ClumsyMonkey.net

This is only my opinon and just kinda thigns that are on my mind and I'm wondering if anyone else out there feels the same.

First before the war began Bush and his whole cabinet was telling the world abotu this 'smoking gun' but never showed evidence.

So the war began and all the networks retired army generals and whatnot would all be saying Oh they'll most liekly find the weapons in Bagdad .. *Bagdad falls and nothign yet* ohh they ran the weapons off to Tikrit *Now Tikirit has fallen and still nothing*

The same goes for all of Saddams army. The real fighting will come in Al Qasar oh no they retreat to basra that's where the real fighting will be, oh no Bagdad that's where the bloodbath will occur, bagdad was a cakewalk because they all retreated to Tikrit.

So now all of Iraq has been a cakewalk (Well not a cakewalk but seemingly easy you get my drift) and there still hasn't been any of this huge heavy resitance everyone (Media wise and Politically wise) has been talking about.

And we still have not uncovered any Smoking Guns regarding chemical weapons.

So now what are all the retired army network generals saying: Oh umm err they all ran off to Syria.

Same with Bush and Rumsfeild and what not, all the sudeen it's Syria who's harboring Iraqi's it's Syria who's doing chemical weapons test.

This only creates an even bigger field day for opoents of the War, and places more doubts on the mids of people who are undecided about the war.

Anyone else feel as if this whole process is going to start over again and we just replace the word Syria with the word Iraq.

I havn't read much of any war talk on the forums here so I jsut want to let it be known that I'm not looking to start any flame war here.

If you have a different opionin I'm cool with it.
Find an error in my thinking? Prove me wrong.

I'm open to a discussion over this.

Thanks,
Brian Wright

That's not entirely true. They have found some biological agents in Iraq.

Really? I've barely herd anything other than the fact they've found piles of gasmasks and that they've broken into palaces and places where it's assumed that chemical weapons are located.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is look at this situation like you were from Switzerland or something. You wouldn't see the barage of media basically saying how stubborn and stupid Saddam is but at the same time calling him a ruthless dictator etc etc.

From a neutral standpoint I would think that yes it's pretty clear saddam did have chemical weapons previously but what if now he has lived up to UN inspections and destroyed them? I mean the UN couldn't find any and nither has the US so far (That I've seen).

And now because the US has made all these damming statements and are so sure Saddam still ahs these they may just be making up excuses to cover. Hence the mention of Syria.

Back to reality I'm not sure at this point wether these weapons still exists.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did and I wouldn't be surprised if their never found.

I dunno just trying to look at this from a neutral standpoint the best I can.

Later,
Brian Wright

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/ ... 26179.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

admittedly non-conclusive

Now why don't war conversations ever go like this?