Major Alert : We found the Terrorists who took the weapons

[shankbear]

Collective,  I said you "intimated".  Look it up.  Do you agree that the world is a better place without Saddam in power.  Don't give me that crap that I changed the subject or didn't answer your question.

Our troops did the job with which they were tasked.  Hearing you one would think that it was only 380 tons that we had found and destroyed and that it was 400,000 to 700,000 tons spirited away.  

[CollectiveInterest]

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.

By what measure are we better off?

The US military is tied down in Iraq which means it can't be used in other places.

We're spending billions.

Out soldiers are being targeted.

We're more hated than we were before which has increased al Qaeda's support.

We've lost control of weapons that we knew where they were. They weren't being used against us. Now they are.

By what standard are we better off for having invaded Iraq?

[CollectiveInterest]

Thats the way the government ought to be run. Freedom has limits.

Explain what powers gov't "ought" to have.

What should the limits on freedom be?

[CollectiveInterest]

Collective,  I said you "intimated".  Look it up.  Do you agree that the world is a better place without Saddam in power.  Don't give me that crap that I changed the subject or didn't answer your question.

Our troops did the job with which they were tasked.  Hearing you one would think that it was only 380 tons that we had found and destroyed and that it was 400,000 to 700,000 tons spirited away. 

shank,

The Rumsfeld plan lost control of lots, this is just one example.

[CollectiveInterest]

The United States is unquestionably worse off now than when SH was president of Iraq.

The instability created has made the entire region more volatile.

[??????????]

Thats the way the government ought to be run. Freedom has limits.

Explain what powers gov't "ought" to have.

What should the limits on freedom be?

The federal government should have far less power then currently. I would push for elimination of the majority of social programs but I'd encourage the states to institute such programs if they wish. I believe treasonous speech banned. I agree with President Adams and the Alien & Sedition acts. I agree (partially) with FDRs actions towards the Japanese in WW2. I think we should apply it to Muslims currently in the US.

[shankbear]

So Collective, if Saddam is acquitted in his trial, should we put him back in power and maybe even apologize to him?

[??????????]

So Collective, if Saddam is acquitted in his trial, should we put him back in power and maybe even apologize to him?

No doubt his answer would be yes.

[CollectiveInterest]

So Collective, if Saddam is acquitted in his trial, should we put him back in power and maybe even apologize to him?

We've already put the new Saddam Hussein in power.

[shankbear]

ATTENTION!!!!!!!  Feckless Crapweasel Alert!!!!!!!  Collective thinks that Allawi is the New Saddam.  What intellectual depth.  Has Allawi killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis?  Has Allawi invaded a neighboring country?  Has Allawi lobbed SCUD missile at Israel?  Has Allawi killed his own people with deadly chemicals?  Has Allawi allowed his sons to commit mass murder.

Earth to Collective....Earth to Collective.

you once had a shred of believability.....GONE

[CollectiveInterest]

ATTENTION!!!!!!!  Feckless Crapweasel Alert!!!!!!!  Collective thinks that Allawi is the New Saddam.  What intellectual depth.  Has Allawi killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis?  Has Allawi invaded a neighboring country?  Has Allawi lobbed SCUD missile at Israel?  Has Allawi killed his own people with deadly chemicals?  Has Allawi allowed his sons to commit mass murder.

Earth to Collective....Earth to Collective.

you once had a shred of believability.....GONE

According to a recent estimate the US occupation has killed 1/3 the civilians SH's gov't killed. SH took 24 years. the occupation took 18 months.

Allawi hasn't had 24 years to do everything SH has done.

[J. J.]

ATTENTION!!!!!!!  Feckless Crapweasel Alert!!!!!!!  Collective thinks that Allawi is the New Saddam.  What intellectual depth.  Has Allawi killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis?  Has Allawi invaded a neighboring country?  Has Allawi lobbed SCUD missile at Israel?  Has Allawi killed his own people with deadly chemicals?  Has Allawi allowed his sons to commit mass murder.

Earth to Collective....Earth to Collective.

you once had a shred of believability.....GONE

According to a recent estimate the US occupation has killed 1/3 the civilians SH's gov't killed. SH took 24 years. the occupation took 18 months.

Allawi hasn't had 24 years to do everything SH has done.

Saddam did not have to deal with insurgents on this level.

[No more McShame]

ATTENTION!!!!!!!  Feckless Crapweasel Alert!!!!!!!  Collective thinks that Allawi is the New Saddam.  What intellectual depth.  Has Allawi killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis?  Has Allawi invaded a neighboring country?  Has Allawi lobbed SCUD missile at Israel?  Has Allawi killed his own people with deadly chemicals?  Has Allawi allowed his sons to commit mass murder.

Earth to Collective....Earth to Collective.

you once had a shred of believability.....GONE

According to a recent estimate the US occupation has killed 1/3 the civilians SH's gov't killed. SH took 24 years. the occupation took 18 months.

Allawi hasn't had 24 years to do everything SH has done.

Saddam did not have to deal with insurgents on this level.

He killed the leaders of any insurgency before it got to that level.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They confessed to removing 250+ tons of weapons including RDX.  They claim to have destroyed the weapons but may have some pictures of the material before they did.  Probably will not satisfy the UN or their supporters.

Who are these villians?  The US MILTARY doing their normal outstanding job.  Will the Times or CBSNews admit to bad reporting?  Will Kerry apologize?  Of course not.

John Kerry always willing to believe the UN even without proof. John Kerry never willing to believe our miltary even with proof.   

Got a link for your propaganda?

[J. J.]

They confessed to removing 250+ tons of weapons including RDX.  They claim to have destroyed the weapons but may have some pictures of the material before they did.  Probably will not satisfy the UN or their supporters.

Who are these villians?  The US MILTARY doing their normal outstanding job.  Will the Times or CBSNews admit to bad reporting?  Will Kerry apologize?  Of course not.

John Kerry always willing to believe the UN even without proof. John Kerry never willing to believe our miltary even with proof.   

Got a link for your propaganda?

I don't have a link to any propaganda, but here is the news story:

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

BTW, didn't you claim that a story was retracted, where is the link related to that?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They confessed to removing 250+ tons of weapons including RDX.  They claim to have destroyed the weapons but may have some pictures of the material before they did.  Probably will not satisfy the UN or their supporters.

Who are these villians?  The US MILTARY doing their normal outstanding job.  Will the Times or CBSNews admit to bad reporting?  Will Kerry apologize?  Of course not.

John Kerry always willing to believe the UN even without proof. John Kerry never willing to believe our miltary even with proof.   

Got a link for your propaganda?

I don't have a link to any propaganda, but here is the news story:

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

BTW, didn't you claim that a story was retracted, where is the link related to that?

Let's see
1. No proof it was HMX
2. It was only 250 tons
3. No talk about IAEA seals
4. The Pentagon already has a credibility problem.

Yawn.

[J. J.]

Got a link for your propaganda?

I don't have a link to any propaganda, but here is the news story:

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

BTW, didn't you claim that a story was retracted, where is the link related to that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see
1. No proof it was HMX
2. It was only 250 tons
3. No talk about IAEA seals
4. The Pentagon already has a credibility problem.

Yawn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see:

1.  Guy who blew it said it included HMX.
2.  250 tons of 360 Kerry said was lost.
3.  Nobody was looking for the seals.
4.  No credibility problem, and it's not nice to criticize the military in the field.

5.  JFOOL reading comprehension problems.
6.  JFOOL still can't answer the "retracted" story question.

[khirkhib]

At this point I don't think that the US is better off that we invaded Iraq.  All things considered.

And with 100000 dead in Iraq I don't think they are better off either.  Most of Saddam's most brutal killings occured in the mid 1980s when Rumsfeld was selling him chemical weapons to use against Iran.

There were the mass killings right after the gulf war when Bush I said the US said that they would support a shiite uprising and then decided not to.  Saddam killed his insurgents.

Alawi has killed prisoners, point blank in prison and thats only what we have heard of.  Give him time.  He could become worse than Saddam.  Most tyrants were US allies when they started.

[khirkhib]

"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough - didn’t they search carefully enough?” Giuliani

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Got a link for your propaganda?

I don't have a link to any propaganda, but here is the news story:

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

BTW, didn't you claim that a story was retracted, where is the link related to that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see
1. No proof it was HMX
2. It was only 250 tons
3. No talk about IAEA seals
4. The Pentagon already has a credibility problem.

Yawn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see:

1.  Guy who blew it said it included HMX.
2.  250 tons of 360 Kerry said was lost.
3.  Nobody was looking for the seals.
4.  No credibility problem, and it's not nice to criticize the military in the field.

5.  JFOOL reading comprehension problems.
6.  JFOOL still can't answer the "retracted" story question.

1. Where's the guy?
2. Still another 110 tons
3. Why not? The IAEA warned that this was the top site
4. I'm critizing the Pentagon, which got busted lying. It's Guilani who is blaming the rank and file soliders, not me.

[J. J.]

At this point I don't think that the US is better off that we invaded Iraq.  All things considered.

And with 100000 dead in Iraq I don't think they are better off either.  Most of Saddam's most brutal killings occured in the mid 1980s when Rumsfeld was selling him chemical weapons to use against Iran.

There were the mass killings right after the gulf war when Bush I said the US said that they would support a shiite uprising and then decided not to.  Saddam killed his insurgents.

Alawi has killed prisoners, point blank in prison and thats only what we have heard of.  Give him time.  He could become worse than Saddam.  Most tyrants were US allies when they started.

Considering Rumsfelt wasn't in the government at the time and the Iraqis were manufacturing chemical weapons, I'd say retro is not the way to go.

[A18]

"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough - didn’t they search carefully enough?” Giuliani

No duh. John Kerry's blaming the troops, not the president.

[khirkhib]

John Kerry is blaming the President because the President did not send enough troops and the intelligence community did not give the information on all the important weapons sites to the military.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And on Rumsfeld.:

As the fabulous Ford years drew to a close, Donny R. chose to return to the private sector, focusing on super-lucrative jobs in pharmaceuticals and technology. Although he had no previous business experience, Rumsfeld beefed up his resume with implied political influence by simultaneously serving in a variety of government posts. He served in nearly a dozen special postings of one sort or another from 1982 to 2000.

Perhaps the most memorable of these roles came during the Reagan administration, when Rumsfeld was named special presidential envoy to the Middle East. According to the Washington Post and others, Rumsfeld was a major proponent of the Reagan administration's support of Iraq and its dictator Saddam Hussein.

As a conciliatory gesture, the U.S. removed Iraq from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1982, paving the way for Rumsfeld to visit Baghdad in 1983, about the midpoint of the decade-long Iran-Iraq war.

At the time, intelligence reports indicated the Iraqis were using illegal chemical weapons against Iran "almost daily." During several trips to Iraq, Rumsfeld told government officials that the U.S. would consider an Iraqi loss to Iran a major strategic defeat. In a personal meeting with Saddam Hussein in December 1983, Rumsfeld told the Butcher of Baghdad that the U.S. wanted to restore full diplomatic relations with Iraq.

In 2002, Rumsfeld tried to put a gloss on this meeting by claiming that he warned Hussein against using banned weapons, but that claim was unsupported by the State Department's notes on the meeting.

 As a result of the openings created by Rumsfeld's diplomatic triumphs, U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr.. Care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, and components which would be used to develop nerve poisons like sarin gas and ricin.

[J. J.]

Got a link for your propaganda?

I don't have a link to any propaganda, but here is the news story:

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

BTW, didn't you claim that a story was retracted, where is the link related to that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see
1. No proof it was HMX
2. It was only 250 tons
3. No talk about IAEA seals
4. The Pentagon already has a credibility problem.

Yawn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see:

1.  Guy who blew it said it included HMX.
2.  250 tons of 360 Kerry said was lost.
3.  Nobody was looking for the seals.
4.  No credibility problem, and it's not nice to criticize the military in the field.

5.  JFOOL reading comprehension problems.
6.  JFOOL still can't answer the "retracted" story question.

1. Where's the guy?
2. Still another 110 tons
3. Why not? The IAEA warned that this was the top site
4. I'm critizing the Pentagon, which got busted lying. It's Guilani who is blaming the rank and file soliders, not me.

In order, jFOOL:

1.  The major who was in command of the demolition.  Major Austin Pearson.

2.  Possibly moved prior to the invasion (remember those trucks).

3  It's very interesting that you mention the IAEA warning.  Here is what MSMBC says the date way:

May 3
The nuclear agency purportedly notifies the U.S. Mission in Vienna of its concerns about the Al-Qaqaa facility.

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

You'll note that the warning was after the site was occupied and that within 10 days of the warning being given to a diplomat in Vienna, it was destroyed.  You will also note that the first inspection occured 5 days after the note was given.  My-oh-my they were really dragging their feet.

5.  JFOOL, you still have not answered my question about the "retracted" story.  That alone should a good be a good enough reason not to trust anything you ever say.  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Got a link for your propaganda?

I don't have a link to any propaganda, but here is the news story:

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

BTW, didn't you claim that a story was retracted, where is the link related to that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see
1. No proof it was HMX
2. It was only 250 tons
3. No talk about IAEA seals
4. The Pentagon already has a credibility problem.

Yawn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see:

1.  Guy who blew it said it included HMX.
2.  250 tons of 360 Kerry said was lost.
3.  Nobody was looking for the seals.
4.  No credibility problem, and it's not nice to criticize the military in the field.

5.  JFOOL reading comprehension problems.
6.  JFOOL still can't answer the "retracted" story question.

1. Where's the guy?
2. Still another 110 tons
3. Why not? The IAEA warned that this was the top site
4. I'm critizing the Pentagon, which got busted lying. It's Guilani who is blaming the rank and file soliders, not me.

In order, jFOOL:

1.  The major who was in command of the demolition.  Major Austin Pearson.

2.  Possibly moved prior to the invasion (remember those trucks).

3  It's very interesting that you mention the IAEA warning.  Here is what MSMBC says the date way:

May 3
The nuclear agency purportedly notifies the U.S. Mission in Vienna of its concerns about the Al-Qaqaa facility.

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

You'll note that the warning was after the site was occupied and that within 10 days of the warning being given to a diplomat in Vienna, it was destroyed.  You will also note that the first inspection occured 5 days after the note was given.  My-oh-my they were really dragging their feet.

5.  JFOOL, you still have not answered my question about the "retracted" story.  That alone should a good be a good enough reason not to trust anything you ever say. 

Wow, dumbass, do you have negative trust in Bush, then?
The IAEA warned the US on April 10th.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20041029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_weapons