NationStates Jolt Archive

Come on people. How much more do you need?

- The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing.

Incompetence and secrecy. How can you think they can possibly keep us safe?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?hp&ex=1098763200&en=fd35fdf4b6d46d61&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136466,00.html

Dude! Check these new fireworks from Iraq.

BOOM

Oops!

(You wonder how the militants get the explosives for them car bombs?)

But... but... but.... *sputter* the US defended itself from the great threat that Iraq was before the war!!! It would have launched WMD within 45 minutes if Bush had not attacked it!!!

Looks like we didn't have to worry about Saddam handing weapons over to terrorists. The Bush administration did it for them.

Looks like we didn't have to worry about Saddam handing weapons over to terrorists. The Bush administration did it for them.
No. Terrorism has clearly decreased, it is not a problem in Iraq, the country is safe and secure for elections in January and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. We got Ansar Al-Sunnah Army, Qaga Brigade and Zarqawi (Al Qaida) instead now. Woohoo.

This makes reason number 589287462 that the Bush administration is incompetent and should be tossed out on their asses on November 2. Only eight more days to go.

No. Terrorism has clearly decreased, it is not a problem in Iraq, the country is safe and secure for elections in January and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. We got Ansar Al-Sunnah Army, Qaga Brigade and Zarqawi (Al Qaida) instead now. Woohoo.

Not to mention insurgents who have infiltrated the Iraqi security force. Armed with 760,000 pounds of explosives. Seriously, if they can't protect a known site like that, what the fuck are they doing? This is...words fail me. How can anyone vote for these bastards?

Well Rove, you got your October Surprise. Burn in hell.

I'm sorry, I meant to return them ah.

“These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons,” Lockhart said

but...but...but...I thought there were no WMDs or existance of a nuclear weapons program, or tha Iraq had tha ability to make nuclear weapons?

Well Rove, you got your October Surprise. Burn in hell.Nah--Rove's October surprise is apparently this. When Kerry said last year that he met with the UN Security Council, he apparently didn't specify that he met with the permanent members instead of the whole thing, so he was lying. Or flip-flopping. Or something.

It's getting to the point where I expect Rove to have Bush gun down Osama Bin Laden personally on the White House lawn or something.

“These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons,” Lockhart said

but...but...but...I thought there were no WMDs or existance of a nuclear weapons program, or tha Iraq had tha ability to make nuclear weapons?

These can be used to detonate nuclear weapons. They aren't nuclear weapons by themselves.

“These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons,” Lockhart said

but...but...but...I thought there were no WMDs or existance of a nuclear weapons program, or tha Iraq had tha ability to make nuclear weapons?
One--Explosives are not WMD. Two--this is dual use stuff, stuff that the IAEA had under seal before the war started, and stuff that the "Coalition" failed to secure after the invasion was a done deal. I was wondering just how long before some dumbass tried to turn into a "so they had WMD after all" statement. Happened sooner than I expected.

“These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons,” Lockhart said

but...but...but...I thought there were no WMDs or existance of a nuclear weapons program, or tha Iraq had tha ability to make nuclear weapons?

1) This is a whole shitload of conventional weaponry. They are not, in and of themselves, WMD. They can be used to detonate nuclear weapons, if the necessary enriched uranium and other difficult to acquire items are there as well.

2) If the whole point of going in to Iraq was to secure items like this, then they failed miserably. In fact, they made it worse.

How can anyone leave 380 tons of explosives unguarded?

How can anyone leave 380 tons of explosives unguarded?

I think this may be enough to make Kerry President

How can anyone leave 380 tons of explosives unguarded?

This is what American journalists should be asking Bush.

Yeah - but at least the guarded the important stuff... like the offices of the Ministry of Oil....

:rolleyes:

What do you expect? Bush is incompetent. He was so eager to invade a country that he didn't think things through. Send the soldiers in without a game plan. Result? The insurgents that are crippling the country and casting serious doubts on the elections in January. And 380 tons of explosives...gone. Why can anyone say Iraq was a danger to begin with? Bush says it was a danger and that makes it true? The lies they told the UN, the American people and the world are obvious but people seem not to care. Incredible.

I think this may be enough to make Kerry President

American incompetence in Iraq really isn't that surprising. Not since the Abu Ghraib scandal, anyway.

How can anyone leave 380 tons of explosives unguarded?

The same people who allowed nuclear reactor facilties to be stripped and moved out.

One--Explosives are not WMD. Two--this is dual use stuff, stuff that the IAEA had under seal before the war started, and stuff that the "Coalition" failed to secure after the invasion was a done deal. I was wondering just how long before some dumbass tried to turn into a "so they had WMD after all" statement. Happened sooner than I expected.
Nice play on words. I guess we must have a difference of opinion of a weapon of mass destruction.:
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

* nuclear weapons (including radiological weapons)
* biological weapons
* chemical weapons
If you want to keep telling yourself that a explosives that could level a building are not considered a WMD, then you do that. You say tomato, I sat tomahto.

What bugs me even more is the lengths to which the Bush administration went to make sure this information didn't get out, at least not right away. Makes me wonder what else they're not telling us.

You say tomato, I sat tomahto.

Yes but only one of them is spelt correctly.

Nice play on words. I guess we must have a difference of opinion of a weapon of mass destruction.:
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

* nuclear weapons (including radiological weapons)
* biological weapons
* chemical weapons
If you want to keep telling yourself that a explosives that could level a building are not considered a WMD, then you do that. You say tomato, I sat tomahto.


The semantics of the argument have nothing to do with the fact that they left it unguarded. Do you want to argue that?

Nice play on words. I guess we must have a difference of opinion of a weapon of mass destruction.:
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

* nuclear weapons (including radiological weapons)
* biological weapons
* chemical weapons
If you want to keep telling yourself that a explosives that could level a building are not considered a WMD, then you do that. You say tomato, I sat tomahto.


The main difference being that the premise of the danger that Saddam posed WAS explicitely banned nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The whole "we don't want the proof to come in the shape of a mushroom cloud" statements that this administration used when selling this endeavour to the public.

Now if you want to split semantic hairs on what the REAL definition of WMD is (or should be) - fine. It's a nice intellectual argument that has NOTHING to do with the definition as used by the US government in it's presentation of the risk posed by Saddam. And nor were these explosives unknown or banned items under sanctions. Had they been illegal, they would have been removed rather than inventoried by the IAEA.

Using your definition, every metropolitan police force in the US has WMD based on the size of the explosion that their own ammunition supplies could make if it were all loaded into a van and detonated. But frankly, I don't think we'll see the national guard called in to invaded each precinct house to remove them...

The semantics of the argument have nothing to do with the fact that they left it unguarded. Do you want to argue that?
I'm sure we'll see more of the story develop as days go by. All we know right now is that they disappeared some time after the US-led invasion. “We do not know what happened to the explosives or when they were looted,” she told AP. I don't have a problem holding the Bush Administration accountable as long as we know all the facts behind this.

Nice play on words. I guess we must have a difference of opinion of a weapon of mass destruction.:
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

* nuclear weapons (including radiological weapons)
* biological weapons
* chemical weapons
If you want to keep telling yourself that a explosives that could level a building are not considered a WMD, then you do that. You say tomato, I sat tomahto.By your definition, many construction companies also have and use WMD. Hell, by that definition, fertilizer and diesel is a WMD. Come back when you have a real argument.

Using your definition
That's not my definition. I found that by doing a simple Google search.

Nice play on words. I guess we must have a difference of opinion of a weapon of mass destruction.:
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

* nuclear weapons (including radiological weapons)
* biological weapons
* chemical weapons
If you want to keep telling yourself that a explosives that could level a building are not considered a WMD, then you do that. You say tomato, I sat tomahto.
Not really. The 380 tonnes isn't one weapon. It's 380 tonnes of explosives. Note the plural. That's the difference. It could be in 1 kg packets for all we know. Therefore it's not a WMD. A WMD by definition is a powerful (read singular) explosive. Stacking a whole lot of small explosives together might have the same effect, but it's not a WMD. I mean, you wouldn't consider a fully-laden 747 or a truck full of fertiliser WMDs, but they're certainly been shown to be just as effective when used in a particular way.

The Oklahoma City bombing was certainly a terrorist attack. Meathod? Using explosives to destroy a federal building killing hundreds. With this, I would very much consider simple explosives a WMD. Plastiqe can do a hell of alot of damage for example. Fertilizer can make a bomb! Simple products like this and we are conserned with nukes.

I think this may be enough to make Kerry President

Because Bush was directly responsible for this.

That's not my definition. I found that by doing a simple Google search.


Oh, well if you found it on Google it MUST be true!

And you clearly presented it as an opinion that you agreed with.

However, in the context of official Washington discourse on WMD, the definition used is:


"Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--nuclear, biological, and chemical--in the possession of hostile states and terrorists represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States."

That would be from the White House document entitled the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/WMDStrategy.pdf),

So, for purposes of discussion on WMD in Iraq as a matter of US policy - this cache does not qualify.

-Z-

The Oklahoma City bombing was certainly a terrorist attack. Meathod? Using explosives to destroy a federal building killing hundreds. With this, I would very much consider simple explosives a WMD. Plastiqe can do a hell of alot of damage for example. Fertilizer can make a bomb! Simple products like this and we are conserned with nukes.

Goddamn. The point isn't that they are WMD (which even the Bush administration didn't call them.) It's that they up and walked away.

Jeez. Is the going to de-evolve into another Bush excuse-fest?

Because Bush was directly responsible for this.

Ultimately, Bush is the Commander In Chief. When 380 tons of explosives in a country he ordered to be invaded mysteriously disappears, I would say he is responsible. It's his policy that determines the priorities, and apparently they didn't seem to think that guarding a massive explosives cache was important.

How far are you willing to go to apologize for Bush? Is anything ever his fault? If a President doesn't actually do anything, then why do you oppose Kerry (I assume.)

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

If you want to keep telling yourself that a explosives that could level a building are not considered a WMD, then you do that. You say tomato, I sat tomahto.
And conversely, one could also use a nuke to level a building.. or.. two

An conversely, one could also use a nuke to level a building.. or.. two

Yo, just last week I nuked myself some lunch.

>380 TONS of explosives go missing in Iraq

http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/batman-ohshit.gif

Yo, just last week I nuked myself some lunch.
Gives food a nicely vaporised taste doesn't it?

>380 TONS of explosives go missing in Iraq

http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/batman-ohshit.gif

I didn't think it was possible, but you made me laugh about this topic.

The Oklahoma City bombing was certainly a terrorist attack. Meathod? Using explosives to destroy a federal building killing hundreds. With this, I would very much consider simple explosives a WMD. Plastiqe can do a hell of alot of damage for example. Fertilizer can make a bomb! Simple products like this and we are conserned with nukes.
You missed my point entirely! I wasn't saying it wasn't a Terrorist attack, just that a truck load of fertiliser isn't a WMD. You can make it behave like one if you're so inclined. It makes it horribly destructive, but that doesn't make it a WMD.
You do raise a good point: If they didn't bother guarding 380 tonnes of explosives, how much guarding has there been of the Fertiliser plants in Iraq?

New movie title:

Stolen Explosives: Wounds that Never Heal, the story of George Bush in Iraq.

Goddamn. The point isn't that they are WMD (which even the Bush administration didn't call them.) It's that they up and walked away.

Jeez. Is the going to de-evolve into another Bush excuse-fest?
Gods, I can just see this being used by the GOP spin doctors to prove their point that Iraq had WMDs, and conveniently ignoring the fact that the explosive equivalent of a small nuclear weapon has disappeared!

Gods, I can just see this being used by the GOP spin doctors to prove their point that Iraq had WMDs, and conveniently ignoring the fact that the explosive equivalent of a small nuclear weapon has disappeared!

That's how they'll try to answer it, but you can bet your ass they won't bring it up themselves. This looks bad bad bad for them. Kerry better use it in his stump speeches.

Uh, lets not forget that these weapon depots were being protected by the UN and their agencies before the American invasion. Doh!

It's our good friends the Saudis and the Syrians funding the insurgents. Let's not forget who was REALLY behind 9/11 and now has a foothold in Iraq thanks to Bush.

...Let's not forget who was REALLY behind 9/11 and now has a foothold in Iraq thanks to Bush.
The CIA?

oh i wouldnt worry about it. they dont know WHEN It was stolen and considering the number of car bombs and other bombings there have been in the last couple months im pretty sure that there is NO LONGER 380 tons of explosives.

for every 500 iraqis killed we save the lives of .0002 americans down the line. aren't you glad we have george bush keeping us safe?

I heard on CNN this morning that Condi Rice knew as early as Oct. 10th.. I wonder why she didn't share that with the press? :rolleyes:

I heard on CNN this morning that Condi Rice knew as early as Oct. 10th.. I wonder why she didn't share that with the press? :rolleyes:

oh im sure its a political dirty trick that we were ever told about it at all
and here it is ONE WEEK before the elections.

those damned news outlets telling the ugly truth so close to the elections. what were the founding fathers thinking of giving us freedom of the press??

So, let's sum this up the thread, then...


380 tons of explosives go missing during the invasion. No specific time is given, and the building they were taken from has been looted into oblivion for a long while, now.

The liberals blame it on Bush, and to be fair, it is partly his fault, since we didn't immediately seize this building and inspect it. And we should have. Most definately. 380 tons of explosives, whose primary purpose was demolitions, are a distinct military asset for either side.



However, on the flip-side, I must reiterate that we were never told when they were taken. Never. Just that it happened during the invasion. For all we know, the moment they heard we were moving in, they got all their explosives together and ran, hid them elsewhere, and have proceeded to use them. Hell, we don't know how long they were there after their location was confirmed, for that matter.


Y'all are trying to pin something on us that, quite frankly, isn't necessarily our fault at all. That doesn't seem very sporting, if you ask me, using the lack of evidence to push your own agenda. I mean, at least WE bother to manipulate the information, eh?

I must reiterate that we were never told when they were taken. Never.

Actually we do know they were taken since the American invasion. How do we know this? Because they were all being protected by the UN inspectors and other UN related agencies up and until that point.

I heard on CNN this morning that Condi Rice knew as early as Oct. 10th.. I wonder why she didn't share that with the press? :rolleyes:
"Upon receiving the declaration on October 10, we first took measures to authenticate it," Fleming said. "Then on October 15, we informed the multinational forces through the U.S. government with the request for it to take any appropriate action in cooperation with Iraq's interim government."

"Mr. ElBaradei wanted to give them some time to recover the explosives before reporting this loss to the Security Council, but since it's now out, ElBaradei plans to inform the Security Council today" in a letter to the council president, she said.

The funniest part is:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

"In response, the Bush campaign accused Kerry of using the IAEA announcement to attack the president.

'John Kerry has no vision for fighting and winning the war on terror, so he is basing his attack on the headlines he wakes up to each day,' said Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt."


Well, I guess if you all stop f*cking up, he wouldn't be using it against you now would he?

"Hey Bill, why don't you go check on those 388 tons of explosives in the back room?"
"Ha, I don't think they're going anywhere, but whatever."
*opens door*
"OH SHIT!"

So, let's sum this up the thread, then...


380 tons of explosives go missing during the invasion. No specific time is given, and the building they were taken from has been looted into oblivion for a long while, now.

The liberals blame it on Bush, and to be fair, it is partly his fault, since we didn't immediately seize this building and inspect it. And we should have. Most definately. 380 tons of explosives, whose primary purpose was demolitions, are a distinct military asset for either side.



However, on the flip-side, I must reiterate that we were never told when they were taken. Never. Just that it happened during the invasion. For all we know, the moment they heard we were moving in, they got all their explosives together and ran, hid them elsewhere, and have proceeded to use them. Hell, we don't know how long they were there after their location was confirmed, for that matter.


Y'all are trying to pin something on us that, quite frankly, isn't necessarily our fault at all. That doesn't seem very sporting, if you ask me, using the lack of evidence to push your own agenda. I mean, at least WE bother to manipulate the information, eh?

I'm not trying to manipulate anything. This is the information as it's printed:
"The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year."
Do I need to add anything to that, does it have anything to do with some "personal" agenda I might or might not have? I might wonder what agenda you have. Your flip-side point is coming right out of your ass.

That sickens me. Again! How many more times must I be sickened before the pain stops? Why, oh god WHY OH WHY!!!! do we suck at getting the job done right the first time? *sigh*

This is gross misconduct. Those explosives could be used against U.S. civilian or military targets!!!!! What the HELL is wrong with the Bush Administration!??!?! Why did they not secure this site?!?!

Goddamn. The point isn't that they are WMD (which even the Bush administration didn't call them.) It's that they up and walked away.

Jeez. Is the going to de-evolve into another Bush excuse-fest?

I have never liked Bush and I never will. I will always see him as an incompetent who got his way through the world from daddy and daddy's friends. How this man got to rule a country full of supposedly smart people like Americans eludes me. That he allowed these explosives to disappear just emphasises this. VOTE KERRY!

The apocalypse sure is gonna look pretty. I'll set up a lawn chair on the roof. Maybe invite friends over for a brew.

...Just that it happened during the invasion. For all we know, the moment they heard we were moving in, they got all their explosives together and ran, hid them elsewhere, and have proceeded to use them. Hell, we don't know how long they were there after their location was confirmed, for that matter.


I'm sorry, but maybe I could see your point if this was a little shack of explosives, but 380 tons would take semi after semi to cart away. This is gross negligence.

The apocalypse sure is gonna look pretty. I'll set up a lawn chair on the roof. Maybe invite friends over for a brew.

"Weird Al" Yankovic would be appropriate. Listen to "Christmas at Ground Zero." Get you in the mood for your death.

The main difference being that the premise of the danger that Saddam posed WAS explicitely banned nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The whole "we don't want the proof to come in the shape of a mushroom cloud" statements that this administration used when selling this endeavour to the public.

Now if you want to split semantic hairs on what the REAL definition of WMD is (or should be) - fine. It's a nice intellectual argument that has NOTHING to do with the definition as used by the US government in it's presentation of the risk posed by Saddam. And nor were these explosives unknown or banned items under sanctions. Had they been illegal, they would have been removed rather than inventoried by the IAEA.

Using your definition, every metropolitan police force in the US has WMD based on the size of the explosion that their own ammunition supplies could make if it were all loaded into a van and detonated. But frankly, I don't think we'll see the national guard called in to invaded each precinct house to remove them...
Actually, the WMD definition used by the US military includes the accepted nuclear, bio,chem,radiological,PLUS high yield conventional.
That said, these (plural, important here) explosives were NOT one, large bomb that disappeared. It was many small items. These items disappear everyday(saying this does not excuse it, but there is no way to guard everything) Heck, when the Red Army pulled out of Eastern Europe, they were missing nearly 2MILLION tons of weapons, including possibly several tactical nuclear devices. The average person probably would have a heart attack if he/she realized how much of this $hit there is on black markets worldwide. It is just how it is.
By the way, final note, the zone containing the fmr Iraqi base in question is guarded by IRAQI troops and police, it is, after all, THEIR country, and more of them every day are trained to take over more of the work of guarding various areas.

I heard on CNN this morning that Condi Rice knew as early as Oct. 10th.. I wonder why she didn't share that with the press? :rolleyes:
Probably because there are many things that should not be shared with the press. There are very definite and needed reasons for secrecy. Lives often ride on it, something most of the kids posting here don't comprehend well.

Alright, son, so how in the hell is it protecting someone's life by not letting people know that a ton... wait, make that a ton of tons of explosives have gone missing?

Probably because there are many things that should not be shared with the press. There are very definite and needed reasons for secrecy. Lives often ride on it, something most of the kids posting here don't comprehend well.

What the fuck does it take for Bush supporters to stop making excuses? I am no Kid. I am a 30 year old, fully grown man. Spin and spin all you want, but this is a fuckup of such extreme proportions that I can't see how any reasonable person can excuse it.

What is the Bush administration's response? That Kerry should stop making attacks based on news articles. Hopeless fucktards. Heads buried in the sand. Miserable miserable failure that threatens every one of our soldiers in Iraq and the future of Iraq itself.

Mission Accomplished Bush!

What the fuck does it take for Bush supporters to stop making excuses? I am no Kid. I am a 30 year old, fully grown man. Spin and spin all you want, but this is a fuckup of such extreme proportions that I can't see how any reasonable person can excuse it.

What is the Bush administration's response? That Kerry should stop making attacks based on news articles. Hopeless fucktards. Heads buried in the sand. Miserable miserable failure that threatens every one of our soldiers in Iraq and the future of Iraq itself.

Mission Accomplished Bush!

Alright. So you are an adult. One who,likely, only knows what the news says about Iraq.One who does not seem to realize that 380tons of explosives, is actually rather small in a military sense.One who pretends to care about "our soldiers in Iraq"while spitting on the reason we were there in the first place. My apologies for misinterpreting your age.

Alright, son, so how in the hell is it protecting someone's life by not letting people know that a ton... wait, make that a ton of tons of explosives have gone missing?
The people who HAD to know, ie the soldiers everyone acts so concerned with, already did know.

Really? That's kind of funny. The friends and family that I have over in Iraq are pretty pissed off because they weren't informed. In fact, the only people who did know anything were A) the ones assigned to guard the goddamn stockpile in the first place, and B) their chain of command. Not counting various leaks and rumors that circulated.

So, let's sum this up the thread, then...


380 tons of explosives go missing during the invasion. No specific time is given, and the building they were taken from has been looted into oblivion for a long while, now.

The liberals blame it on Bush, and to be fair, it is partly his fault, since we didn't immediately seize this building and inspect it. And we should have. Most definately. 380 tons of explosives, whose primary purpose was demolitions, are a distinct military asset for either side.



However, on the flip-side, I must reiterate that we were never told when they were taken. Never. Just that it happened during the invasion. For all we know, the moment they heard we were moving in, they got all their explosives together and ran, hid them elsewhere, and have proceeded to use them. Hell, we don't know how long they were there after their location was confirmed, for that matter.


Y'all are trying to pin something on us that, quite frankly, isn't necessarily our fault at all. That doesn't seem very sporting, if you ask me, using the lack of evidence to push your own agenda. I mean, at least WE bother to manipulate the information, eh?
That is exactly my point. We knew about this quite some time ago. And the building is actually about 15 acres of a military base,many buildings. If it is still as of Sunday being picked over by looters, that is unfortunate, however, the vast majority of guard duties (except of US barracks and Iraqi/US leadership)is done by Iraqi forces now. So maybe they need more training, but it is what happens in a total societal upheaval, there will always be someone with access, and a need for cash, which likely is what happened here.You cannot guard well against the guards, it is just ,unfortunately,life.

Really? That's kind of funny. The friends and family that I have over in Iraq are pretty pissed off because they weren't informed. In fact, the only people who did know anything were A) the ones assigned to guard the goddamn stockpile in the first place, and B) their chain of command. Not counting various leaks and rumors that circulated.

My unit knew about this happening in several places, were even told what to look for.

Really? That's kind of funny. The friends and family that I have over in Iraq are pretty pissed off because they weren't informed. In fact, the only people who did know anything were A) the ones assigned to guard the goddamn stockpile in the first place, and B) their chain of command. Not counting various leaks and rumors that circulated.
But my congratulations you have already been able to talk to them about their attitude on news that supposedly is only breaking today. Our unit stayed fairly busy and was not able to talk much with family and friends about "breaking news "stories in the US.

Probably because there are many things that should not be shared with the press. There are very definite and needed reasons for secrecy. Lives often ride on it, something most of the kids posting here don't comprehend well.


Sorry - but in this instance lives don't ride on our not knowing that the military failed to secure these weapons. Egos might ride on it. Careers might. But lives don't.

The weapons are gone. vanished. missing. And the person who has them is probably using them to fill up the cars and IEDs that are killing people daily.

Whether we know that this is where the explosives came from or not is completely immaterial to the guy who has them now. Now, if you think that he will suddenly go "Fuck! The general public found out where I got my stash" and stop trying to kill people - then you are being asinine.

That is exactly my point. We knew about this quite some time ago. And the building is actually about 15 acres of a military base,many buildings. If it is still as of Sunday being picked over by looters, that is unfortunate, however, the vast majority of guard duties (except of US barracks and Iraqi/US leadership)is done by Iraqi forces now. So maybe they need more training, but it is what happens in a total societal upheaval, there will always be someone with access, and a need for cash, which likely is what happened here.You cannot guard well against the guards, it is just ,unfortunately,life.
It's not life, it's fucking war.

Sorry - but in this instance lives don't ride on our not knowing that the military failed to secure these weapons. Egos might ride on it. Careers might. But lives don't.

The weapons are gone. vanished. missing. And the person who has them is probably using them to fill up the cars and IEDs that are killing people daily.

Whether we know that this is where the explosives came from or not is completely immaterial to the guy who has them now. Now, if you think that he will suddenly go "Fuck! The general public found out where I got my stash" and stop trying to kill people - then you are being asinine.
First of all, the fact is no one even knows for certain WHOSE military failed to secure it. These bases have been guarded by Iraqis since before my unit rotated home.
Second of all, many things that the general public feels they need or wish to know, they don't.
Lastly, there have already been occasions where people who have been suspected of operations like planting the roadside bombs, were lulled into complacency then caught, something that will not happen if the press goes about their "mission" of telling everything they know, which from what I see, they either still know not much, or are to their credit still not saying some.

It's not life, it's fucking war.


No, that is a guy unfairly trying to slough off the responsability to the natives when it has been stated that they have no idea when the disapeared.


Of course it can't be the US military's fault. They are goddamn perfect they are!

Must be the Iraqis.....

:rolleyes:

Fact is - most of the arms depots were left unguarded at the start. The army didn't have manpower to both guard captured facilities and also prosecute the war. So there was a lot of stuff left for the takers. And it took a while to get the control of the country, establish guard posts etc.

This is all part and parcel of why so much of the top brass said not to go in without a half million soldiers. And now the forces on the ground and the Iraqis are paying for this administrations arrogance and total disregard for proper planning.

Here, how about I give you a list of units:

3-66th Armor, 4th ID (older brother)
1-508th airborne, 173rd Airborne brigade
2 separate members of the 503rd inf. regiment, 2ID
a marine, not sure of his company, in the 11th MEU. (uncle)

All of my AF friends are still stateside. And I hate Navy personnell, but that's just me being bitter towards my ex. Anyways, That's another one of the big problems in Iraq. Some of you get informed but not everybody that needs to know gets the information.

It's not life, it's fucking war.
It is life...there was no war when the red army pulled out of Eastern Europe, and they "left behind" approx. 75,000 TIMES this amount of explosives. Which magically have appeared in such places as the Philippines, Sudan, etc.

First of all, the fact is no one even knows for certain WHOSE military failed to secure it. These bases have been guarded by Iraqis since before my unit rotated home.
Second of all, many things that the general public feels they need or wish to know, they don't.
Lastly, there have already been occasions where people who have been suspected of operations like planting the roadside bombs, were lulled into complacency then caught, something that will not happen if the press goes about their "mission" of telling everything they know, which from what I see, they either still know not much, or are to their credit still not saying some.
On the other hand, if people don't know about it, you'll end up with a dumb populace thinking war is a noble thing, always won by the good guys and only doing good.

It is life...there was no war when the red army pulled out of Eastern Europe, and they "left behind" approx. 75,000 TIMES this amount of explosives. Which magically have appeared in such places as the Philippines, Sudan, etc.
BEfore the war, those kind of things did not happen though.

i think you all are kerry worshipers for some strange reason.. Kerry is the stupidest demacrat that i have ever known... he is a 2 sided freek... he calls on bush saying he needs to keep the jobs in the us... but there are muliple factories out there of the hienze corp in many other countries... and he saves lots of $$$$$$$$$$$ to pay for the cheaper labor. He makes a big fuss about the weapons they found... BUT!!!! if a democrat was in office they would have NEVER FOUND THE DANG THINGS!!! because they would have never went over there in the first place!!!! SO i am going to stand behind our president rain or shine. I would have never voted for in the first place if I didn't believe in his ablity to preform such a great postion for our counrty. And i feel sorry for those of you that think this war was dumb... Obviously there was weapons and the US and Britan and the other countries that are contributing are over there to protect your family and your decendants and your future grandchildren. All you can do is find wrong in everthing instead of finding out what is good about the whole situation....

EX: if someone stole your car.. you went out and bought a NEW CADDY... would you leave your doors unlocked in it while you went into the mall????

Prolly not... because when something wrong happens you dont just say... Oh well i hope whoever stole my car is really enjoying it.. maybe i can give my new caddy to another thief.... You dont trust to many people after you have had something bad happen to you... right? Now put this all in persective with Saddam Hussein and Osama and IRAQ... we have been there before and now it is just time to shut down what has happend... and Bush is doing just that.. but it seems that the democrats want to applaud saddam and osama by letting them have thier freedom and giving them the benefit of the doubt... in that case we better just do away with prisons, clinton just lets them go anyhow, and we better just do away with our military because the dems keep taking funds from there anyway it you know the WHOLE world loves us Americans because we are soooo helpful and have freedom, libery and justice and put more in the government because you know they can't always afford 4 Suv's and 10 mansions on 3 different continents.. them poor, poor Dems.. we better make abortion compulsory because the population is becomeing to large... we better not let religion become apart of our government because we might piss of the world... because we want to be a peaceful nation even if someone hurts thousands of our peoples we better just look the other way and say oops i guess our building got in the way of that plane that happens to to be our own but some iraq is flying... OOPSS>>>

Come on people figure it out... you all think its for OIL!!! its for the thousands of people that died in them towers and plane crashes and the Pentagon... tho it be governemnt... they are still people too... Everyone that dies to protect the different sectors of Iraq. NOONE EVER thinks of the Iraq people either... Our troops are over there to help the defend the different sectors of people that are deemed helpless in Iraq.. there are many sectors and and the largest one WILL kill the helpless ones if we dont stay over there till their government is established and things start taking effect.. Point is... we have troops over there and weather you approve or not... we have to give them our utmost support.. they are over there on a volunteer basis.. we never forced anyone to join the army.. they signed up on thier own and they knew what the army and all militaries were about... so dont make it seem we like the governements are sending them there to die... they are defending the honor of all the people that died and the people that can stand up for themselves in Iraq and for all helpless countries that need hope and help...

Anyway.. i hate to hear some much bad mouthing.. and instead i like to hear more reasons why we are doing the right thing.. but then again.. NONE of you are here to make this girl happy so i guess it dont matter... i just wanted to put my 2 cents in about all this before the election.. everyone just needs to be less judgemental and think of the candidate and what they will really be like in the postion.. instead of what he said and what he said... the governement needs to grow a bit also.. seems clear they are not going to stop bashing eachother... and that is not what our children need to see the government doing...

oh and dont say anything about my spelling or typing.. i was in a hurry.. so if you all want to call my stuff stupid or make fun of my typing.. just know that it makes you look a fool if that is all you can say after i typed all this...

Here, how about I give you a list of units:

3-66th Armor, 4th ID (older brother)
1-508th airborne, 173rd Airborne brigade
2 separate members of the 503rd inf. regiment, 2ID
a marine, not sure of his company, in the 11th MEU. (uncle)

All of my AF friends are still stateside. And I hate Navy personnell, but that's just me being bitter towards my ex. Anyways, That's another one of the big problems in Iraq. Some of you get informed but not everybody that needs to know gets the information.

I was not doubting you, I was, indeed congratulating you, it is rare troops there get a chance to talk to people here about things until it is already old news here(and nobody wants to talk anymore :) )
Myself, I was there as a Captain. in the 4th Inf Div, Rec Btln of 2nd Bde.

i think you all are kerry worshipers for some strange reason.. Kerry is the stupidest demacrat that i have ever known... he is a 2 sided freek... he calls on bush saying he needs to keep the jobs in the us... but there are muliple factories out there of the hienze corp in many other countries... and he saves lots of $$$$$$$$$$$ to pay for the cheaper labor. He makes a big fuss about the weapons they found... BUT!!!! if a democrat was in office they would have NEVER FOUND THE DANG THINGS!!! because they would have never went over there in the first place!!!! SO i am going to stand behind our president rain or shine. I would have never voted for in the first place if I didn't believe in his ablity to preform such a great postion for our counrty. And i feel sorry for those of you that think this war was dumb... Obviously there was weapons and the US and Britan and the other countries that are contributing are over there to protect your family and your decendants and your future grandchildren. All you can do is find wrong in everthing instead of finding out what is good about the whole situation....

EX: if someone stole your car.. you went out and bought a NEW CADDY... would you leave your doors unlocked in it while you went into the mall????

Prolly not... because when something wrong happens you dont just say... Oh well i hope whoever stole my car is really enjoying it.. maybe i can give my new caddy to another thief.... You dont trust to many people after you have had something bad happen to you... right? Now put this all in persective with Saddam Hussein and Osama and IRAQ... we have been there before and now it is just time to shut down what has happend... and Bush is doing just that.. but it seems that the democrats want to applaud saddam and osama by letting them have thier freedom and giving them the benefit of the doubt... in that case we better just do away with prisons, clinton just lets them go anyhow, and we better just do away with our military because the dems keep taking funds from there anyway it you know the WHOLE world loves us Americans because we are soooo helpful and have freedom, libery and justice and put more in the government because you know they can't always afford 4 Suv's and 10 mansions on 3 different continents.. them poor, poor Dems.. we better make abortion compulsory because the population is becomeing to large... we better not let religion become apart of our government because we might piss of the world... because we want to be a peaceful nation even if someone hurts thousands of our peoples we better just look the other way and say oops i guess our building got in the way of that plane that happens to to be our own but some iraq is flying... OOPSS>>>

Come on people figure it out... you all think its for OIL!!! its for the thousands of people that died in them towers and plane crashes and the Pentagon... tho it be governemnt... they are still people too... Everyone that dies to protect the different sectors of Iraq. NOONE EVER thinks of the Iraq people either... Our troops are over there to help the defend the different sectors of people that are deemed helpless in Iraq.. there are many sectors and and the largest one WILL kill the helpless ones if we dont stay over there till their government is established and things start taking effect.. Point is... we have troops over there and weather you approve or not... we have to give them our utmost support.. they are over there on a volunteer basis.. we never forced anyone to join the army.. they signed up on thier own and they knew what the army and all militaries were about... so dont make it seem we like the governements are sending them there to die... they are defending the honor of all the people that died and the people that can stand up for themselves in Iraq and for all helpless countries that need hope and help...

Anyway.. i hate to hear some much bad mouthing.. and instead i like to hear more reasons why we are doing the right thing.. but then again.. NONE of you are here to make this girl happy so i guess it dont matter... i just wanted to put my 2 cents in about all this before the election.. everyone just needs to be less judgemental and think of the candidate and what they will really be like in the postion.. instead of what he said and what he said... the governement needs to grow a bit also.. seems clear they are not going to stop bashing eachother... and that is not what our children need to see the government doing...

oh and dont say anything about my spelling or typing.. i was in a hurry.. so if you all want to call my stuff stupid or make fun of my typing.. just know that it makes you look a fool if that is all you can say after i typed all this...
Thank you, it is good knowing some people actually appreciate what we did and are doing there.

First of all, the fact is no one even knows for certain WHOSE military failed to secure it. These bases have been guarded by Iraqis since before my unit rotated home.
Second of all, many things that the general public feels they need or wish to know, they don't.
Lastly, there have already been occasions where people who have been suspected of operations like planting the roadside bombs, were lulled into complacency then caught, something that will not happen if the press goes about their "mission" of telling everything they know, which from what I see, they either still know not much, or are to their credit still not saying some.


Typical military CYA answer. The general public should just point them at an enemy and let them do their jobs without caring how well it was done. The ends justifying the means, and one hand pats the other, and <insert every other cliche here>



Fuck that.


You work for the public, and you have to account to them because - as september 11th proved - when people fuck up (and more to the point - when your superiors do so) then sometimes it's not you who pays the price.


And in case you hadn't noticed - people here are blaming the administration and brass for not havng the people in place to properly safeguard such location. They aren't pointing fingers at joe soldier. So how about you get off your knee-jerk high horse that forces you to leap to the defence of your comerades in arms (unneccessarily in this case) and admit that maybe - just maybe - letting circumstances occur that led to several hundred tons of high explosives whos location was known grow legs and walk away was a damn stupid thing that should have been avoided.

Fact is - most of the arms depots were left unguarded at the start. The army didn't have manpower to both guard captured facilities and also prosecute the war. So there was a lot of stuff left for the takers. And it took a while to get the control of the country, establish guard posts etc.

This is all part and parcel of why so much of the top brass said not to go in without a half million soldiers. And now the forces on the ground and the Iraqis are paying for this administrations arrogance and total disregard for proper planning.
This part I agree with...we could have used more. However, our"allies" in Turkey left my division sitting on ships then taking the long way around, and most of our other "allies" with the noble exception of the UK, didn't even bother showing up. And our own army was gutted from 8 years of Clinton.

This is very, very sad, but completely unsurprising. To be honest, I can't wait to see the GOP spin on this, it should be thoroughly entertaining. I'm putting my money on some variation of "we were right all along" or "we could have found them if Kerry didn't under-fund our troops!"

Alright. So you are an adult. One who,likely, only knows what the news says about Iraq.One who does not seem to realize that 380tons of explosives, is actually rather small in a military sense.One who pretends to care about "our soldiers in Iraq"while spitting on the reason we were there in the first place. My apologies for misinterpreting your age.
a military sense if a fucking irrelevant when we arnt dealing with another military force. i dont give a fuck if its "small in a miltiary sense". no one fuckngi cares, we arnt dealing with anotherm iltiary, we are dealing with guerillas who have 380 fucking tons of explosives that they dotn give a fuck where they use.

and the reason we were there in the first place? the one that has been changed a dozen times? as it stands, bush is alot more of a danger to the world through incompetent management than saddham ever has been. he was sanctioned to death and the only thing he got done was fool his people and the world to leave him alone by bluffing he might maybe have the ability to fight back. im pretty sure thats one of those things you keep secret, not complete and total fuck ups that may cost people thousands and thousands of lives, those are the kinds of things you reveal BEFORE they happen so it can be prevented, not afterwards and be like "it needed to be secret so you would be safe" BULLSHIT

It is life...there was no war when the red army pulled out of Eastern Europe, and they "left behind" approx. 75,000 TIMES this amount of explosives. Which magically have appeared in such places as the Philippines, Sudan, etc.



So - you are saying that you feel that the US Army need live up to no better standard than the post-glasnost Soviet Army during their time of worst upheaval?


Well, as long as you set your goals low I guess you never have to worry about being dissapointed.....

If you shoot for the ground, you can't miss! Vote Bush!

Typical military CYA answer. The general public should just point them at an enemy and let them do their jobs without caring how well it was done. The ends justifying the means, and one hand pats the other, and <insert every other cliche here>



Fuck that.


You work for the public, and you have to account to them because - as september 11th proved - when people fuck up (and more to the point - when your superiors do so) then sometimes it's not you who pays the price.


And in case you hadn't noticed - people here are blaming the administration and brass for not havng the people in place to properly safeguard such location. They aren't pointing fingers at joe soldier. So how about you get off your knee-jerk high horse that forces you to leap to the defence of your comerades in arms (unneccessarily in this case) and admit that maybe - just maybe - letting circumstances occur that led to several hundred tons of high explosives whos location was known grow legs and walk away was a damn stupid thing that should have been avoided.
My point, is this...I keep trying to simplify it, and it doesn't seem to work...
Yes, it sucks what happened. It was not "Bush's fault" however. It is something that happens. It happened before, it will happen forever, as long as there ARE places with tons of explosives being guarded by anyone...less so when they are guarded by the military however. We were told LAST SUMMER(2003)that this sort of thing had happened, before we even got in, when our forces reached some of these bases, they were mysteriously nearly empty of weapons. We did not "not guard them" in order to prosecute the war, they were emptied before we even arrived in several cases, and yes, we needed more people,I am NOT a Rummsfeld fan , his idea of letting the enemy simply"run away" or whatever, was just stupid, as they took weapons with them, then disappeared into the populace. However, the priorites as far as places to guard, were primarily infrastructure, electric plants, refineries,pipelines,medical facilities,even museums after the US media raised apparently an outcry about that. Decisions were made, priorities were set, perhaps those posting this would have preferred if something we were guarding was bombed, I do not know, there simply were not enough troops to cover everything. With this, I realize that part, indirectly, is Bush's fault, but the choices were ours.

So - you are saying that you feel that the US Army need live up to no better standard than the post-glasnost Soviet Army during their time of worst upheaval?


Well, as long as you set your goals low I guess you never have to worry about being dissapointed.....
Actually it was an answer to someone else, but if you try reading it, I actually said we far surpassed the Red Army. 360 tons is a blip on the radar screen, it sounds like an awful lot to people who have no military knowledge, but it isn't. However, even 1 ton is unfortunate.

a military sense if a fucking irrelevant when we arnt dealing with another military force. i dont give a fuck if its "small in a miltiary sense". no one fuckngi cares, we arnt dealing with anotherm iltiary, we are dealing with guerillas who have 380 fucking tons of explosives that they dotn give a fuck where they use.

and the reason we were there in the first place? the one that has been changed a dozen times? as it stands, bush is alot more of a danger to the world through incompetent management than saddham ever has been. he was sanctioned to death and the only thing he got done was fool his people and the world to leave him alone by bluffing he might maybe have the ability to fight back. im pretty sure thats one of those things you keep secret, not complete and total fuck ups that may cost people thousands and thousands of lives, those are the kinds of things you reveal BEFORE they happen so it can be prevented, not afterwards and be like "it needed to be secret so you would be safe" BULLSHIT
Actually try asking the nearly 3million Iraqis who lost family members to Saddam's brutal regime, try asking the Kurds whose familes he gassed, or the Iranians for that matter, whose troops he gassed. He accomplished more than you give him credit for.
And a military sense is COMPLETELY relevant...these pose no danger to US civilians, it is the soldiers still there who they would be used against.

Uh-oh, now you sound just like Rumsfeld...

Things can go wrong, I agree. But what is different in this case is that we have an administration that ignored the state department, CIA and top military advisors including Colin Powell. These losses are directly related to the poor planning and the rush to war. There was no plan for occupation we were going to be out of there in 90 days according to the adminstration.

Uh-oh, now you sound just like Rumsfeld...
You missed the part where I said I am not a Rummsfeld fan.
That said, he didn't lie, he just BADLY missed the boat on what would be needed to accomplish the mission he wanted.

Things can go wrong, I agree. But what is different in this case is that we have an administration that ignored the state department, CIA and top military advisors including Colin Powell. These losses are directly related to the poor planning and the rush to war. There was no plan for occupation we were going to be out of there in 90 days according to the adminstration.
Not sure where you heard 90 days? Do you have a source? We were told 5 years was likely.

Come on people. How much more do you need?



Intelligent people don't need more but Republicans that still vote führer Bush are retards or worse, just fascists and they'll prove it with a vote for that gangster.

You missed the part where I said I am not a Rummsfeld fan.
That said, he didn't lie, he just BADLY missed the boat on what would be needed to accomplish the mission he wanted.

I most definitely caught that part. I was referring more to the "citing facts about how evil Saddam is to justify any military action" Rumsfeld style... I know that's not literally what you were doing, but it just sounded hauntingly reminiscent...

I'm not denying that Saddam was a horrible and brutal dictator... but that has very little to do with this particular subject. For an administration whose entire justification for this war was 'procuring weapons', they seem to have done a ridiculously miserable job of it.

Uh-oh, now you sound just like Rumsfeld...

You mean Dumsfeld? He is a member of our Republican Club " The Liars".

Actually try asking the nearly 3million Iraqis who lost family members to Saddam's brutal regime, try asking the Kurds whose familes he gassed, or the Iranians for that matter, whose troops he gassed. He accomplished more than you give him credit for.
And a military sense is COMPLETELY relevant...these pose no danger to US civilians, it is the soldiers still there who they would be used against.
do you have some numbers for 3 million iraqis and proof he killed them?

between the carpet bombing of major cities and other outbursts i think we have an estimated 100,000 dead


and the statement was he was a world threat, a threat to his people is irrelevant in this sense, kin jomng ill or whatever the hell his name is is a threat to his people as are hundreds of dictators, except he is a threat to the world. saddam was not. and that was SUPPOSEDLY why we invaded him and took over.


military sense is still irrelevant, do you know how 380 tons of explosives will be used? i dont pretend i do, however since you are all knowing you must apparently. they could be used on civilians anywhere in the world. the terrorists could have them or hte pro-iraqi insurgents who dont like being conquered. if the terrorists have them, well i guess they dont have to search the web to learn how to make pipe bombs any more do that

i think you all are kerry worshipers for some strange reason.. Kerry is the stupidest demacrat that i have ever known... he is a 2 sided freek... he calls on bush saying he needs to keep the jobs in the us... but there are muliple factories out there of the hienze corp in many other countries... and he saves lots of $$$$$$$$$$$ to pay for the cheaper labor. He makes a big fuss about the weapons they found... BUT!!!! if a democrat was in office they would have NEVER FOUND THE DANG THINGS!!! because they would have never went over there in the first place!!!! SO i am going to stand behind our president rain or shine. I would have never voted for in the first place if I didn't believe in his ablity to preform such a great postion for our counrty. And i feel sorry for those of you that think this war was dumb... Obviously there was weapons and the US and Britan and the other countries that are contributing are over there to protect your family and your decendants and your future grandchildren. All you can do is find wrong in everthing instead of finding out what is good about the whole situation....

EX: if someone stole your car.. you went out and bought a NEW CADDY... would you leave your doors unlocked in it while you went into the mall????

Prolly not... because when something wrong happens you dont just say... Oh well i hope whoever stole my car is really enjoying it.. maybe i can give my new caddy to another thief.... You dont trust to many people after you have had something bad happen to you... right? Now put this all in persective with Saddam Hussein and Osama and IRAQ... we have been there before and now it is just time to shut down what has happend... and Bush is doing just that.. but it seems that the democrats want to applaud saddam and osama by letting them have thier freedom and giving them the benefit of the doubt... in that case we better just do away with prisons, clinton just lets them go anyhow, and we better just do away with our military because the dems keep taking funds from there anyway it you know the WHOLE world loves us Americans because we are soooo helpful and have freedom, libery and justice and put more in the government because you know they can't always afford 4 Suv's and 10 mansions on 3 different continents.. them poor, poor Dems.. we better make abortion compulsory because the population is becomeing to large... we better not let religion become apart of our government because we might piss of the world... because we want to be a peaceful nation even if someone hurts thousands of our peoples we better just look the other way and say oops i guess our building got in the way of that plane that happens to to be our own but some iraq is flying... OOPSS>>>

Come on people figure it out... you all think its for OIL!!! its for the thousands of people that died in them towers and plane crashes and the Pentagon... tho it be governemnt... they are still people too... Everyone that dies to protect the different sectors of Iraq. NOONE EVER thinks of the Iraq people either... Our troops are over there to help the defend the different sectors of people that are deemed helpless in Iraq.. there are many sectors and and the largest one WILL kill the helpless ones if we dont stay over there till their government is established and things start taking effect.. Point is... we have troops over there and weather you approve or not... we have to give them our utmost support.. they are over there on a volunteer basis.. we never forced anyone to join the army.. they signed up on thier own and they knew what the army and all militaries were about... so dont make it seem we like the governements are sending them there to die... they are defending the honor of all the people that died and the people that can stand up for themselves in Iraq and for all helpless countries that need hope and help...

Anyway.. i hate to hear some much bad mouthing.. and instead i like to hear more reasons why we are doing the right thing.. but then again.. NONE of you are here to make this girl happy so i guess it dont matter... i just wanted to put my 2 cents in about all this before the election.. everyone just needs to be less judgemental and think of the candidate and what they will really be like in the postion.. instead of what he said and what he said... the governement needs to grow a bit also.. seems clear they are not going to stop bashing eachother... and that is not what our children need to see the government doing...

oh and dont say anything about my spelling or typing.. i was in a hurry.. so if you all want to call my stuff stupid or make fun of my typing.. just know that it makes you look a fool if that is all you can say after i typed all this...

Kitty...I stopped reading your post two thirds of the way through the first paragraph, because it just shows how blindly you follow party-line politics. You're being taken in by all the spin, plain and simple. Heinz making more money by having plants overseas? Well, there's multiple reasons as to why that's a load of garbage.
a) Heinz is a multinational company. The stuff that gets produced overseas, gets sold overseas. According to what Kerry says, the problem is when jobs that were previously in the U.S. get sent overseas, even though the product they supply is still for the U.S. market. For example, a U.S. software firm packs up it's U.S. offices and moves to India. They still ship their finished software to the U.S. though. That is taking advantage of cheap labor. Heinz is a totally different story. They're not going to produce bottles of ketchup in the U.S. and then proceed to ship them to Australia. That's about a 21-hour plane ride!
b) Teresa Heinz-Kerry has no say in what the Heinz corporation does. She holds a very small percentage of stock of the company, and holds no sway over company policy.

As to your second point that I bothered to read (and then stopped afterward), we already knew about the 380 tons of explosives before the war. We knew they were there before we went in. They should have been a priority to go guard as soon as we got there. So therefore, if a Democrat had been in power and we had never invaded Iraq (according to your logic), we would have still known about the explosives, and they would not have fallen into terrorist hands. Before the invasion, the stockpile was being guarded by UN troops.

As I said, I didn't read your post past that point, because I didn't feel like subjecting myself to more ignorance on par with what you started off with. Let me guess, you lisetn to Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter? I sure hope you don't live in a swing state.

Not sure where you heard 90 days? Do you have a source? We were told 5 years was likely.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0908-02.htm

They changed their mind on the time we'd need many, many times. Some might even call it a "flip-flop", but that would just be vitriolic and immature, so I won't. ;)

first of all before you go running your freekin mouth maybe you need to go look at your pickle jar...


Made in... ?????

do you have some numbers for 3 million iraqis and proof he killed them?

between the carpet bombing of major cities and other outbursts i think we have an estimated 100,000 dead


and the statement was he was a world threat, a threat to his people is irrelevant in this sense, kin jomng ill or whatever the hell his name is is a threat to his people as are hundreds of dictators, except he is a threat to the world. saddam was not. and that was SUPPOSEDLY why we invaded him and took over.


military sense is still irrelevant, do you know how 380 tons of explosives will be used? i dont pretend i do, however since you are all knowing you must apparently. they could be used on civilians anywhere in the world. the terrorists could have them or hte pro-iraqi insurgents who dont like being conquered. if the terrorists have them, well i guess they dont have to search the web to learn how to make pipe bombs any more do that
1. I never said he killed 3 million, I said 3 million family members(as in, I am sure you have 3+ family members yourself) This is the number of family members that has asked the US/Iraqi govts for info on their long missing relatives going back to the 1980s.
2. The US does not carpetbomb cities. I assume you simply do not know the meaning of the term. An estimate of civilians killed by US forces in the war,(Where standing ROE totally limit collateral damage, even to the point of not firing if a civilian is in the line of fire between you and your target) is 2,000.
3. True, I hadn't really thought of "anywhere in the world" but as the US is and continues to be target #1, these explosives, which were taken MONTHS ago,btw, are BELIEVED to be being used to make the IED, or roadside bombs in Iraq. As for American civilians, try sneaking ANYTHING into the US now,post 9-11...not likely.

first of all before you go running your freekin mouth maybe you need to go look at your pickle jar...


Made in... ?????

She's got us there, guys! Well, that tears it, I'm voting Bush!

Kitty, if you honestly still think that Iraq had WMD's, and that 9/11 justifies the invasion... then maybe you should go look at a newspaper, instead of staring at your pickle jar.

first of all before you go running your freekin mouth maybe you need to go look at your pickle jar...


Made in... ?????
kitty you missed the point. neither john kerry nor his wife have ANY control over the heinz corporation. if john kerry is elected and if his "no outsourcing" plan goes through, and IF it pertains to anything being done by the heinz corporation, then they will have to stop outsourcing

it is NOT evil for ANY company to obey the current laws of the united states.

its the same as when JOHN KERRY got a huge tax cut under the republicans. he didnt (im assuming here) pay more money than he was legally bound to pay. NO ONE DOES. but he IS planning to raise taxes on people making over $200,000/year and that does include himself. under his plan HE will pay more taxes.

first of all before you go running your freekin mouth maybe you need to go look at your pickle jar...


Made in... ?????
Well I just took a look at my ketchup bottle, and all it says is "DISTRIBUTED BY HEINZ NORTH AMERICA"

oh yeah your right and the dems like i said.. would have never found them because they would have never sent troops to iraq...

Kitty...I stopped reading your post two thirds of the way through the first paragraph, because it just shows how blindly you follow party-line politics. You're being taken in by all the spin, plain and simple. Heinz making more money by having plants overseas? Well, there's multiple reasons as to why that's a load of garbage.
a) Heinz is a multinational company. The stuff that gets produced overseas, gets sold overseas. According to what Kerry says, the problem is when jobs that were previously in the U.S. get sent overseas, even though the product they supply is still for the U.S. market. For example, a U.S. software firm packs up it's U.S. offices and moves to India. They still ship their finished software to the U.S. though. That is taking advantage of cheap labor. Heinz is a totally different story. They're not going to produce bottles of ketchup in the U.S. and then proceed to ship them to Australia. That's about a 21-hour plane ride!
b) Teresa Heinz-Kerry has no say in what the Heinz corporation does. She holds a very small percentage of stock of the company, and holds no sway over company policy.

As to your second point that I bothered to read (and then stopped afterward), we already knew about the 380 tons of explosives before the war. We knew they were there before we went in. They should have been a priority to go guard as soon as we got there. So therefore, if a Democrat had been in power and we had never invaded Iraq (according to your logic), we would have still known about the explosives, and they would not have fallen into terrorist hands. Before the invasion, the stockpile was being guarded by UN troops.

As I said, I didn't read your post past that point, because I didn't feel like subjecting myself to more ignorance on par with what you started off with. Let me guess, you lisetn to Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter? I sure hope you don't live in a swing state.
Actually you follow the other sides party line nearly as blindly it seems. I do want to say one thing about part of your post however.
It was NOT guarded by "UN troops" it was earmarked, meaning they literally put tags on items,thus when inspectors return(in between being kicked out by Saddam) they can go back to items they "checked" to verify if they have been used, and if so, they then would ask for info on how.

2. The US does not carpetbomb cities. I assume you simply do not know the meaning of the term. An estimate of civilians killed by US forces in the war,(Where standing ROE totally limit collateral damage, even to the point of not firing if a civilian is in the line of fire between you and your target) is 2,000.
oh please, thats the number dead AFTER we "declared" victory, how many do you suppose died when we bombed baghdad for a week or two? and other cities.

3. True, I hadn't really thought of "anywhere in the world" but as the US is and continues to be target #1, these explosives, which were taken MONTHS ago,btw, are BELIEVED to be being used to make the IED, or roadside bombs in Iraq. As for American civilians, try sneaking ANYTHING into the US now,post 9-11...not likely.
rofl, you overestimate the security in airports. just a few months after 9/11 a college kid snuck a pair of box cutters onto a plane and left the,m in the bathroom, look up the story. we are neither safe nor secure.

oh yeah your right and the dems like i said.. would have never found them because they would have never sent troops to iraq...

Wait... would never have found... what? The WMD's that don't exist? Or the explosives that the current administration ALSO didn't get hold of? I guess I'm missing the part where dems in office would have missed something that republicans picked up.

kitty you missed the point. neither john kerry nor his wife have ANY control over the heinz corporation. if john kerry is elected and if his "no outsourcing" plan goes through, and IF it pertains to anything being done by the heinz corporation, then they will have to stop outsourcing

it is NOT evil for ANY company to obey the current laws of the united states.

its the same as when JOHN KERRY got a huge tax cut under the republicans. he didnt (im assuming here) pay more money than he was legally bound to pay. NO ONE DOES. but he IS planning to raise taxes on people making over $200,000/year and that does include himself. under his plan HE will pay more taxes.
It is funny, I saw that debate. What is funny, is he lied. Senators do not make 200,000/yr, they are in the 120k range. So when he said even himself would be taxed, he was full of...well,nm.

first of all before you go running your freekin mouth maybe you need to go look at your pickle jar...


Made in... ?????

I have a heinz ketchup bottle right here, and it says made in USA. Why we're arguing ketchup and pickles when 380 tons of explosives likely have made their way into the hands of the terrorists Bush is supposed to protect us from, I have no idea.

We knew where they were. They were secure before we invaded. They've been completely picked clean since we invaded. Do the insurgents have them? Does Al Qaeda have them? How much are they worth? How many lives will they take from us. This was a 15 acre facility, and NO ONE WAS ASSIGNED TO GUARD IT! Our leaders kept it from us for purely political reasons, and then they criticize Kerry for bringing it up?

The audacity. The reckless disregard. The incompetence. This isn't a piddling amount. How much does a pound of high explosive cost? Anyone? I have no idea. Let's assign an arbitrary number. Let's say a pound of high explosive costs 100 dollars. $76,000,000 dollars then. Sure, a piddly amount in military terms, but terrorists don't use 500 lb bombs. They bomb here and there and everywhere. How many people can a single pound of high explosives kill? I don't know. More than a couple, I suspect. Multiply that by 760,000 times.

Unbelieveable. Simply unbelievable that you Bush supporters would even try to spin this. Are you human? What the hell are you thinking? Are you paid by the Bush administration to spread propaganda? I hope they pay you a lot for selling your soul.

You make me physically ill.

Actually you follow the other sides party line nearly as blindly it seems. I do want to say one thing about part of your post however.
It was NOT guarded by "UN troops" it was earmarked, meaning they literally put tags on items,thus when inspectors return(in between being kicked out by Saddam) they can go back to items they "checked" to verify if they have been used, and if so, they then would ask for info on how.
Sorry about the "UN troops" comment. Breaking news story, haven't had enough chance to look into it closely enough yet.

However, as to the party-line stuff, it may be true that it sounds like some party-line crap, but I was simply responding to Kitty's first couple points, which, when you look at the facts, are total crap. Now, if the Republican party-line relies on misleading or false information, and the Deomcrat party-line relies on disproving the Bush accusations, then yes, I follow the Democrat party-line.

oh yeah your right and the dems like i said.. would have never found them because they would have never sent troops to iraq...
i could really care less if some ultimately powerless dictator has a stockpile of bombs, he cant go blowing up his own people or other people, the force of the world will come down on his head.

of course the republicans would never let dangerous countries like iran or north korea develop nuclear weapons...oh wait.

stop pretending the republicans are the fucking justice league able to ensure world peace, they arnt and they dont

oh please, thats the number dead AFTER we "declared" victory, how many do you suppose died when we bombed baghdad for a week or two? and other cities.


rofl, you overestimate the security in airports. just a few months after 9/11 a college kid snuck a pair of box cutters onto a plane and left the,m in the bathroom, look up the story. we are neither safe nor secure.
Actually we did not Baghdad for a week or two. We bombed specific targets in it(not carpetbombing, which is unaimed ,just simply dropping bombs) for several days.Most cities did not even get that treatment as the Iraqi Army for the most part abandoned the south, and our army moved north unopposed to within a short distance of Baghdad.
And the total I gave was civilians only,since the war began. We killed many more soldiers, but, really, they were on the wrong side, and that is a risk you take in war.

i could really care less if some ultimately powerless dictator has a stockpile of bombs, he cant go blowing up his own people or other people, the force of the world will come down on his head.

There is no"force of the world". Anytime the world or the UN has needed "force" it is primarily the US.

To be fair, though, the Iraqi military is just that - military, not a band of thugs. I feel a little uneasy demonizing them to the point that they 'don't count'. Obviously I don't support their 'side', but ignoring them doesn't feel right either.

It is funny, I saw that debate. What is funny, is he lied. Senators do not make 200,000/yr, they are in the 120k range. So when he said even himself would be taxed, he was full of...well,nm.
i assume you have some sort of source

i may not be totally up on all the politics.. but like i had said. i support our troops and president bush... i dont sit there and find the bad parts.. in the war on terror.. i know many people in the world do not like Americans because of our freedoms and religions.. and i dont think that is right they dont know me.. i could be the friendliest person in the world... so why attack a country of whom they dont know... obivously there is corruption in thier system to have hurt so many americans and people from various countries.. so yes.. bomb the shit of em i dont care.. they have no feelings and it proves it but all the suiside bombings they have doing and the suiside flying...

There is no"force of the world". Anytime the world or the UN has needed "force" it is primarily the US.
"dont forget poland"

there are other nations which provide troops for shit the us doesnt start

Sorry about the "UN troops" comment. Breaking news story, haven't had enough chance to look into it closely enough yet.

However, as to the party-line stuff, it may be true that it sounds like some party-line crap, but I was simply responding to Kitty's first couple points, which, when you look at the facts, are total crap. Now, if the Republican party-line relies on misleading or false information, and the Deomcrat party-line relies on disproving the Bush accusations, then yes, I follow the Democrat party-line.
:) I wish it were that simple myself. Personally, I rather like both men.(Bush/Kerry) but rather dislike those they use as advisers(Rumsfeld and co./J. Edwards and the far left) So although I know that generally Republicans have been far better for our military, and thus my career, than Dems, I actually am still u ndecided, but many tactics I have seen used by Dems with my own eyes, I find revolting(registering voters in multiple states, trying to influence votes from overseas, etc) And I also find it worrisome that most Kerry supporters I see, are USA bashers.

i may not be totally up on all the politics.. but like i had said. i support our troops and president bush... i dont sit there and find the bad parts.. in the war on terror.. i know many people in the world do not like Americans because of our freedoms and religions.. and i dont think that is right they dont know me.. i could be the friendliest person in the world... so why attack a country of whom they dont know... obivously there is corruption in thier system to have hurt so many americans and people from various countries.. so yes.. bomb the shit of em i dont care.. they have no feelings and it proves it but all the suiside bombings they have doing and the suiside flying...
i dont know you but i can easily decipher egotistical biggotry.

you dont know the rest of the world stupid hypocrite

It is funny, I saw that debate. What is funny, is he lied. Senators do not make 200,000/yr, they are in the 120k range. So when he said even himself would be taxed, he was full of...well,nm.
john forbes kerry is a member of the FORBES family
he is filthy stinking rich
he pays more than $200,000 per year in income tax alone.
when his wife's income is added in he makes george bush look like trailer trash.
now i dont normally LIKE rich people but what to do?

Actually we did not Baghdad for a week or two. We bombed specific targets in it(not carpetbombing, which is unaimed ,just simply dropping bombs) for several days.Most cities did not even get that treatment as the Iraqi Army for the most part abandoned the south, and our army moved north unopposed to within a short distance of Baghdad.
And the total I gave was civilians only,since the war began. We killed many more soldiers, but, really, they were on the wrong side, and that is a risk you take in war.
i love bush's and the republican version of specific targets, same as the israeli: places where we THINK the bad guys are. please tell me how big an explosion is and how much damage yo uare going to do bomibng "specific" targets in a city like baghdad.

i may not be totally up on all the politics.. but like i had said. i support our troops and president bush... i dont sit there and find the bad parts.. in the war on terror.. i know many people in the world do not like Americans because of our freedoms and religions.. and i dont think that is right they dont know me.. i could be the friendliest person in the world... so why attack a country of whom they dont know... obivously there is corruption in thier system to have hurt so many americans and people from various countries.. so yes.. bomb the shit of em i dont care.. they have no feelings and it proves it but all the suiside bombings they have doing and the suiside flying...

How much do you know about Iraq? Can you confidently say that the Iraqis we have killed have "no feelings" and deserved to die? Or have you not bothered to go to the ridiculously simple trouble of realising that Iraq has NOTHING to do with the kind of terrorists that attacked us on 9/11?

Nobody is defending terrorists here, we'd all like to see them dead, I would imagine. But blindly lashing out at any country we like isn't justice, it's imperialism.

"dont forget poland"

there are other nations which provide troops for shit the us doesnt start
Other nations provide PEACEKEEPERS, these are not the "force of the world" when ,throughout history, the UN had to do something, usually it didn't, lol, but when it did, it used US troops primarily for the offensive. In Europe, where it failed to do anything about Kosovo, our NATO allies, asked, and recieved massive American help,without which, even in their own govts, they admitted, the mission would have been a failure, or more likely, a no-go from the beginning.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.


Looters still loot the place? Shouldn't we be guarding it now!? Why do Iraqis have a right to loot?

thanks :)

i love bush's and the republican version of specific targets, same as the israeli: places where we THINK the bad guys are. please tell me how big an explosion is and how much damage yo uare going to do bomibng "specific" targets in a city like baghdad.
I am not Bush, OR even Republican, I am independent as far as voting.
I speak from experience on the targets. Specific targets means specific buildings, you want this building gone? Bye building. The weapons used in the city had CEP of less than 2meters, which means, they land within 2 meters of where they are targeted.

oh yeah your right and the dems like i said.. would have never found them because they would have never sent troops to iraq...
but kitty, you missed the point.

they didnt NEED to be found. the international inspectors found them long ago and had them under lock and key.

AFTER we invaded iraq they were no longer being closely guarded. esp after we turned over the guardianship to iraqi locals who were not up to the task.

in all likelihood these explosives are being used every day in attempts to kill our soldiers and our iraqi allies.

this is a bad thing.

I think the question isn't so much the accuracy of the weapons, but the accuracy of the targets. A smart bomb may be perfectly dropped on its intended target, but if that target ends up being a wedding party with no terrorists present... then something went wrong.

okay well.. prove to me there WERENT terriorist there....

I am not Bush, OR even Republican, I am independent as far as voting.
I speak from experience on the targets. Specific targets means specific buildings, you want this building gone? Bye building. The weapons used in the city had CEP of less than 2meters, which means, they land within 2 meters of where they are targeted.
2 metres? im pretty sure that would take out my neighbors house, or half of this one. and i didnt ask about their ability to target, i asked size. the twin towers were hit dead on, but how much else went down because of collateral

john forbes kerry is a member of the FORBES family
he is filthy stinking rich
he pays more than $200,000 per year in income tax alone.
when his wife's income is added in he makes george bush look like trailer trash.
now i dont normally LIKE rich people but what to do?
The funny part is he never SAID that, he wants everyone to think"I am a common guy, and I feel your pain"like most Dems want people thinking.
Actually, as I have said several times, I sort of like him, I don't think he is evil incarnate, or anything, I think both candidates this year, are actually themselves good people, just comes to a question of who I would rather have as my C-in-C, and Bush probably wins there.

okay well.. prove to me there WERENT terriorist there....

Are you telling me that you support the invasion of a country in which we can't prove terrorists AREN'T there? You do realise that's never possible, right? Come on, there are probably terrorists in OUR country.

The specific reference was to this incident, by the way:

http://olympics.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6447714

i may not be totally up on all the politics.. but like i had said. i support our troops and president bush... i dont sit there and find the bad parts.. in the war on terror.. i know many people in the world do not like Americans because of our freedoms and religions.. and i dont think that is right they dont know me.. i could be the friendliest person in the world... so why attack a country of whom they dont know... obivously there is corruption in thier system to have hurt so many americans and people from various countries.. so yes.. bomb the shit of em i dont care.. they have no feelings and it proves it but all the suiside bombings they have doing and the suiside flying...
You're sadly mistaken again, Kitty. There are very few people in the world who hate us because of our freedoms, or even because of our religions. We are hated by so many in the Muslim world because we are viewed as arrogant aggressors who support Israel with little justification. If you look closely at the Israel-Palestine conflict, you would realize that both sides are equally to blame. Yet we always take the side of Israel, who is more than capable of taking care of herself without us. And as for the arrogant aggressors part, yes they think we are, and when you look at it from their perspective, it makes sense to see us that way. We've already overthrown two Islamic governments in the past 4 years. Granted, one was justified. But what does that look like to an average Muslim living in Basra, or Tehran, or any other Middle Eastern city? It looks like we're waging a war against Islam, along with Israel. WE TREAT ISLAMIC COUNTRIES LIKE SHIT. And then the common people in those countries take it personally.
Secondly, you speak of "corruption in their system"? Whose system is that? Do you honestly think we don't have corruption in our government? Guess what, we do. Every government, everywhere in the world does.
I'm sorry for the rant that may or may not make sense, but Kitty is really gettin me annoyed today.
On a side note, I finally got my absentee ballot today - and it's sitting here in front of me right now. Guess who gets my Presidential vote? :)

2 metres? im pretty sure that would take out my neighbors house, or half of this one. and i didnt ask about their ability to target, i asked size. the twin towers were hit dead on, but how much else went down because of collateral
They usually were targetted in the middle of large complexes, military bases, palaces, etc, that means they for certain would hit inside it(much larger than 2 m) But these were not skyscrapers like the towers. Did some people get caught?yes, as I said, the estimate is 2,000, which,really sucks, I admit, but no nation ever has tried harder to limit these numbers than our own in this war. And 2,000, considering the massive firepower we had, means we did actually an excellent job.And, it still is far less than the number of lives we saved (Iraqi) by removing the guy who killed many more than that, and was continuing to kill daily all the way up till he fled.

Prohibitionist Party! lol...

okay answer me this... was it wrong for them to hit our towers with our planes and the pentagon?

They usually were targetted in the middle of large complexes, military bases, palaces, etc, that means they for certain would hit inside it(much larger than 2 m) But these were not skyscrapers like the towers. Did some people get caught?yes, as I said, the estimate is 2,000, which,really sucks, I admit, but no nation ever has tried harder to limit these numbers than our own in this war. And 2,000, considering the massive firepower we had, means we did actually an excellent job.And, it still is far less than the number of lives we saved (Iraqi) by removing the guy who killed many more than that, and was continuing to kill daily all the way up till he fled.
the estiamte is NOT 2000, the SMALLEST estimate from the BOMBING is 13000, one of the US GENERALS estimated all together between iraqi civilians and troops to be several times that.

the number dead AFTER we declared victory is 2000+ and thats sans general bombing

okay well.. prove to me there WERENT terriorist there....
its not so much a question of were there terrorists there, there may well have been some. it was said, and i have no reason to doubt, that saddam hussein was one of the people who paid the families of suicide bombers in palestine (he may have been too cheap a bastard to actually PAY OFF though)

the question really is WERE THEY GOING TO ATTACK THE US IMMINENTLY?
we rushed in as if it we were going to stop an attack that would come any day. we were not prepared, we didnt have a good plan, we didnt even have body armor for most of our troops!

if we had not rushed in, then MAYBE we would have gotten a real coaltion together, gotten world support, figured out a good plan, and made sure our soliders had what they needed to be as safe as possible

now we know of course that we would NOT Have gone in,since we now know that iraq had no capability to attack the US, and as bush accuses kerry of all the time, SADDAM WOULD STILL BE IN POWER. but since we have found out that he was a toothless lion, it would not have made us less safe.

They usually were targetted in the middle of large complexes, military bases, palaces, etc, that means they for certain would hit inside it(much larger than 2 m) But these were not skyscrapers like the towers. Did some people get caught?yes, as I said, the estimate is 2,000, which,really sucks, I admit, but no nation ever has tried harder to limit these numbers than our own in this war. And 2,000, considering the massive firepower we had, means we did actually an excellent job.And, it still is far less than the number of lives we saved (Iraqi) by removing the guy who killed many more than that, and was continuing to kill daily all the way up till he fled.
Great, we have an estimate of 2000. What about the additional 11,000-13,000 civilian deaths when you take into account both the invasion and the occupation?

okay answer me this... was it wrong for them to hit our towers with our planes and the pentagon?

Absolutely. And the 'them' you are talking about is Al-Qaeda. Therefore, our operations in Afghanistan, with Al-Qaeda as the target, were justified (if not perfectly executed). Iraq, however, was not. Plain and simple. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. I'm going to say that one more time, because you don't seem to be hearing it. IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Attacking Iraq in retaliation for 9/11 would be like attacking Canada in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

so... if there were some kids that were planning to jump your kid...and you new they were planning it.. wouldn't you do something???? or just them do it untill he your child is almost dead then step in?

but kitty, you missed the point.

they didnt NEED to be found. the international inspectors found them long ago and had them under lock and key.

AFTER we invaded iraq they were no longer being closely guarded. esp after we turned over the guardianship to iraqi locals who were not up to the task.

in all likelihood these explosives are being used every day in attempts to kill our soldiers and our iraqi allies.

this is a bad thing.
It is a bad thing.
Also, they were not under lock and key, they still belonged to the Iraqi Army. They were tagged as having possible WMD use, or ,actually I think as possibly being able to be used for missile warheads(like SCUDS,not WMD)
And the missiles were illegal because of sanctions, so they were tagged, so when Inspectors returned, they could ask to see them, and if they were gone, they would then get a(un)believable explanation,probably, of what they were used for.

okay answer me this... was it wrong for them to hit our towers with our planes and the pentagon?
For "them"? Of course it was wrong for "them" to do that. However, Iraq isn't, and wasn't, "them." That's why I said one of the wars was justified. The war in Afghanistan was totally justified. However, Bush took the focus off that (justified) war to go into Iraq (unjustified war).

And Kerry says there are no WMD, weapons of mass destruction,
on the other hand the administration has not made its case
very well that there are WMD or related capabilitys of WMD
like in this case, but at least this proves it.

okay answer me this... was it wrong for them to hit our towers with our planes and the pentagon?
yes kitty it was VERY wrong
that is why we invaded afghanistan. we have pretty much destroyed the alqaida bases there and one day we may well find that osama bin laden is a rotten ooze inside a bombed out cave. i look forward to that day.

none of the hijackers or the planners or the funders came from iraq. the 9/11 commission reported that there was utterly no connection between iraq and 9/11

so... if there were some kids that were planning to jump your kid...and you new they were planning it.. wouldn't you do something???? or just them do it untill he your child is almost dead then step in?
I have no idea what you're trying to get at there, Kitty. Iraq wasn't plotting against the U.S.

so... if there were some kids that were planning to jump your kid...and you new they were planning it.. wouldn't you do something???? or just them do it untill he your child is almost dead then step in?

You still honestly think that Saddam was a threat enough to the US that he would have 'imminently' attacked us if we hadn't taken him out of power?

Besides, your metaphor is innacurate... here's the way it really was: One kid jumped my kid and attacked him. I got so mad, I stepped in and taught the kid a lesson. But I wasn't satisfied after that, so I decided to beat up on another kid, even though he wasn't part of the original attack. But, you know, that kid was sort of a mean one, so it was justified.

You still honestly think that Saddam was a threat enough to the US that he would have 'imminently' attacked us if we hadn't taken him out of power?

Besides, your metaphor is innacurate... here's the way it really was: One kid jumped my kid and attacked him. I got so mad, I stepped in and taught the kid a lesson. But I wasn't satisfied after that, so I decided to beat up on another kid, even though he wasn't part of the original attack. But, you know, that kid was sort of a mean one, so it was justified.
Bingo.

Great, we have an estimate of 2000. What about the additional 11,000-13,000 civilian deaths when you take into account both the invasion and the occupation?
The overwhelming amount(99%) of civilian deaths for the past 12 months or so, have been at the hand of insurgents/terrorists. The IED and various methods have killed thousands of Iraqis.

The overwhelming amount(99%) of civilian deaths for the past 12 months or so, have been at the hand of insurgents/terrorists. The IED and various methods have killed thousands of Iraqis.
Maybe so, but that's still 11,000-13,000 civilians who would have been alive today if we had not been there. Iraqis didn't have to fear for their lives every time they went to the market when Saddam was in power. He may have been a bad, bad man, but at least there weren't terrorists running around blowing up everything in sight when he was still in power.

Maybe so, but that's still 11,000-13,000 civilians who would have been alive today if we had not been there. Iraqis didn't have to fear for their lives every time they went to the market when Saddam was in power. He may have been a bad, bad man, but at least there weren't terrorists running around blowing up everything in sight when he was still in power.

Exactly. Ironically, Iraq wasn't a hotbed of terrorism until AFTER we invaded it. Self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess.

Maybe so, but that's still 11,000-13,000 civilians who would have been alive today if we had not been there. Iraqis didn't have to fear for their lives every time they went to the market when Saddam was in power. He may have been a bad, bad man, but at least there weren't terrorists running around blowing up everything in sight when he was still in power.
You are correct, of course, when he was in power, he killed Iraqis fine on his own, and probably didn't want the help of others:)

wrong.. i know they had found some places where when saddam was in charge.. they had found massive graves...

Exactly. Ironically, Iraq wasn't a hotbed of terrorism until AFTER we invaded it. Self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess.
I still prefer fighting them THERE than here...if they all want to flock to Iraq and die for their cause, I am 110% in favor.

wrong.. i know they had found some places where when saddam was in charge.. they had found massive graves...

could you give us some more context? Who's wrong? And what does this prove, besides the fact that Saddam was indeed a horrible dictator (which nobody here is denying)?

I still prefer fighting them THERE than here...if they all want to flock to Iraq and die for their cause, I am 110% in favor.

Well, by that reasoning, we could invade any country, so long as it incensed terrorists and the local populace. Rome, anyone?

You are correct, of course, when he was in power, he killed Iraqis fine on his own, and probably didn't want the help of others:)
And doesn't the U.S. have enough problems of its own? No, I guess we have to try to "solve" other countries' problems too. Evil dictator? No problem, let's kick him out! Nevermind we don't have enough troops for a proper invasion, and can't secure important facilities (such as where the 380 tons of explosives were stored). Oh yeah, what about all the other countries that have dictators that are just as bad as Saddam? No, they're not important? What made Saddam so bad that we had to go take care of him, as opposed to all the other dictators out there?

I still prefer fighting them THERE than here...if they all want to flock to Iraq and die for their cause, I am 110% in favor.
Problem with that: They became terrorist insurgents BECAUSE we invaded.

you know why are so freeking mean? i can be annoying yes... but when has it ever been wrong to have an opinion? I was not stating that I AM RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING>>> i was just listening mostly and puting the things i know about... damn a debate is not being brutal.. not mean.. it is talking not cutting someone down for thier opinions... damn!

And doesn't the U.S. have enough problems of its own? No, I guess we have to try to "solve" other countries' problems too. Evil dictator? No problem, let's kick him out! Nevermind we don't have enough troops for a proper invasion, and can't secure important facilities (such as where the 380 tons of explosives we stored). Oh yeah, what about all the other countries that have dictators that are just as bad as Saddam? No, they're not important? What made Saddam so bad that we had to go take care of him, as opposed to all the other dictators out there?

Not to mention, that was never the reason for the invasion in the first place... they only started saying that AFTER the invasion. Amazing how many people have forgotten that.

wrong.. i know they had found some places where when saddam was in charge.. they had found massive graves...
Exactly. US forces right now with civilian help are going through remains of what is believed to be 25,000+ from ~70 gravesites,some nearly an acre large, that and attempting to answer questions on the whereabouts of some 800,000 people whose familes now are beginning to hope they may be found, but who in some cases have been missing so long it is unlikely to say the least.These were all victims of Saddam's Iraq, some as young as 3 yrs old when security forces came to the door and took away families.

you know why are so freeking mean? i can be annoying yes... but when has it ever been wrong to have an opinion? I was not stating that I AM RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING>>> i was just listening mostly and puting the things i know about... damn a debate is not being brutal.. not mean.. it is talking not cutting someone down for thier opinions... damn!

Not trying to be mean... but it would do you well to get some insight on the facts behind these opinions. You do seem rather vehement and vitriolic, by the way, for somebody who isn't saying she's right about everything ;)

wrong.. i know they had found some places where when saddam was in charge.. they had found massive graves...

oh saddam was a very bad man. he killed lots of his own people. iraq will eventually be better without him
but that doesnt justify invading like we did

And doesn't the U.S. have enough problems of its own? No, I guess we have to try to "solve" other countries' problems too. Evil dictator? No problem, let's kick him out! Nevermind we don't have enough troops for a proper invasion, and can't secure important facilities (such as where the 380 tons of explosives were stored). Oh yeah, what about all the other countries that have dictators that are just as bad as Saddam? No, they're not important? What made Saddam so bad that we had to go take care of him, as opposed to all the other dictators out there?
I hear the "what about(insert any country with a dictatorship here)"argument all the time. Personally, I am in favor of doing just that, but I SINCERELY doubt those who use that argument are. If so, I congratulate you.

you know why are so freeking mean? i can be annoying yes... but when has it ever been wrong to have an opinion? I was not stating that I AM RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING>>> i was just listening mostly and puting the things i know about... damn a debate is not being brutal.. not mean.. it is talking not cutting someone down for thier opinions... damn!
I'm not trying to be mean, Kitty, and I'm sorry if I'm coming off that way. I'll be perfectly honest - your lack of understanding is what's making me annoyed. It's not wrong to have an opinion, but please, especially if you plan on voting, research your opinions. Both campaigns distort facts very often. From my experience, the Bush campaign does this more than the Kerry campaign, or at least when they do distort things, they're more serious distortions than Kerry's. I recommend http://www.factcheck.org as an excellent site that calls out both sides on anything they say that's incorrect. FactCheck also links to the sources where they get their information from, in case you want to further research anything.

I still prefer fighting them THERE than here...if they all want to flock to Iraq and die for their cause, I am 110% in favor.
with this asinine subjective definition of terrorism created by the right saying "anyone who opposes the republican agenda are terrorists" i bet its hard for you to judge between real terrorists and those people who dont want your ass in their country

oh saddam was a very bad man. he killed lots of his own people. iraq will eventually be better without him
but that doesnt justify invading like we did
Iraq may or may not be eventually a better place. Right now it looks damn much like it will descend into civil war before we see anything improving there. It will never be a democracy as we know them in the western world. They've got too many religious movements there fighting for power and control of their part of the country. Not to mention the amount of terrorism going on there as long as the US and other foreign troops are there.

Anybody could cite hundreds of facts about dictators all around the world, killing their own people, doing horrible misdeeds and making their people suffer. I agree that Saddam was a horrible dictator, but that does not justify our invasion. You know why Bush didn't just say from the beginning "We are going into Iraq to overthrow Saddam"? Because he would have gotten even less support than he already did. He had to mislead us about the reasons for the war.

Not to mention, that was never the reason for the invasion in the first place... they only started saying that AFTER the invasion. Amazing how many people have forgotten that.
I agree with you there. The original(given)reason was rather stupid, imho.(WMD)Even if we found them, we can't go after every country that is hostile towards us that is armed with them(PRC comes to mind on many occasions, as does, soon, N Korea)

I hear the "what about(insert any country with a dictatorship here)"argument all the time. Personally, I am in favor of doing just that, but I SINCERELY doubt those who use that argument are. If so, I congratulate you.
I do not support that. I was using sarcasm. The U.S. military is the top in the world, but there is no way we would ever be able to take out every oppressive dictator in the world. As Iraq has shown, we can't even do a good job taking out one. Trying to go after all of them would literally be the end of the united States as a free nation. You think the whole rest of the world is against us now? How do you think it would be if we tried to muscle our way into every other dictatorship. I guarantee you, that would make all the other dictators a bit nervous. And some of them actually can be dangerous to the U.S., such as North Korea. Also, even the rest of the Western World would be evern more pissed at us. I daresay even our current allies would pull out. We can't invade other countries just because we think there's a bad man in charge.

I agree with you there. The original(given)reason was rather stupid, imho.(WMD)Even if we found them, we can't go after every country that is hostile towards us that is armed with them(PRC comes to mind on many occasions, as does, soon, N Korea)

I agree as well. The real question isn't whether a country has WMD's, it's whether it poses a real threat to us. And Iraq never did. In fact, even if they had WMD's, they still wouldn't have posed a threat to us. They didn't have any method of deploying weapons to the US.

you know why are so freeking mean? i can be annoying yes... but when has it ever been wrong to have an opinion? I was not stating that I AM RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING>>> i was just listening mostly and puting the things i know about... damn a debate is not being brutal.. not mean.. it is talking not cutting someone down for thier opinions... damn!
you are NOT annoying
i was going to compliment you on being very civil in this discussion. its rare to have people not start flaming.

Shit, I gotta jump out of this discussion, I have class in an hour and I have to finish my assignment. It's been fun!

Iraq may or may not be eventually a better place. Right now it looks damn much like it will descend into civil war before we see anything improving there. It will never be a democracy as we know them in the western world. They've got too many religious movements there fighting for power and control of their part of the country. Not to mention the amount of terrorism going on there as long as the US and other foreign troops are there.
youre right of course. but i can still hope.

this is really hard for me, i keep hoping that bush has some evil plan behind all this that is going to end up somehow being a benefit for the US. you know, like gas costing less thant $1/gallon.

every day i get closer to the opinion that he is just stupid and there isnt even an evil explanation for this mess.

I just get the impression that the war was a big error on his administration's part, and he's been spending just about all his energy since then trying to avoid any admission of fault, at the expense of the very people he is supposed to be protecting and representing.

with this asinine subjective definition of terrorism created by the right saying "anyone who opposes the republican agenda are terrorists" i bet its hard for you to judge between real terrorists and those people who dont want your ass in their country
Actually, anyone who intentionally targets civilians, thus TERRORIZING them, and using terror as a weapon, is a terrorist. Many of the terrorists in Iraq have less right to be there than our troops do. They include the Jordanian whose group continues kidnapping CIVILIANS and beheading them, and who pledged allegiance to al Qaeda. And yes, it is preferable to fight people like that THERE than here.

Actually, anyone who intentionally targets civilians, thus TERRORIZING them, and using terror as a weapon, is a terrorist. Many of the terrorists in Iraq have less right to be there than our troops do. They include the Jordanian whose group continues kidnapping CIVILIANS and beheading them, and who pledged allegiance to al Qaeda. And yes, it is preferable to fight people like that THERE than here.

Again, though, I don't remember any Jordanian terrorists beheading civilians in Iraq before we invaded. Nobody's denying that there are terrorists there NOW.

Iraq may or may not be eventually a better place. Right now it looks damn much like it will descend into civil war before we see anything improving there. It will never be a democracy as we know them in the western world. They've got too many religious movements there fighting for power and control of their part of the country. Not to mention the amount of terrorism going on there as long as the US and other foreign troops are there.
I would think that there are no people so inferior to the "west" that they cannot have democracy. MANY, MANY, even the majority, of Iraqis, WANT it. In the end, it will be up to the US, to accept it, even if "our horse" loses their election.Look at Iran, they have a somewhat working democracy. And it has steadily through the years, moderated.Their young people want what every nation wants. It started as fundamentalit, just as Iraq may start in their election, but IF we can accept that, and trust that over time, it will gradually moderate, as societies do when the people have more at stake, and can make choices.

I would think that there are no people so inferior to the "west" that they cannot have democracy. MANY, MANY, even the majority, of Iraqis, WANT it. In the end, it will be up to the US, to accept it, even if "our horse" loses their election.Look at Iran, they have a somewhat working democracy. And it has steadily through the years, moderated.Their young people want what every nation wants. It started as fundamentalit, just as Iraq may start in their election, but IF we can accept that, and trust that over time, it will gradually moderate, as societies do when the people have more at stake, and can make choices.

I agree, so long as you're not suggesting that "Creating Democracy" is the latest Weekly Reason For Invading Iraq.

Again, though, I don't remember any Jordanian terrorists beheading civilians in Iraq before we invaded. Nobody's denying that there are terrorists there NOW.
True. However, even if all this does is become a magnet for terrorists to flow to Iraq to fight the "agressors" then , militarily, it is much better for us, and even would have been,strictly militarily speaking, an excellent side benefit of the war. There they come to us, here, it is harder to find them because of our freedoms.

True. However, even if all this does is become a magnet for terrorists to flow to Iraq to fight the "agressors" then , militarily, it is much better for us, and even would have been,strictly militarily speaking, an excellent side benefit of the war. There they come to us, here, it is harder to find them because of our freedoms.
You realize that if we hadn't invaded, most of the insurgents we're fighting now would never have attacked America in the first place right? We created most of what we're fighting by attacking Iraq.

I agree, so long as you're not suggesting that "Creating Democracy" is the latest Weekly Reason For Invading Iraq.
I think the reason that should have been given was the fact he (Saddam) violated, on a daily basis, the conditions of his ceasefire after Kuwait. He targetted and engaged a/c,tho never downing any as his air defenses really sucked, he continually kicked out inspectors, etc. When you violate a ceasefire, you should be back in the war that it was a ceasefire from, and this should have been our reason for it, notWMD, not"freeing the Iraqi people", a great side benefit, but most certainly not the reason.

True. However, even if all this does is become a magnet for terrorists to flow to Iraq to fight the "agressors" then , militarily, it is much better for us, and even would have been,strictly militarily speaking, an excellent side benefit of the war. There they come to us, here, it is harder to find them because of our freedoms.

Certainly. But if we were to base our foreign policy solely on what is best from a military standpoint, there would be no reason NOT to invade any country, ever. Maybe this is just a difference of philosophy, but I don't have much desire to live in a conquering Roman empire state.

You realize that if we hadn't invaded, most of the insurgents we're fighting now would never have attacked America in the first place right? We created most of what we're fighting by attacking Iraq.
The group beheading foreign civilians, is a branch of al Qaeda. I assume you remember 9-11, they attacked us before we invaded. I do not imply that Saddam had anything to do with it, but as I said, it is better now they are fighting there, than here.

I think the reason that should have been given was the fact he (Saddam) violated, on a daily basis, the conditions of his ceasefire after Kuwait. He targetted and engaged a/c,tho never downing any as his air defenses really sucked, he continually kicked out inspectors, etc. When you violate a ceasefire, you should be back in the war that it was a ceasefire from, and this should have been our reason for it, notWMD, not"freeing the Iraqi people", a great side benefit, but most certainly not the reason.

I agree. And I think that if that reason had been given, we never could have culled enough support to begin the war. Which is as it should be.

Certainly. But if we were to base our foreign policy solely on what is best from a military standpoint, there would be no reason NOT to invade any country, ever. Maybe this is just a difference of philosophy, but I don't have much desire to live in a conquering Roman empire state.
I agree, what I find annoying is many of our"allies" act as if this were so. When the European powers were at their height, they took, by force, what they needed...oil? taken,spices?India colonized,the list goes on...Our foreign policy is NOT determined strictly by what is best for us, militarily or otherwise, and it annoys me that so many people see it as so.These people fail to see that if we really were the evil empire, we could, easily, take by force all the world's oil supply, etc.

I agree, what I find annoying is many of our"allies" act as if this were so. When the European powers were at their height, they took, by force, what they needed...oil? taken,spices?India colonized,the list goes on...Our foreign policy is NOT determined strictly by what is best for us, militarily or otherwise, and it annoys me that so many people see it as so.These people fail to see that if we really were the evil emoire, we could, easily, take by force all the world's oil supply, etc.

Exactly. We have shied away from empire status, and rightly so, I think. My problem is that Bush's actions are a little too close to imperial for my tastes... It is unfair to call the US an empire in its current status - we simply are not. But my fear is that we are moving in that direction with this administration.

And with that, I'm off for now - it's been a good debate, folks, see you all later.

I agree. And I think that if that reason had been given, we never could have culled enough support to begin the war. Which is as it should be.
;) Possibly

Because overthrowing foreign governments is also against the UN charter (as much as waging wars of aggression is).

UN charter Section VII, Articles 39 and 48:

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."


"The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine."


"The U.S. has exhibited extraordinary opportunism in how and when it chooses to either abide by, or defy, the United Nations Charter, other international laws, and its own Constitution. By far, the U.S. has become the worst offender in the world for committing lawless aggression and interventionism. It is now an unprecedented global empire."

http://www.brianwillson.com/awolaggression.html

Not sure where you heard 90 days? Do you have a source? We were told 5 years was likely.
Yes. Apart from my own memory of all the speeches made by the administration here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46554-2004Oct19.html?sub=AR
"But these and other such assessments and pleas ran counter to the idea of the war that Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had lodged in their heads. This would be our lightning war, and after Saddam Hussein was deposed, resistance would cease and U.S. forces could pack up and go home. A report in Tuesday's New York Times documents a Defense Department plan to shrink the number of U.S. forces in Iraq by 50,000 within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad. There were estimates aplenty from the State Department, the CIA and the Army suggesting that we'd need more forces for the occupation than for the war, but they were all blithely ignored."
You remember all the shock and awe talk as well as I do I'm sure.
You are correct about the 5 year estimate, however, that statement was made I believe by the CIA IN CONTRAST to the assertions coming from the Whitehouse. Do I need to now list the people who spoke against the Whitehouse and found themselves without a job? Or how Colin Powell was completely emasculated in the pre-war madness?

The group beheading foreign civilians, is a branch of al Qaeda. I assume you remember 9-11, they attacked us before we invaded. I do not imply that Saddam had anything to do with it, but as I said, it is better now they are fighting there, than here.

I believe I read an article recently that stated that Bin Laden and Al Zarqawi were adversaries until recently when anti-American sentiment united them.

Now, to be 100% clear, this thread, by rights, has nothing to do with the justification for going to war, nor does it have anything to do with whether Saddam was an imminent threat to us. These are issues that have been discussed to death in other threads.

The subject at hand is the utter incompetency of our administration to guard a cache of explosives in hostile territory. Just to sum up:

The administration was warned about these expolosives and the need for guarding them.

The administration failed to do so

All but 35 tons were accounted for until 2003

The administration covered this up for some time

We can't blame the sentries for failing to guard the cache, BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY.

The Bush administration deflected talk about this by blaming Kerry for basing attacks on news articles.

In 8 days, the administration will be replaced.

Yes. Apart from my own memory of all the speeches made by the administration here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46554-2004Oct19.html?sub=AR
"But these and other such assessments and pleas ran counter to the idea of the war that Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had lodged in their heads. This would be our lightning war, and after Saddam Hussein was deposed, resistance would cease and U.S. forces could pack up and go home. A report in Tuesday's New York Times documents a Defense Department plan to shrink the number of U.S. forces in Iraq by 50,000 within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad. There were estimates aplenty from the State Department, the CIA and the Army suggesting that we'd need more forces for the occupation than for the war, but they were all blithely ignored."
You remember all the shock and awe talk as well as I do I'm sure.
You are correct about the 5 year estimate, however, that statement was made I believe by the CIA IN CONTRAST to the assertions coming from the Whitehouse. Do I need to now list the people who spoke against the Whitehouse and found themselves without a job? Or how Colin Powell was completely emasculated in the pre-war madness?
We were already deploying before the war, and never paid much attention to the US media's "shock and awe" or whatever...war is war, and they tried to make a catchy phrase I guess. We were told from the beginning that if all things went WELL, it would be approx a 5 yr commitment of forces,meaning everyone likely would have a second tour(some of which already are underway).

Because overthrowing foreign governments is also against the UN charter (as much as waging wars of aggression is).

UN charter Section VII, Articles 39 and 48:


"The U.S. has exhibited extraordinary opportunism in how and when it chooses to either abide by, or defy, the United Nations Charter, other international laws, and its own Constitution. By far, the U.S. has become the worst offender in the world for committing lawless aggression and interventionism. It is now an unprecedented global empire."

http://www.brianwillson.com/awolaggression.html

It is too easy to go find this or that link to say anything you need said.

The group beheading foreign civilians, is a branch of al Qaeda. I assume you remember 9-11, they attacked us before we invaded. I do not imply that Saddam had anything to do with it, but as I said, it is better now they are fighting there, than here.
The group beheading civillians became part of Al Qaeda AFTER we invaded. So far this war has not made us safer, and if anything has strengthened Al Qaeda and the hatred of America the fills their ranks.

We were already deploying before the war, and never paid much attention to the US media's "shock and awe" or whatever...war is war, and they tried to make a catchy phrase I guess. We were told from the beginning that if all things went WELL, it would be approx a 5 yr commitment of forces,meaning everyone likely would have a second tour(some of which already are underway).
Then let me say it again. Yes we were told that a 5 year commitment was necessary, but not by Rumsfeld who as I quote, was talking of reducing forces in 90 days. Everyone but the adminstration was agreeing with your statement and that is the point I'm making and none other. I provide the link and the quote and you respond with the same thing, what's up?

I believe I read an article recently that stated that Bin Laden and Al Zarqawi were adversaries until recently when anti-American sentiment united them.

Now, to be 100% clear, this thread, by rights, has nothing to do with the justification for going to war, nor does it have anything to do with whether Saddam was an imminent threat to us. These are issues that have been discussed to death in other threads.

The subject at hand is the utter incompetency of our administration to guard a cache of explosives in hostile territory. Just to sum up:

The administration was warned about these expolosives and the need for guarding them.

The administration failed to do so

All but 35 tons were accounted for until 2003

The administration covered this up for some time

We can't blame the sentries for failing to guard the cache, BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY.

The Bush administration deflected talk about this by blaming Kerry for basing attacks on news articles.

In 8 days, the administration will be replaced.
You still are trying to turn really what must be a slow news day into a burst of support for Kerry. Myself, I hope Kerry depends on these"news"articles to help him. I will do everything I can to help give him more time at home to read them. This has pretty much made up my mind the rest of the way. To have someone want to be my Commander in Chief, take away funding from our forces, do everything he can to lower our ability to do our job, then try to turn what really in the big picture is a small failure on either US or Iraqi troops' fault, to his advantage, is just the final straw.
That said, I respect your viewpoint. I apologize for how I come off sometimes, I am not really an a$$.
I do hope everyone regardless of who they vote for, does vote this year.And please, Democrats, only one vote ;) :p

Then let me say it again. Yes we were told that a 5 year commitment was necessary, but not by Rumsfeld who as I quote, was talking of reducing forces in 90 days. Everyone but the adminstration was agreeing with your statement and that is the point I'm making and none other. I provide the link and the quote and you respond with the same thing, what's up?
Thanks for the quote, I really had not heard that.
Actually as I posted here earlier, I am not a Rumsfeld fan, I know for certain he was told by many Army officers and I assume other military officers as well, that his plan required more force than he was willing to allocate. As I said before, I actually ,for the most part, find both candidates this year likable. I resent the policies of Kerry as I understand them, and I resent the people Bush chooses to take advice from, so I have stayed middle for the most part.
But to answer your"what's up" question, my point was that regardless of what the population appears to have been told, the military, at least at officer levels, mostly knew going in that it would be long term.

You still are trying to turn really what must be a slow news day into a burst of support for Kerry. Myself, I hope Kerry depends on these"news"articles to help him. I will do everything I can to help give him more time at home to read them. This has pretty much made up my mind the rest of the way. To have someone want to be my Commander in Chief, take away funding from our forces, do everything he can to lower our ability to do our job, then try to turn what really in the big picture is a small failure on either US or Iraqi troops' fault, to his advantage, is just the final straw.
That said, I respect your viewpoint. I apologize for how I come off sometimes, I am not really an a$$.
I do hope everyone regardless of who they vote for, does vote this year.

No problem. You do realize that Kerry did indeed vote for the largest military funding bill in history, right?

I can't see how you can possibly see this as a small matter. It's your opinion though.

But... but... but.... *sputter* the US defended itself from the great threat that Iraq was before the war!!! It would have launched WMD within 45 minutes if Bush had not attacked it!!!

As an American I feel like this is all my... Presidents fault. And Reagon, cause he sucked too, building terrorism, not that this war is really fighting terrorism, but if Reagan didnt do that, there would be none, than Bush could really say, we are invading Iraq for the oil. I think he would be better if he just said that openly, instead of hiding it. Especially cause noone would vote for him.

No problem. You do realize that Kerry did indeed vote for the largest military funding bill in history, right?

I can't see how you can possibly see this as a small matter. It's your opinion though.
Which bill are you referring to? I know he has voted for several. His job after all is to look after his MA interests, and there are several suppliers up there.
I find it more worriesome that he implied in the first debate that he would consult foreign govt prior to using US forces, as well as the fact most Kerry supporters I see, here and elsewhere, appear to be anti-US,that says ALOT for him wanting to be the President imho.I find it worriesome that someone wishes to be a commander in chief, while telling his soldiers they are dying in an unnecessary war. Part of this, I suspect, is his advisers talking, and as I said, personally, he seems like a fine man, but both candidates need to lose about half of their advisers...then again, if they did so, the fringe would desert them both, and they would be stuck together in the middle, as running mates??? ;)

Which bill are you referring to? I know he has voted for several. His job after all is to look after his MA interests, and there are several suppliers up there.
I find it more worriesome that he implied in the first debate that he would consult foreign govt prior to using US forces, as well as the fact most Kerry supporters I see, here and elsewhere, appear to be anti-US,that says ALOT for him wanting to be the President imho.I find it worriesome that someone wishes to be a commander in chief, while telling his soldiers they are dying in an unnecessary war. Part of this, I suspect, is his advisers talking, and as I said, personally, he seems like a fine man, but both candidates need to lose about half of their advisers...then again, if they did so, the fringe would desert them both, and they would be stuck together in the middle, as running mates??? ;)

In the first debate, Kerry rweferred to passing a global test. Now, I don't know where you went to school, but I never had to ask permission to pass a test.

With all due respect, I think you seem to feel that criticizing the US equals being anti-US. I think the US can do better than it's doing. Does that make me anti-US? No, it means I'm willing to fight for higher ideals.

I would find it worrisome that a Commander in Chief tells his soldiers they are dying in an unneccessary war, or, more accurately, an improperly planned and rushed in to war, if said war hadn't been improperly planned and rushed in to. In other words, the criticism would be bad if it wasn't so apt.

I find it much more troubling that the current Commander in Chief didn't take adequate care of his soldiers before rushing in to the war, and didn't do the planning he was told to do to prepare for a likely insurgency. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking, these are things Bush was told before the war started that he chose to ignore.

I also find it troubling that the Commander in Chief does not have the attitude of all good leaders, which is that mistakes by his subordinates are mistakes by him.

All in all, I see Bush as a bad Commander in Chief in practice, while Kerry only has the potential to be a bad Commander in Chief. I also see Kerry as being much more intelligent and flexible. Flexibility and intelligence is always a prerequisite in chaotic times.

Furthermore, if this was an isolated case, I probably wouldn't be up in arms about it, but when you add it to the insufficient number of troops, sending troops in without proper protection (well before the $87B vote, Bush apologists,) failing to protect national treasures, not spending the reconstruction money, losing chinks of the reconstruction money and underestimating the insurgency drastically, you get a pattern of incompetence never seen before in American Militrary action. Think of the our soldiers people!

Where the hell does the buck stop, especially when no steps to rectify the situation (such as firing senior military personnel or Rumsfeld,) have been taken?

Come on. What does it take? Are you so afraid of admitting you were wrong about Bush that you will follow him to disaster just to protect your pride?

Thanks for the quote, I really had not heard that.
Actually as I posted here earlier, I am not a Rumsfeld fan, I know for certain he was told by many Army officers and I assume other military officers as well, that his plan required more force than he was willing to allocate. As I said before, I actually ,for the most part, find both candidates this year likable. I resent the policies of Kerry as I understand them, and I resent the people Bush chooses to take advice from, so I have stayed middle for the most part.
But to answer your"what's up" question, my point was that regardless of what the population appears to have been told, the military, at least at officer levels, mostly knew going in that it would be long term.
So what we have here is an agreement that the Bush administration publicly lied about the nature of the Iraq war. The case presented was a lightning war, that would fund itself through oil revenues, and we would be greeted as liberators was presented not only to the public but also to Congress. Meanwhile we have the continued assertions that things are getting better, when in fact the information that trickles in doesn't confirm that. It's more complicated than the version given to the public versus what the military understood. We have a secretary of Defense that took unprededented authority over the military and has not been held accountable or even admitted to mistakes. Even if I and other americans were to accept your explanation, why should any one of us trust Bush in this election?

Another thing. What's so particularly loathsome about the whole affair is that the people who were questioning the adminstration before the war were being called anti-american, unpatriotic and supporting the terrorists. We were also being told we better watch what we say. I'm ready to take these people down.
They need to lose the whitehouse and be prosecuted. Their supporters need to be run out on a rail.

Another thing. What's so particularly loathsome about the whole affair is that the people who were questioning the adminstration before the war were being called anti-american, unpatriotic and supporting the terrorists. We were also being told we better watch what we say. I'm ready to take these people down.
They need to lose the whitehouse and be prosecuted. Their supporters need to be run out on a rail.

we should demand that president kerry look into the REAL reasons we went to iraq

we need to know

*Sigh*
Yes, of course it seems obvious to me now that a failure by US military forces to adequately cover the whole of Iraq is all Bush's fault. Especially since the adminstration stated that Condy only found out about it less than a month ago, and she was the first. However, I insist fee free to continue in your ignorant generalizations. After all, liberals always have excelled at living in an alternate reality. No doubt the administration was attempting to either locate the explosives, or verify the fact that they were gone, before it went out trying to make some sound bites. Heaven forbid.

*Sigh*
Yes, of course it seems obvious to me now that a failure by US military forces to adequately cover the whole of Iraq is all Bush's fault. Especially since the adminstration stated that Condy only found out about it less than a month ago, and she was the first. However, I insist fee free to continue in your ignorant generalizations. After all, liberals always have excelled at living in an alternate reality. No doubt the administration was attempting to either locate the explosives, or verify the fact that they were gone, before it went out trying to make some sound bites. Heaven forbid.

ever hear the phrase THE BUCK STOPS HERE?

the president is responsible for everything done in his administration under his command

I have never liked Bush and I never will. I will always see him as an incompetent who got his way through the world from daddy and daddy's friends. How this man got to rule a country full of supposedly smart people like Americans eludes me. That he allowed these explosives to disappear just emphasises this. VOTE KERRY!

well since we are basically a 2 party system and the best the dems could put up was Gore..please..thats how...and putting up Kerry is maybe worse...pick a true mid-line demacrat and not a far left socialist and the dems might have a better shot..thanx

Since I am regarded as a lunatic here already, I see that I have nothing to loose by saying this.
Anyhow, the conduct of the first few days of the occupation was rather miserable. It were these deficiencies that led to theft, possibly of the explosives. But I myself doubt that al-Qaeda and the like took them. I have a suspicion that they were squirreled away before the invasion by Ba'athist diehards. After all, they are the only known groups to target planes and helicopters, and could've very possibly stole the explosives from here.

Since I am regarded as a lunatic here already, I see that I have nothing to loose by saying this.
Anyhow, the conduct of the first few days of the occupation was rather miserable. It were these deficiencies that led to theft, possibly of the explosives. But I myself doubt that al-Qaeda and the like took them. I have a suspicion that they were squirreled away before the invasion by Ba'athist diehards. After all, they are the only known groups to target planes and helicopters, and could've very possibly stole the explosives from here.
The explosives have been accounted for until 2003. Which was, after the invasion took place. So no, it was not lost before the invasion, rather, the US failed to properly guard the place. But that is no wonder, with an inept monkey as commander-in-chief. Heil Bush!

The explosives have been accounted for until 2003. Which was, after the invasion took place. So no, it was not lost before the invasion, rather, the US failed to properly guard the place. But that is no wonder, with an inept monkey as commander-in-chief. Heil Bush!
I'm saying that it could've been days before the war. The flow of cargo, people, and money was especially heavy in the days right before the war. If you remember, Hussein removed almost $1 billion from Iraqi banks, and hid them in Syrian banks, for example.

well since we are basically a 2 party system and the best the dems could put up was Gore..please..thats how...and putting up Kerry is maybe worse...pick a true mid-line demacrat and not a far left socialist and the dems might have a better shot..thanx
That's one of the funnier myths that the Bush campaign likes to propagate. Kerry is far closer to the midline of the Democratic party than he is to the far left. Over his entire career, he is only very slightly to the left of the center of the Democratic party.

That's one of the funnier myths that the Bush campaign likes to propagate. Kerry is far closer to the midline of the Democratic party than he is to the far left. Over his entire career, he is only very slightly to the left of the center of the Democratic party.

I sit here utterly astounded. Words...words just can't express what I feel. Hard core Bush supporters are simply not in touch with reality. They really do believe that Kerry and us people who are arguing against Bush are somehow communo-socialist radical whackos. This HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS OR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. You are being lied to and manipulated, and you'e just going along for the ride.

This is simple competence people. This is facing up to reality. This is having a functioning independent brain. Many of you probably think I'm a partisan left-wing biased pontificator. What I am mainly is an opponent to the administration of George W. Bush.

At this moment in time, I could give a fuck about gay marriage. I don't care about the death penalty. Abortion concerns me not at all. Prayer in school? Fuck if I care. No Child Left Behind and it's funding? Nope, I don't care. If there was a bill for raising taxes or lowering taxes right in front of me and it was on fire, I wouldn't piss on it to put it out. Jobs. Deficit. Healthcare. Environment. All distant seconds.

No, all I care about is those poor men and women we have over there who put their trust in and still mostly trust their Commander in Chief. They are risking life and limb for an incompetent and ideologically broken regime. Their lives being devalued by an administration that can only say, "hey, it's not our fault!" I care about the people of Iraq who may forever more be our enemies because of our unflinching misleaders. Do you realize that a REPUBLICAN polling company recently polled citizens of Iraq, and the majority said they thought their country was on the wrong track? Think about it. They were ruled by a nearly genocidal maniac, and they think their country has gone down hill since he's been gone.

Kerry misspoke when he said "Wrong War." What he should have said is "Wrong people in charge of the war."

How can The Bush Failures expect people to join in their coalition when they are a collosal failure who openly antagonizes other countries and then dismisses them? What arrogance. What misplaced puffery. The sad thing is, they're getting away with it.

Hell, I would accept Pat Buchanan as President rather than Bush, and that thought almost makes me ill. I yearn for the days of Bush I. Napoleon would at least be a competent military leader.

What does it take? What does it take? What does it take?

Amen

If Bush wins again, my purpose in life will be California secession.

Incompetence and secrecy. How can you think they can possibly keep us safe?

Wow, you are deluded.

NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED!

Keep an eye out for the debunking of yet another leftist lie. :)

Wow, you are deluded.

NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED!

Keep an eye out for the debunking of yet another leftist lie. :)



Wrong!!



The missing 377 tons of high explosives, monitored by inspectors from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, could potentially be used to make a detonator for a nuclear bomb, blow up an airplane or a building or in numerous other military and civilian applications, arms experts said.

Reuters Article (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=IKVMQCVYHCBV0CRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=6604094)


Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology informed the IAEA two weeks ago that the explosives had been "lost after April 9, 2003, through the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security," the watchdog agency told the 15-nation U.N. Security Council.



Vienna diplomats said the IAEA had cautioned the United States about the danger of the explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told U.S. officials about the need to keep them secured.

Come on people. How much more do you need?



Incompetence and secrecy. How can you think they can possibly keep us safe?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?hp&ex=1098763200&en=fd35fdf4b6d46d61&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136466,00.html

Did you read your own links? This forum will never cease to amaze me. Or, is it the fuel from the liberal media fire that is encouaring it. Oh, my bag. The President has a slight advantage in the polls, and the media has to ensure that the nickolodean bull malarkey turns into a rose bud. This information is over ONE FREAKING YEAR OLD! Wake-up America. Read the FREAKING article. We, knew this last year!

Did you read your own links? This forum will never cease to amaze me. Or, is it the fuel from the liberal media fire that is encouaring it. Oh, my bag. The President has a slight advantage in the polls, and the media has to ensure that the nickolodean bull malarkey turns into a rose bud. This information is over ONE FREAKING YEAR OLD! Wake-up America. Read the FREAKING article. We, knew this last year!
No you did not. Read the Reuters Article. Reuters, clearly the most liberal and commie news source in the world.

Did you read your own links? This forum will never cease to amaze me. Or, is it the fuel from the liberal media fire that is encouaring it. Oh, my bag. The President has a slight advantage in the polls, and the media has to ensure that the nickolodean bull malarkey turns into a rose bud. This information is over ONE FREAKING YEAR OLD! Wake-up America. Read the FREAKING article. We, knew this last year!

Yes, the last time we knew where the explosives were was in April of 2003...after the Bush administration had been warned that it was unsecured. They did nothing. The timing of their incompetence means nothing. How many of our soldiers, I wonder, have fallen prey to these explosives already? You obviously don't care about our soldiers though.

Did you read your own links? This forum will never cease to amaze me. Or, is it the fuel from the liberal media fire that is encouaring it. Oh, my bag. The President has a slight advantage in the polls, and the media has to ensure that the nickolodean bull malarkey turns into a rose bud. This information is over ONE FREAKING YEAR OLD! Wake-up America. Read the FREAKING article. We, knew this last year!
Yes, we did know this last year, and the great vaunted UN did nothing, nothing to secure these WMDs, which are now being used by the liberals allies to hurt American troops and innocent Iraqis.


"But tonight, NBCNEWS reported, once: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

It is not clear why the NYTIMES failed to report the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing before troops even arrived.

"The U.S. Army was at the sight one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers. "

http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm

Yes, the last time we knew where the explosives were was in April of 2003...after the Bush administration had been warned that it was unsecured. They did nothing. The timing of their incompetence means nothing. How many of our soldiers, I wonder, have fallen prey to these explosives already? You obviously don't care about our soldiers though.Touche!
WE KNEW. I KNEW. We reported that most of this stockpile was already pilfered, 'READ ARTICLE', and there was very little of detrimental value to coalition forces remaining. This crap was already pilfered!

The timing falls directly into liberal media and anit President Bush election timing! Re-read article, it's over 18 months old.

Behind the screen of a computer anybody can be anybody, but I will tell you one thing, and one thing only. I have sworn an oath to 'Defend the constitution of the United Staes of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.' I have closed with and destroyed the enemy of my country in close combat in the country of Iraq. I wear the unit patch of 1st Armored Division on my right sleeve. It is my job to care about soldiers. I have 128 "grunts" that remind me daily who we are!

Wrong!!



Reuters Article (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=IKVMQCVYHCBV0CRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=6604094)
Wrong!!


rest now weary child, your lies are awful heavy.

Wrong!!


rest now weary child, your lies are awful heavy.
I'm neither a child, nor did I lie. You really should not project your own character failures on other people... tsk tsk.

Touche!
WE KNEW. I KNEW. We reported that most of this stockpile was already pilfered, 'READ ARTICLE', and there was very little of detrimental value to coalition forces remaining. This crap was already pilfered!

The timing falls directly into liberal media and anit President Bush election timing! Re-read article, it's over 18 months old.

Behind the screen of a computer anybody can be anybody, but I will tell you one thing, and one thing only. I have sworn an oath to 'Defend the constitution of the United Staes of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.' I have closed with and destroyed the enemy of my country in close combat in the country of Iraq. I wear the unit patch of 1st Armored Division on my right sleeve. It is my job to care about soldiers. I have 128 "grunts" that remind me daily who we are!

I appreciate your service. You deserve a better President. He is a domestic enemy and he spits on the Constitution.

I appreciate your service. You deserve a better President. He is a domestic enemy and he spits on the Constitution.Accepted.
I fully agree that we need a better President. However, honestly neither of the two current party members are much better. The President has some serious flaws I don't take lightly, but he has the determination to see the end result. The Senator has flaws as well, but he is not as determined to accomplish the mission. That and only that, is where the majority of us placed our final debate, and finished a line on our absentee ballots.

Ever head of a place called Ft hunter Liggett? It's in Monterey County, just over the mountains from the bay. It was a test bed years ago, though I have heard it has closed. I tested some of the new optics there, now we have them in the field for Infantry soldiers. Those and body armor (I won't mention the vote on that here) have given us a higher degree of Urban Warfare.

Accepted.
I fully agree that we need a better President. However, honestly neither of the two current party members are much better. The President has some serious flaws I don't take lightly, but he has the determination to see the end result. The Senator has flaws as well, but he is not as determined to accomplish the mission. That and only that, is where the majority of us placed our final debate, and finished a line on our absentee ballots.

Ever head of a place called Ft hunter Liggett? It's in Monterey County, just over the mountains from the bay. It was a test bed years ago, though I have heard it has closed. I tested some of the new optics there, now we have them in the field for Infantry soldiers. Those and body armor (I won't mention the vote on that here) have given us a higher degree of Urban Warfare.
Yeah, it's closed, they were just starting the closing proceduers last time I was at the Presidio/DLI.

News Flash, check the reports. The explosives were gone when the troops arrived. Furthermore, this has really been blown out of proportion. Do any of you people realize how much explosives are around the world? There is more here than in Iraq. It is used freely in construction, farming etc. And yes, any of it can bring down a plane or a building, or set off a nuke. Explosives are easy, nuclear material is hard to come by. So the notion Kerry is putting out that this "particular stockpile" will end up on our planes or in our cities is ridiculous. Furthermore, what he is really saying is that he thinks our troops are ineffective. No matter what you say, Bush is not a ground commander, and the Generals make the plans. Oh no, there are mortars in Iraq. Maybe they will mortar Washington DC. There are AK's in iraq, oh no, maybe they will bring them here. I think that any terrorist that tried to sneak an AK or a block of plastic explosive on a plane is asking to get caught. Since just as powerful explosives can be made in your kitchen, why would they try to bring it in? Answer, they wouldn't unless they are dumber than we thought, and I doubt that. The notion that the terrorist didn't have explosives until we "supplied" them is ridiculous as well. They make it, as witnessed everytime a car bomb or suicide bomber blows himself up. Kerry jumped the gun for political gain and he got caught, and this whole situation demonstrates that it is better to fight the terrorists in Iraq, than in our own cities.

Then consider these facts about Kerry and his battle against the Bush camp for the last 20 years.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20268/

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Kerry fought to expose an international criminal bank, BCCI — the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The bank was run by a Pakistani, working with Persian Gulf managers who operated through a network of secret offshore centers to hide their operations from the world’s bank examiners. They weren’t, however, hidden from the CIA, which not only knew what the bank was doing, but used the bank to funnel cash through its Islamabad and other Pakistani branches to CIA client Osama bin Laden, part of the $2 billion Washington sent to the Afghani mujahideen. The operation gave bin Laden an education in black finance. CIA director William Casey himself met with BCCI founder Agha Hasan Abedi. The CIA also paid its own agents through the bank and used BCCI to fund black ops all over the world.

Kerry took on not only the Bush clan and its friends, but the CIA, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. This is not irrelevant history, but important to examine, because it reveals a lot about Kerry and how he might respond to terrorism or other global criminal enterprises. Kerry’s record shows that he took on powerful political and bureaucratic interests, was a tenacious investigator, and savvy about international crime and money flows, which is crucial in the fight against terrorism.

Against the opposition of powerful Republicans and Democrats, and in light of a lack of cooperation from a very politicized Justice Department and stonewalling by the CIA, Kerry worked with investigators and ran Senate hearings that exposed the bank’s shadowy multi-billion-dollar scams and precipitated its end. "

This one might even deserve it's own thread. I had known about the BCCI and Iran/Contra scandals, but until recently was ignorant of the fact that Kerry was the guy busting balls out there to expose this stuff. He might be wooden but that's exactly the kind of guy I want going after this insane orgy of armegeddon zealots in the world, both foreign and domestic.

Just one more example of Kerry and the liberal media conspiring to affect the election. He is a scumbag.

The UN lost the weapons, Waffleboy.

Just one more example of Kerry and the liberal media conspiring to affect the election. He is a scumbag.

The UN lost the weapons, Waffleboy.

Who was it who ordered the UN inspectors out? Hmmmm?

Kitty...I stopped reading your post two thirds of the way through the first paragraph, because it just shows how blindly you follow party-line politics. You're being taken in by all the spin, plain and simple. Heinz making more money by having plants overseas? Well, there's multiple reasons as to why that's a load of garbage.
a) Heinz is a multinational company. The stuff that gets produced overseas, gets sold overseas. According to what Kerry says, (BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH) ....you lisetn to Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter? I sure hope you don't live in a swing state.

Snowoarding, I cant you believe you just wrote that phrose..."According to John Kerry"... Are you stupid, or do you really believe we are stupid? You berate us for listning to Bush, rumsfeld, etc etc, and being taken by the "Spin"...and then come out with a "According to <insert politician here>

They lie. We all know that. The difference is, who do you think lies less, and who do you think will run the country better. I have seen a whole lot of BS in this thread...Kerry this, Bush that, Republican here, Democrat there...blah blah blah.

Vote for who you think is going to best for the USA. Not for any other reason. You know where Kerry stands (Maybe, still have to see about some of that). You know where Bush stands, cause he's been there for the last 4 years. Vote for you condidate of choice...

And may Bush win!!!
Amen

Then consider these facts about Kerry and his battle against the Bush camp for the last 20 years.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20268/

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Kerry fought to expose an international criminal bank, BCCI — ....

Kerry took on not only the Bush clan and its friends, but the CIA, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. This is not irrelevant history, but important to examine, because it reveals a lot about Kerry and how he might respond to terrorism or other global criminal enterprises. Kerry’s record shows that he took on powerful political and bureaucratic interests, was a tenacious investigator, and savvy about international crime and money flows, which is crucial in the fight against terrorism.

Against the opposition of powerful Republicans and Democrats, and in light of a lack of cooperation from a very politicized Justice Department and stonewalling by the CIA, Kerry worked with investigators and ran Senate hearings that exposed the bank’s shadowy multi-billion-dollar scams and precipitated its end. "

This one might even deserve it's own thread. I had known about the BCCI and Iran/Contra scandals, but until recently was ignorant of the fact that Kerry was the guy busting balls out there to expose this stuff. He might be wooden but that's exactly the kind of guy I want going after this insane orgy of armegeddon zealots in the world, both foreign and domestic.

Diamond Mind,
you are entitled. Good job, but I think you are wrong. Herte is my 2 cents worth.

I dont think Kerry has it in him to "Stand and Fight" I just dont see it. He has flipped a lot on the issues, in my mind, and tells people what they want to hear. Kerry finds it hard to stand up to politicians in his own party, let alone terrorists. What would happen if terrorists kidnapped someone and demanded reparations. Kerry would cave, you know he would. I dont think Bush would cave.
The Brits are negoiating right now, and thats the worse thing that can happen. Now they (the terrorists) know that all they have to do to get their way is to kidnap/kill more people. They are learning that the way to "Bring Down America and its allies" is to spill the blood of one innocent. With that line of reasoning, before too long it will be unstopable. There is a reason we dont negotiate with terrorists or kidnappers.
I say, stop it RIGHT NOW. Keep Bush as president, and lets stop the maddness...even if we have to lose a few people now, its better then lots of people in 10 years, or 20, or more.

And as a soldier for 18 years, I am going into harms way, again, soon. Its my duty, and my right, and my privilage to go and serve. So i know all about the death and destruction. I want it to stop RIGHT NOW, and stay home with my family. BUt i want my family to be safe in 20 years, not worried about the next terrorist explosion. So to me, Bush has it right. A little pain now, to avoid a lot of pain later.

Intelligent people don't need more but Republicans that still vote führer Bush are retards or worse, just fascists and they'll prove it with a vote for that gangster.


So I am a facist now?
You see me all the time standing around, keeping you down with a gun in my hand, shooting innocent people just for enjoyment. I beat people up, rape their women, and crush you, jsut because Bush tells me to.
Grow up.

And as far as the retard comment goes, I will challenge you, anytime, anywhere, anyplace, to some kind of academic activity.

Come on people. How much more do you need?



Incompetence and secrecy. How can you think they can possibly keep us safe?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?hp&ex=1098763200&en=fd35fdf4b6d46d61&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136466,00.html\\

2 Kg of plutonium. Nuclear explosion.

i could really care less if some ultimately powerless dictator has a stockpile of bombs, he cant go blowing up his own people or other people, the force of the world will come down on his head.

of course the republicans would never let dangerous countries like iran or north korea develop nuclear weapons...oh wait.

stop pretending the republicans are the fucking justice league able to ensure world peace, they arnt and they dont

I will do what you say, IF you stop pretending that the Democrats dont raise taxes, cut the military to a shadow of itself, put down the military in general, dotn give us the weapons and equipment we need, etc etc etc.

Like I have said, I am republican because of the way they treat me, joe Soldier. It is much better then what the Dems do. When Clinton was in office, I felt like I was being RAPED. I mean really VIOLATED. I dont feel that way about Bush.

there are 2 (or more) sides to every story guys. I cant convince you, and you cant convince me (I am stubborn that way, guess its from 18 years of being a soldier and keeping your buts free to talk trash about us...)

It is great to see some fellow professionals in here. The non-stop America bashing on these threads, and the fact that most Kerry supporters are the ones doing it, have made my mind up.
Also as I mentioned, and another of you verified for yourself, we KNEW about this stuff long ago. Before American boots even reached this base, we knew it was missing. Alot of misunderstanding out there, people thinking "it was safe because the UN was guarding it" is alot of bull. They placed markers on it, and left it. They did not guard it. For those of you there or headed there soon, best of luck.

Actually he's right.

It's pretty much a proven fact that republicans tend to give the military more cash.

So, if they vote with their wallets, then yes, their more likily to vote republican.

Who was it who ordered the UN inspectors out? Hmmmm?
That would be Saddam.

Actually he's right.

It's pretty much a proven fact that republicans tend to give the military more cash.

So, if they vote with their wallets, then yes, their more likily to vote republican.
It is not about giving us cash, it is about giving us what we need to do the job, and giving us respect. I have sat here on these threads and heard insults about how the military is stupid and votes Republican without thinking(chess squares, yes, I mean you) And so much "concern"for the military. Personally I think that anyone who supports the policies of Kerry has no business claiming to support the troops. Kerry is himself not a bad guy, as I have said, but his policies would gut the military, even more than Clinton, who was the worst Commander in Chief in my service time as well as the service time of everyone I have spoken with.

If you are not willing to give a single soldier a living wage to defend you, then, you do NOT deserve his or her protection. Live with it everyone: we are defended by those who will do a job we will not. :sniper:

You still honestly think that Saddam was a threat enough to the US that he would have 'imminently' attacked us if we hadn't taken him out of power?

Besides, your metaphor is innacurate... here's the way it really was: One kid jumped my kid and attacked him. I got so mad, I stepped in and taught the kid a lesson. But I wasn't satisfied after that, so I decided to beat up on another kid, even though he wasn't part of the original attack. But, you know, that kid was sort of a mean one, so it was justified.


Sub_actuality, I think your metaphor is too simplistic.

When you say... "you attack another kid, but its justified becasue he was kinda mean." pu ti this way...
"I attack another kid becasue he was mean, probably paid off the first kid to beat my kid, and in all probability, was plotting to beat my kid, when he had a chance to."

I aggree that there were no WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam was a "Toothless Lion". We cant prove that Saddam was plotting to attack us, when he was able to.
But come on people, look at history with Iraq, look at the facts. Put your reasoning skill to work, and figure it out.

Maybe he wasnt going to attack us. I believe he was, and I believe that he was trying to get WMD to us on either the US or Isreal (Isreal is another story, and I am not going to go there because I happen to aggree that we support them too much) but using a WMD on them would probably cause a world nuclear war.

Have we made mistakes in Iraq? Hell yeah. Can we fix the mistakes? Yes. Are we trying toi fix them? Yes I dont want to go back to that shithole country, but I will.

Now for my presidental rant...

Kerry says that he "Has a plan for Iraq" and that he "would have done almost everything differently". Well, he has never said what his plan is, and he has never said what he would do differently. I just dont think he really has a plan, and the only difference in Iraq he would have done was not go there (I can repspect not going there, but I believe in being pro-active, so I am glad we took out Saddam now). I just dont believe he would be a better C-n-C. I dotn think he has a plan, he is just using Iraq to get into office.

\\

2 Kg of plutonium. Nuclear explosion.




:eek: holy shit!

Then consider these facts about Kerry and his battle against the Bush camp for the last 20 years.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20268/

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Kerry fought to expose an international criminal bank, BCCI — the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The bank was run by a Pakistani, working with Persian Gulf managers who operated through a network of secret offshore centers to hide their operations from the world’s bank examiners. They weren’t, however, hidden from the CIA, which not only knew what the bank was doing, but used the bank to funnel cash through its Islamabad and other Pakistani branches to CIA client Osama bin Laden, part of the $2 billion Washington sent to the Afghani mujahideen. The operation gave bin Laden an education in black finance. CIA director William Casey himself met with BCCI founder Agha Hasan Abedi. The CIA also paid its own agents through the bank and used BCCI to fund black ops all over the world.

Kerry took on not only the Bush clan and its friends, but the CIA, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. This is not irrelevant history, but important to examine, because it reveals a lot about Kerry and how he might respond to terrorism or other global criminal enterprises. Kerry’s record shows that he took on powerful political and bureaucratic interests, was a tenacious investigator, and savvy about international crime and money flows, which is crucial in the fight against terrorism.

Against the opposition of powerful Republicans and Democrats, and in light of a lack of cooperation from a very politicized Justice Department and stonewalling by the CIA, Kerry worked with investigators and ran Senate hearings that exposed the bank’s shadowy multi-billion-dollar scams and precipitated its end. "

This one might even deserve it's own thread. I had known about the BCCI and Iran/Contra scandals, but until recently was ignorant of the fact that Kerry was the guy busting balls out there to expose this stuff. He might be wooden but that's exactly the kind of guy I want going after this insane orgy of armegeddon zealots in the world, both foreign and domestic.
This actually is a great example of Kerry working contrary to our nation's interests. We were assisting the Afghans in repelling a Soviet invasion, and Kerry stumbles in and tries to "right"the ship so to speak.

Takrai,

I think you and I are alot alike. Cept you are Air Force, I believe???

I looked at both candidates. Watched the debates, did some research online..
www.factcheck.org
www.truthorfiction.com
www.snopes.com

I aggree. I dont have much repect for kerry, or the Dems any more, but I didnt just "Go Republican" like they say...and I didnt just "Vote My Wallet" I am getting ready to retire, so that doesnt make much of a difference....
except that the Democrats arte all for cutting benefits for veterans (Clinton did that) etc etc. But I did look.
As far as the "Rabid Left" goes...well they are entitled to their opinion. So are we, you and I.

Thanks for your insightful comments in here. I had fun reading all this!

That would be Saddam.

No. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq when Bush told them to leave upon the start of the war.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

happy?

Takrai,

I think you and I are alot alike. Cept you are Air Force, I believe???

I looked at both candidates. Watched the debates, did some research online..
www.factcheck.org
www.truthorfiction.com
www.snopes.com

I aggree. I dont have much repect for kerry, or the Dems any more, but I didnt just "Go Republican" like they say...and I didnt just "Vote My Wallet" I am getting ready to retire, so that doesnt make much of a difference....
except that the Democrats arte all for cutting benefits for veterans (Clinton did that) etc etc. But I did look.
As far as the "Rabid Left" goes...well they are entitled to their opinion. So are we, you and I.

Thanks for your insightful comments in here. I had fun reading all this!
Myself, Captain with the 4ID. And yes, I looked too, there are aspects I do not like much about the current president, but he is honest. Wears his heart on his sleeve basically. I actually like Kerry, the man, somewhat also, but have grown further and further from his position after the debates, after seeing how many(not all) of those who support him, do it with one side while talking about the evil,inept USA out the other side, and I decided, pretty much today, that I do not want a C-in-C who has the approval of our fringe left"allies"in Europe,and our fringe left America haters in this country.