To: roaddog727
I do like to see these things come out, but the point is actually moot. Saddam was supposed to supply proof of disposal as a condition of leaving him in power. He didn't, game over.
7 posted on
12/24/2007 5:36:19 PM PST by
SouthTexas
(Have a Merry and Blessed Christmas.)
To: SouthTexas
“Saddam was supposed to supply proof of disposal as a condition of leaving him in power. He didn’t, game over.”
Game over with extreme prejudice
9 posted on
12/24/2007 5:38:10 PM PST by
roaddog727
(BS does not get bridges built)
To: SouthTexas
Also, he was not supposed to lock on or fire on planes in the no-fly zone.
He did this weekly, and sometimes, daily.
Each time we then had the authority to start the war right back up again.
To: SouthTexas
Saddam was supposed to supply proof of disposal as a condition of leaving him in power. He didn't, game over.The First Gulf War never ended, there was only a cease fire. Saddam violated said cease fire. Game over!
177 posted on
12/25/2007 7:40:05 AM PST by
dfwgator
(11+7+15=3 Heismans)
To: SouthTexas
Thank you for your post. It's sooo good, I'm going to repost it with a little more pizzazz ;-)
"...Saddam was supposed to supply proof of disposal as a condition of leaving him in power. He didn't, game over."
I'm so glad you boiled it down...that IS the bottom line!
185 posted on
12/25/2007 8:10:30 AM PST by
NordP
(Such tough choices ahead, I'm now a "middle of the road" voter--somewhere between RUSH & Savage ;-))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson