>>Everything that hasn't occured "remains to be seen." That is a specious argument. You're also not good at spelling - it's TexAs!<vbg> The election process is moving forward and I'm sure you and Kerry will be VERY disappointed when they occur. Which would you rather, elections or a dictator who uses sarin gas on the population, kills men,women and babies, then has them shoved into mass graves?
>
>And yet you're the one who claimed elections are going to take place in Iraq in January.

I'm just saying what's been stated by those who are supposed to know.


>Actually, what I would have preferred are many things. For starters, when the administration claimed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs it would have been nice if they were right. And before we forget, that was the reason we went in, not the fact that he gassed his own people in the 80s, or the other human rights abuses that took place.
>
Ok, let's say your wife comes in the house and says, "someone stole my car." Then your neighbor calls up and says yep, my son saw a guy take it. You go outside and the car's not there. Would you think your wife's car was stolen?

Russia, England, Germany, and most of the intelligence community of the world, and even one unintelligent senator (kerry) agreed at the time that Iraq had wmds. So do you sit back and wait for them to use them on us? Remember that 911 thingy?

>>Actually, we're very strong, we just can't get anyone to punch "the button." This whole thing would be over if we just nuked the region, went in and took over! (I know that punched YOUR button!)
>
>Naw, I just see it as ducking.

Not ducking, we punch the button - game over.