|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
Posts: 511
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2004, 01:32:14 PM » |
|
You Bush supporters are spinning and spinning on this.
Are any of you willing to consider the possibility the Bush/Rumsfeld invasion plan was flawed?
First rule of war. "Military plans become obsolete on the first contact with the enemy."
You evade the question. Should this facility have been secured? yes/no Did the plan call for it to be secured? yes/no
|
|
|
|
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
Posts: 511
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2004, 01:33:57 PM » |
|
OK before the invasion there was a tyrant in power, after the invasion..no tyrant. Before the invasion there were thousands of tons of munitions available for the bad guys..after...99.9% of those munitions are accounted for.
Before the invasion, Kerry had no record. After the invasion...Kerry still has no record. Go figure.
What's your definition of a tyrant? Why doesn't Allawi qualify as a tyrant? What "bad guys" are you talking about? What's your reference that 99.9% of munitions were accounted for?
|
|
|
|
|
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
Posts: 511
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2004, 01:44:33 PM » |
|
We have found 400,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. The Times report talks about 380 tons. Hmmmm that's a damn good job by ANY stretch of the imagination. And it appears that even most of the 380 tons have been explained but waiting on more information.
I would sat WELL DONE U.S. military!!!!!! Kick that ass.
I heard a piece of the news conference during lunch. The number 700,000 tons was mentioned by the Pentagon
Should the facility have been secured? Was it? Why not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
Posts: 511
|
|
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2004, 02:35:25 PM » |
|
Obviously you missed the press conference this morning.
The one where the Bush political appointee was lying again?
Your an idiot and a troll....I've now come to that conclusion. Screw off Michael Moore Jr.
Typical Bush supporter. When the facts don't support your position you start namecalling.
Bush supporters are a threat to democracy if you value discussing the facts and policy and developing a rational plan for moving forward.
Your lucky I'm not president. You'd be interned for sedition and treason.
Bush supporters have no respect for the freedom eschrined in the Bill of Rights. When faced with facts and logic that refute their political ideology they want to use the power of the state to silence dissent. Ya'll are as bad as the most dogmatic Communists on this point.
|
|
|
|
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
Posts: 32,892
|
|
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2004, 02:35:50 PM » |
|
You Bush supporters are spinning and spinning on this.
Are any of you willing to consider the possibility the Bush/Rumsfeld invasion plan was flawed?
First rule of war. "Military plans become obsolete on the first contact with the enemy."
You evade the question.
Should this facility have been secured? yes/no
Did the plan call for it to be secured? yes/no
Collectiveinterest, I answered your question, with candor, about the war plans on another thread. If they sent one soldier per metric ton, you have to nearly send every soldier on active duty to Iraq; to put them on twelve hour shifts (they have to get some sleep), you would need 190% of the Army to guard them. There were simply too much to practically guard. Now the question is, is it a good idea to get rid of a guy, who has invaded neighboring countries, used WMD's, plotted to assassinate a former US President, has about a ton of explosives per US Army soldier and did have a record of sheltering terrorists? My vote is yes.
|
|
|
|
|
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
Posts: 511
|
|
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2004, 02:37:59 PM » |
|
Should the facility of been secured? Why wasn't it? http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10042037.htmThe more than 320 tons of missing Iraqi high explosives at center stage in the U.S. presidential election are only a fraction of the weapons-related material that's disappeared in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion last year.... In a new disclosure, the senior U.S. military officer and another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that an Iraqi working for U.S. intelligence alerted U.S. troops stationed near the al Qaqaa weapons facility that the installation was being looted shortly after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003. But, they said, the troops took no apparent action to halt the pillaging. "That was one of numerous times when Iraqis warned us that ammo dumps and other places were being looted and we weren't able to respond because we didn't have anyone to send," said a senior U.S. military officer who served in Iraq.
|
|
|
|