what would moores sya if Bush did NOTHING

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 28 2004, 04:24 PM
Serge, wrong, I am all for engagement - but that doesn't mean all out war without any real backup. Yes, I know, the coalition of the willing - which was a nice way of saying "The US military and anyone else we could find to lend us 10 troops and a jeep". Very few of the major players from Gulf War I were back this time.

Without the fudged proof of WMD, it would have probably been the US all alone.

My question always is this: Why is Iraq different from North Korea, different from Lybia, different from Iran, etc? I don't see where NK's actual nuclear weapons are less of a threat than Saddam MAYBE having WMDs... I just don't get the logic.

Then again, I ain't a repulican... maybe it's something you understand once you get the magic decoder ring.

Alex

See Alex, you are full of it.

Liberal's always say what about N. Korea, Iran, Syria - like they are willing to slap them down.

But if Bush launched a strike on any of those countries YOU and the rest of the bleeding heart anti-Bush crowd with have a stroke!

There would be protests, and headlines reading how Bush is a warmonger and is leading the world to annilation.

We should be beefing up our military so we can take on N. Korea, Syria and Iran at the same time if need be within the next 2-3 years.

As far as WMD, who fudged proof? the UN, the French, Russians, Clinton, Pakistanies, Kerry?? All thought that Saddam had WMDs and are on the record stating so.

Why is it when Bush takes action on evidence that everyone agrees on that HE is wrong.

Either the WORLD was wrong, or there are weapons still out there.

You know what I think!