMD's in Iraq, despite the efforts of some to make it seem so so as to have a convienent reason to blast the President.

The war was based on the fact that Saddam represented a potential threat of a magnitude unacceptable to the US government in the post-9/11 period. That threat was apparent for several reason.

--Saddam refused to provide or allow a full accounting of his WMD programs.

--Saddam was in material breach of the cease fire agreement that halted the first Gulf War.

--Saddam maintained friendly and supportive contacts with various terrorist organizations hostile to the US.

--Saddam was making a continuous effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

--UN sanctions had proven unable to remove Saddam or adequately reduce the threat he posed.

--The UN appeared to be unable or unwilling to take decisive action to address the threat Saddam posed.

--Various nations with thinly veiled anti-American agendas, such as france, Germany, and Russia, seemed to be on the verge of success in their efforts to remove or neutralize American efforts to defang Saddam.

To say, as Dax is prone to do, that the war was entirely about ficitious claims of pending nuclear attacks or that it was all about getting Iraqi oil for the American SUV's, as others would have us believe, is overly simplistic, even simple minded. The "simple" truth is that Saddam represented a threat, a threat we could address, and so elected to address. I suppose one could argue the manner in which we addressed the threat was inappropriate. I would disagree but we could at least have that argument. However, to say there was never a threat is in itself "palpably absurd."

Jack you can say what you like i remember in the media it did sujest that Iraq had "weaponds of mass dissapperance" that could hit the west in 45 minutes,classic "Tricknology".

Jack this was the post that you posted when the war started that made me take noice of you.

Ah, the anti-war lot again.

Let's stop the war! Oh, we didn't. I know, let's protest against it, that'll stop them, because they are wrong and we are right. Oh, that didn't work either. Oh, we were wrong after all. I have it! Let's think up a crazy conspriacy theory that we can't hope to prove rather than giving our brave troops who have faught for us bravely the honour pat on the back they deserve! That'll show them.

That was you trying to be funny but things have not turned as well as your leaders told you it would Iraq is an unholy mess and there are still "plebs" that are still talking about attacking other countrys like Iran,why don't you attack china.


The warmongers can say what they like about Saddam being in breach of this and that resouloution i knew that in 1988 when he gassed his own people but the west still thought Iraq was a good country to do business with.Its clear that America supported Iraq in the middleast untill it could figure out what to do with Iran.

As i have said before one of the reasons America invaded Iraq was because America will not allow any muslim country in the middleast to have nuclear weaponds who can threaten Israel.This is why America is makeing the same kind of war like arguments today against Iran.

regarding "45 minutes"....

Tony Blair said that Saddam's weapons (nuclear, chemical, biological, whatever) could be deployed in about 45 minutes from the time Saddam gave the order. That doesn't mean Iraq could hit the US with a missle within 45 minutes, it means that the weapons could be brought out of hiding and activated in 45 minutes.

It was only recently that Iraq had SCUD missiles that had a range capable of strinking Israel, with that in mind it's doubtful he could have landed a nuclear missile in Biloxi.

Hello Helice you may be right B-lair said that Iraq had "weaponds of mass dissapperance" that could be deployed in 45 minutes that was also rubbish as well.I ask you is this war worth it all this death and destruction all for what defending an evil lie.

In Iraq America is now caught in a bear trap how do you think you look to the world America.I heard the other day that your defence secretary said that America has no plans to leave Iraq that may be true but there are some in the middleast who have plans for America to leave Iraq its just a matter time.

Ok Jack if you say so i know you are a student of "Tricknology"like B-liar.Everybody in this country with an ounce of sense knows that going along with the fool Americans invadeing Iraq is one of the worst mistakes this country has ever made.

IT does not really matter China is comeing.