Crosses or whatever,

the point stands

[QUOTE=JosephBaileyOne;252003]Success in Iraq is a stable society that functions on it own.  It amazes me that liberals will never scream for troops to be out of Germany and Japan, 60 plus years after WWII, or S Korea, 50 plus years after that conflict, but will scream about Iraq.  Success in both of those examples have left American troops there so as to build up those societies and let them stand on their own.  The fact that success has not been instantly done is a big part of this conflicting debate about Iraq as well as many federal politcians whooping up the liberal crowd in America about it.  Now that a plan is in place and working, why would anyone shortchange it?[/QUOTE]

Iraq will be war torn regardless of our presence.
There is a very loose plan in place and it is not working.
Peace Dave

I hear Dartmouth is ashamed to have Ann Coulter as an alumni!  I really have.  She doesn't believe anything she says.  She's a neocon opportunist who knew she could make a buck peddleing trash to uneducated morons.  She's probably a communist!

Gertrude Bell, the first woman officer in the British Foreign Service, stated in 1913 in Basra, Iraq in one of her intelligence briefs, that the stereotypical leader of the Arab race is the dictator.  Saddam was perfect!  Iraq wont "settle in" until another dictator is found to replace him.  Right now that dictator is us!

[QUOTE=JosephBaileyOne;251528]Now as for the nonexistant WMD's, then every intelligence agency in the world, the UN, as well as the US, got it wrong.  Yet, because of the blind hatred of George Bush, no liberal in America can see that the real issue is how could so many have gotten wrong?  What is going on here?  The UN's top arms inspector, an Australian, published a book the year Bush toof office talking solely about the threat that the world faced due to Hussein's WMD's.  The liberal's here in America can talk all they want about Bush "lying" about WMD's but the fact is that it is beyond words to try and describe the probablities that so many agencies could get the facts on Hussein.[/QUOTE]

Joe why do you ask the same questions over and over and then ignore the answers when they are given to you?

Did you even watch that video I posted of the Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter explaining in detail how they verified that Iraq had no viable WMDs?

Did it phase you at all when then CIA Director George Tenant specifically stated BEFORE the war that Saddam was highly unlikely to pose a threat to the US because doing so would be suicidal and helping the terrorists was also unlikely because they hated him as much as they do us?

How about when Colin Powell and Condi Rice said that Saddam was harmless. Did you pay any attention to that?

No I don't guess you did. So I know I'm wasting my time replying to you yet again but on the off chance that you might eventually get a clue I'll try one more time.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041018-713169-2,00.html

What Saddam Was Really Thinking
Sunday, Oct. 10, 2004 By JOHANNA MCGEARY ]

The greatest mystery, though, was his long game of deception: if Saddam had destroyed his WMD to escape from sanctions, why did he work so hard from 1991 until he was overthrown in 2003 to perpetuate the belief he still had them? The reason, suggests Duelfer, lay in how he saw the "survival of himself, his regime and his legacy."

While the U.S. was fixated on Saddam's threat, he focused on his strategies for Iran and considered WMD essential to keeping his neighbor in check. So he was driven by what the report calls "a difficult balancing act": getting rid of his WMD to win relief from the sanctions while pretending he still had them to serve as a strategic deterrent. "The regime never resolved the contradiction inherent in this approach," says the report. Saddam privately told an aide the "better part of war was deceiving," but ironically he was telling the West the truth. In the end, his big bluff destroyed him. [ wrote:

The greatest mystery, though, was his long game of deception: if Saddam had destroyed his WMD to escape from sanctions, why did he work so hard from 1991 until he was overthrown in 2003 to perpetuate the belief he still had them? The reason, suggests Duelfer, lay in how he saw the "survival of himself, his regime and his legacy."

While the U.S. was fixated on Saddam's threat, he focused on his strategies for Iran and considered WMD essential to keeping his neighbor in check. So he was driven by what the report calls "a difficult balancing act": getting rid of his WMD to win relief from the sanctions while pretending he still had them to serve as a strategic deterrent. "The regime never resolved the contradiction inherent in this approach," says the report. Saddam privately told an aide the "better part of war was deceiving," but ironically he was telling the West the truth. In the end, his big bluff destroyed him.