It was bound to happen: American hostage beheaded

[Comstar]

The weapons are out there.  Unlike Saddam, they don't have to move around from time to time and can just stay buried forever.  Eventually they'll be uncovered, but how long that'll take I have no idea.  I don't believe that the regime was in any big hurry to destroy their stockpiles, though.

There are none. There was a cylcatron buried under a rose garden in 1991. That was IT. No chemicals. No biohazards. No nukes. NOTHING. The've had the scientists and generals in custody and under "interagation" (People call it torture, but because they count as "high value" targets, the rules don't count anymore) for over a YEAR NOW. You think if they'd found ANYTHING it would be shouted from the rooftops!

The man in CHARGE of FINDING them said they don't exist! Not even BUSH has said they exist anymore!

Appenrlty 1 in 4 americans belive in the fairy god mother of WMDs. Dosn't that scare some of you?

ANd for extra bonus points, the US isn't guarding the REAL nuclear powerplants IN iraq. SO if anyone DID want nukes, they could get them BECAUSE of the invasion.

[Big Gulp]

Appenrlty 1 in 4 americans belive in the fairy god mother of WMDs. Dosn't that scare some of you?

We probably have that funny notion because Iraq did have gas and bio weapons.  They absolutely did, and that's never been in doubt.  Both Iran and the Kurds can testify to this.  The question is if they've been destroyed or not, and after how Iraq behaved over the past 12 years I doubt that they've all been destroyed.

I don't think we're going to uncover acres of material.  We'll eventually uncover some stuff, but not a whole lot of it.  The fact that you're willing to swallow the line that there never were any WMD when we know for a fact that Iraq did have those weapons speaks to your naivete, not mine.

[Roac]

The weapons are out there.

Mmm.  He tried to make nukes, but Israel took out his ability to manufacture them before he had the chance to start cranking out weaps.  He did have chemicals, but chems have a limited shelf life.  There's no evidence of manufacture after the first gulf war, and by now they'd be very useful by now.  Biologicals are another matter; they can be fairly easily hide, and have near unlimited shelf lives.  Even if manufacture of them ceased, they could've been anywhere.  If they still exist, there is a fair chance we won't find them, due to their concealability.

[eldaec]

Appenrlty 1 in 4 americans belive in the fairy god mother of WMDs. Dosn't that scare some of you?

Personally what scares me more is...

1) We know he HAD them, since he kept dropping them on people (most notably the iranians and kurds).

2) It's becoming clear he had got rid of them by last year.

3) If they had been destroyed in line with the post gulf war agreements it would have been unbelievably boneheaded not to account for them properly (not just on a 'wanting to avoid US' invasion level - but mostly on a 'not wanting some lunatic in his own army to squirrel them away and later use them on the iraqi government as part of a coup' level).

4) If they weren't destroyed and they aren't there now every other option is much fucking worse.

[koboshi]

thats just not something I see as prudent to leave in the hands of an international asshole.

We'll eventually uncover some stuff, but not a whole lot of it.

 I have lots of problems with the arguments you two (mostly BG) are making, but they all seem to boil down to the simple fact that I believe that we (that is the collective people of the world not just the coalition of the willing) were safer with Sadam in place.  Even if I concede that he had WMDs, and even if I were to concede that he was still producing them in whatever form, and if I were to further concede that he was stupid enough to use them, I still prefer to know where the crazy guy with his finger on the button lives. We could track him, we could spy on him, we could negotiate with him, but we can't do any of that now.

 You're so all fired sure that he had WMDs, well, they aren't there anymore. If they aren't there then someone we don't know has them. When Sadam was in power there were certainties we could count on, like range, it may be crass or uncaring but even if he went bat-fuck insane there was only so far he could reach.  We live in a world where a person can get from any point in the civilized world (no stupid comments please) via planes trains, and automobiles, to any other in less then 48 hours; it's been more than 48 hours since Sadam last had control over the WMDs so that means that 'someone we don't know' with the WMDs could be anywhere in the world. We can't track him. We can't spy on him. We would not negotiate with him even if we could.

I live in the suburbs I don't know my neighbors from Adam, and they don't know me.  The guy with the WMDs could live right next door to me or you or anyone else in the whole damn world. Shit, I could be the guy with the WMDs and you fuck heads wouldn't have a clue. But I'll tell you this if Sadam Hussein lived next door to me, I, and everyone else in the world, would fucking know.
Yea, Sadam Hussein might have been a deranged lunatic but he was stupid and sedentary.  The people who might have the weapons now are intelligent and motivated.

They're also pretty much incompetent as soldiers.

I know BG likes to think they are incompetent soldiers, but they probably seem less incompetent when they are slicing one of your family members' head off. Call them cowards, call them dishonorable, call them what ever the fuck you want to, it makes little difference.

[Big Gulp]

I know BG likes to think they are incompetent soldiers, but they probably seem less incompetent when they are slicing one of your family members' head off.

When that becomes a soldier's job description, then I'll call them good soldiers.  For some reason I don't consider Mel the butcher down at the Piggly Wiggly a competent soldier either, even though I bet if push came to shove I bet he could cut off a head fairly well.  To call these primitives soldiers is to level a fairly nasty insult at actual soldiers.

As to us being safer with Saddam in power, in the short term, maybe.  However, our goal is to reshape the middle east, not to keep trying to promote stability.  Shit, it's been our relentless pursuit of "stability" that led directly to 9/11.  Iran takes hostages in '79?  We do nothing.  Hizbollah kills hundreds of marines in Beirut in '83?  We do nothing.  Every time we were hit we either treated it like a law enforcement matter or we ignored it for the sake of stability.  That led directly to Osama thinking we were nutless wonders.  And no, lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at 'em and calling it a day didn't dissuade them of that viewpoint.

[schild]

When that becomes a soldier's job description, then I'll call them good soldiers.  For some reason I don't consider Mel the butcher down at the Piggly Wiggly a competent soldier either, even though I bet if push came to shove I bet he could cut off a head fairly well.  To call these primitives soldiers is to level a fairly nasty insult at actual soldiers.

Big Gulp, I think you're confusing soldiers with samurai. Personally, I think soldiers should go to whatever length is required to scare the fuck outta the people they are at war with. Beheading is pretty fucking good at doing this. They may not be civilized, they may use primitive methods, but all it boils down to is that they are fighting for something they believe in.

It seems that we're so worried about calling these people dogs and whatnot we forget that they are fighting for their lives rather than some absolution put forth by their ruler. We are fighting for something we may or may not believe in, but America is under no threat at the moment. Who do you think will be more fearsome in battle?

At this moment, because of the beheading, they are one up on us. We don't want our heads chopped off. The worst they have to fear at the moment is some humiliating photos and possibly some torture - the latter of which they probably have some experience with.

I know BG likes to think they are incompetent soldiers, but they probably seem less incompetent when they are slicing one of your family members' head off.

Koboshi, the whole your family argument is just a cheap, passè way of tugging on someone's emotions. Don't go that route.

[Big Gulp]

Who do you think will be more fearsome in battle?

Lemme see, would I rather face a gaggling clusterfuck of guys with small arms that all act as individuals or would I rather face a fairly tightly knit group that knows how to mass their fire, move and shoot competently and act as one cohesive whole.

Personally, I'd rather take my chances with the clusterfuck.  Individual bravery doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in modern fighting.  I'll take a group of scared shitless guys that know what their job is and know how to support one another over any group of fired up religious zealots that really only have a rudimentary idea small unit tactics.  Who's more dangerous, that Marine/Ranger or a Fedayeen?  The Marine or Ranger is far more dangerous.

Look, as gruesome as that beheading video is, it doesn't speak to competency in soldiering.  All that shows is that these are amoral fucknuts who aren't scared to butcher an unarmed civilian.  Sorry, but that doesn't really fill me with mortal dread.  As I said before, these guys are good at setting boobie traps and generally acting like thugs.  That is not the same as being a soldier, and the fact that they repeatedly get destroyed any time they go against a competent military, be they US, British, Israeli, whatever isn't an accident.

[koboshi]

Look, as gruesome as that beheading video is, it doesn't speak to competency in soldiering.  All that shows is that these are amoral fucknuts who aren't scared to butcher an unarmed civilian.  Sorry, but that doesn't really fill me with mortal dread.  As I said before, these guys are good at setting boobie traps and generally acting like thugs.  That is not the same as being a soldier, and the fact that they repeatedly get destroyed any time they go against a competent military, be they US, British, Israeli, whatever isn't an accident.

Three points
1. I am a civilian.  I don't have a gun.  I don't have any training.  If they have the chance they will shoot me.  It doesn't matter if they are good at it or not.  That fills me with 'mortal dread'.
2. They don't fight fair? If we are in a fist fight and I throw dust in your eyes and run away, only to sneak up on you when you least suspect and kidney punch you, it's not a fair fight and yea if I did fight fair I might not stand a chance, but you're the one pissing blood. Do you understand this concept?
3. A good soldier is a fallacy.  Think about it the hijackers were really good soldiers if you go by body count, and yet they are the worst offenders. No man who is paid to kill is noble, and the one who is better at it is the worse for it.

[Big Gulp]

2. They don't fight fair? If we are in a fist fight and I throw dust in your eyes and run away, only to sneak up on you when you least suspect and kidney punch you, it's not a fair fight and yea if I did fight fair I might not stand a chance, but you're the one pissing blood. Do you understand this concept?

I understand this concept far better than you do.  Is it fair that they take over civilian homes and use the occupants as meat shields?  Is it fair that we have flying robots that can launch Hellfire missiles?  I'm not arguing about what type of tactics are "fair".  I'm arguing that as soldiers, these guys are incompetent.  They have no real concept of command and control.  They aren't good at mobile tactics or at massed fire.  Butchering someone on video is not an act of soldiery, it's political theatre, and that's really the only type of war these people are capable of fighting.

Whether or not that type of political theatre is effective is entirely dependent on gutless pussies like you, unfortunately.

No man who is paid to kill is noble, and the one who is better at it is the worse for it.

Try to stop being such a fairy, thanks.

[DarkDryad]

The weapons are out there.

Mmm.  He tried to make nukes, but Israel took out his ability to manufacture them before he had the chance to start cranking out weaps.  He did have chemicals, but chems have a limited shelf life.  There's no evidence of manufacture after the first gulf war, and by now they'd be very useful by now.  Biologicals are another matter; they can be fairly easily hide, and have near unlimited shelf lives.  Even if manufacture of them ceased, they could've been anywhere.  If they still exist, there is a fair chance we won't find them, due to their concealability.

Just a note Chem weapons have a better shelf life than you expect. 12 years or even 20 they will still be quite toxic.

[Big Gulp]

There are none. There was a cylcatron buried under a rose garden in 1991. That was IT. No chemicals. No biohazards. No nukes. NOTHING.

Say, Comstar, feeling foolish now?

[Alrindel]

Because they found one artillery round that emitted enough sarin when it went off that two people required treatment for "minor exposure"?  My god, Saddam was probably on the verge of firing that round at Manhattan only minutes before the invasion, thank the lord he was stopped in time.

Iraq had a vast chemical weapons arsenal.  UNSCOM destroyed 70 tons of sarin alone after the first Gulf War.  There are undoubtedly tiny scraps of it still floating around, like this one.  Which doesn't alter the fact that the "weapons of mass destruction" that were used to justify the invasion were fictional.

[Big Gulp]

The only thing that made it do that small an amount of damage was due to the fact that whoever set it up probably didn't know it was a nerve agent weapon.  That wasn't really my point, though, I was trying to deflate Comstar's assertion that there weren't, and never have been WMD's in Iraq.  Where did this shell come from, the magical sarin fairy?

The fact that these weapons do exist should worry you guys.  Think about the amount of people injured and killed in the sarin attack by that Japanese cult.  And mind you, that attack was botched in it's execution, it could have been far worse had they deployed it properly.

[DarkDryad]

Didnt you know BG that once any chemrounds are found the argument then shifts to it wasnt enough to hurt anyone. Its a TRAP !!!

[Alrindel]

You're attempting to manufacture a rather foolish straw man argument along the lines of "aha you liberals said he never had any chemical weapons well here's proof that he did which proves that Bush was right."

Once again, from the top: it is well documented that Iraq had large quantities of chemical/nerve weapons, along with plans to acquire other weapons of mass destruction, biological and nuclear.  Nobody denies this, and nobody denies that the Iraqi military used their chemical weapons, against Iran, and against Iraqi dissidents.  However the Bush administration claimed that Iraq was secretly rebuilding and enlarging its WMD stockpile, and this claim has pretty much been proven to be utter bullshit.  The fact that the current insurgents didn't even know themselves that the shell was a sarin gas shell, and that this is the only one so far found after a year of occupation, tends to support the conclusion that Bush's claims were bunk, rather than vindicating him.  Produce evidence that the shell was part of a larger stockpile, or that it was manufactured say within the past ten years, and then you might have something.

[Big Gulp]

You're attempting to manufacture a rather foolish straw man argument along the lines of "aha you liberals said he never had any chemical weapons well here's proof that he did which proves that Bush was right."

How in the hell is that a straw man?  When I see your official spokestroll Dennis Kucinich screaming, "WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!", and then we show you that even in a small amount that they are in fact present, you move the goal posts.

I know what your agenda is.  You don't give a rat's ass about Iraq or about American soldiers.  You people truly don't give a fuck.  You care about scoring points and attempting to prove that Bush=Hitler.  That's all you've ever cared about.

[Nosartur]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.main/index.html there is some of that Sarin that he wasn't supposed to have and supposedly there was a mustard gas shell a week or two ago.  So how much more of the 80 odd tons unaccounted for are going to show up?

[HaemishM]

Actually, I think most of us commie-loving-bed-wetting "liberals" just want Bush and the rest of his bat fuck insane cronies out of power and in charge of running some other oil company into the ground instead of our economy. I could give a shit less if he was Hitler, Ghandi or FDR. He could be any of those people and without the power of a government behind him, he's just a crazy fucker with an axe to grind like the rest of us.

Bush has not proven the case that Saddam's regime did in fact have chemical or biological or nuclear weapons or even the capabilities to produce said weapons at the time the US invaded. All evidence uncovered has pointed to "they haven't existed for close to 6-10 years now." In other words, he was wrong, the intelligence he used to make his case was wrong, and the people in charge of getting that intelligence and using it were either wrong or wrong-headed.

Neither of those options is a good thing when the people with those options is in charge of lots of bombs, soldiers and money.

[DarkDryad]

Actually, I think most of us commie-loving-bed-wetting "liberals" just want Bush and the rest of his bat fuck insane cronies out of power and in charge of running some other oil company into the ground instead of our economy. I could give a shit less if he was Hitler, Ghandi or FDR. He could be any of those people and without the power of a government behind him, he's just a crazy fucker with an axe to grind like the rest of us.

Bush has not proven the case that Saddam's regime did in fact have chemical or biological or nuclear weapons or even the capabilities to produce said weapons at the time the US invaded. All evidence uncovered has pointed to "they haven't existed for close to 6-10 years now." In other words, he was wrong, the intelligence he used to make his case was wrong, and the people in charge of getting that intelligence and using it were either wrong or wrong-headed.

Neither of those options is a good thing when the people with those options is in charge of lots of bombs, soldiers and money.

Ok well tell me this. Would you have been happier IF:

Bush came out and said We have been at a defacto state of war with Iraq for 12 years due to a conditional cease fire. Iraq has not met the terms of the conditional cease fire so we are going on with the past administrations pollicy of regime change in Iraq. Sadam had approxamately 80  tons of Chemical  / Biological  weapons that have yet to be accounted for. In order to keep these unaccounted for weapons from one day falling into the wrong hands we feel its nessisary for us to act. While its not our desire to put US troops in harms way all other available means have been tried for the past 12 years so it is now up to us to act with or without international support.

[HaemishM]

Yes, actually I would have. Because at least that's much more honest than the "War Against Terror" bullshit line we've been fed since this shitstorm started. See, I appreciate at least some form of honesty from my politicians. Not that the Democrats, John Kerry, Ralph Nader or anyone else currently campaigning for the office will bring that honesty with them, mind you. I just prefer that once the politician has been shown to be a bald-faced fucking liar, he be shown the door.

I've have been even happier had there been a plan in place that clearly delineated who the fuck we'd be handing over power to.

But I'm not the normal American mouth-breather who can barely fit two coherent thoughts together between munching down Mickey D's and watching Friends. The fact that the administration chose to talk down to me has at the very least earned my lifelong ire.

[WayAbvPar]

Actually, I think most of us commie-loving-bed-wetting "liberals" just want Bush and the rest of his bat fuck insane cronies out of power and in charge of running some other oil company into the ground instead of our economy. I could give a shit less if he was Hitler, Ghandi or FDR. He could be any of those people and without the power of a government behind him, he's just a crazy fucker with an axe to grind like the rest of us.

Bush has not proven the case that Saddam's regime did in fact have chemical or biological or nuclear weapons or even the capabilities to produce said weapons at the time the US invaded. All evidence uncovered has pointed to "they haven't existed for close to 6-10 years now." In other words, he was wrong, the intelligence he used to make his case was wrong, and the people in charge of getting that intelligence and using it were either wrong or wrong-headed.

Neither of those options is a good thing when the people with those options is in charge of lots of bombs, soldiers and money.

Ok well tell me this. Would you have been happier IF:

Bush came out and said We have been at a defacto state of war with Iraq for 12 years due to a conditional cease fire. Iraq has not met the terms of the conditional cease fire so we are going on with the past administrations pollicy of regime change in Iraq. Sadam had approxamately 80  tons of Chemical  / Biological  weapons that have yet to be accounted for. In order to keep these unaccounted for weapons from one day falling into the wrong hands we feel its nessisary for us to act. While its not our desire to put US troops in harms way all other available means have been tried for the past 12 years so it is now up to us to act with or without international support.

Never would have happened. Preying on the fear of terrorism and WMDs was the key in garnering popular support. Without the threat of an attack at any moment, Americans (as a whole) wouldn't have been as eager to tell the vast majority of the international community to go fuck themselves and forge ahead with the 'coalition of the willing'. The argument would have been that we waited for 12 years- why not wait until we can build a real international coalition instead of rushing ahead? No point in alienating any more of the world than we have to (and this is the big point) IF THERE IS NO CREDIBLE THREAT. By painting Saddam as a terrorist-loving boogeyman with a pocket full of yellowcake and enriched uranium, he becomes much scarier to the Joe Sixpack.

[DarkDryad]

See this is where we differ as the Sadam has WMD line from Bush made me think exactly what I typed. The reason I suppose is from the past experiences Ive had dealing with that particular area of the world and what we knew he had at the cease fire.
I can see how the average person may not get that from what was put out so yeah.
See tree hugging liberals and religious zealot conservatives comming together and discussing world issues and calling each other names and in the end actually understanding each others points. Aint this interweb thingy great.

[koboshi]

Ok well tell me this. Would you have been happier IF:...
 

I too must agree this would have made me a lot happier. With one proviso: That this argument was presented to the international community and approved. I believe that it would have been.
That's the main reason I like my 'what if', international support. When we went it alone we became vengeful, petty, and arrogant. When we did that we lost one of the best weapons we had, moral high ground. After 9/11 if we played our cards right we could have united the world in one common goal, the destruction of evil, and for one brief moment it looked like it might just happen. Thanks bush administration you really screwed the pooch with that one.

[Aslan]

I don't see how any of this is the Bush Administration's fault.  We tried over and over again to get the UN to support us, and in WORDS, they did.  But their actions show the truth.  One bomb and they run like a girl who got a Black Cat tossed near her.
And you don't think that seventeen UN resolutions meant anything?  That at least one of those resolutions authorized force, if necessary?  That the deadlines came and went and the UN kept hemming-and-hawing because half of them lined their fucking pockets with money from Saddam himself that was supposed to go for FOOD to the starving Iraqi people, and they would rather let those people die than have their little conspiracy come to light?  That UN?  That's the same 'international community' you speak of, who, if they had sanctioned our actions, would have made everything hunky-dory?  
Sorry, but the fact that the UN did NOT openly support us lent more credibility to what we were doing in my mind, and the Bush Administration bent over backwards to get the UN on-board and still, in the end, they pussied out.  At least we had the courage to take the moral high-ground alone.

[koboshi]

When I said the international community I meant the international community.  The community which spreads throughout the nations of the world.  After September 11th the people of the world were united, not in politics, or in fear, but in truth.  The undeniable truth that what happened on that day was an atrocity perpetrated not only on one building, or one city, or even one country, but upon all mankind.  Those are the members of the international community.

[WayAbvPar]

Sorry, but the fact that the UN did NOT openly support us lent more credibility to what we were doing in my mind, and the Bush Administration bent over backwards to get the UN on-board and still, in the end, they pussied out. At least we had the courage to take the moral high-ground alone.

Wow- how many glasses of the Kool-aid DID you drink?

The moral high ground is still up for grabs, methinks.

[Sarno]

I think it's way too soon to jump to conclusions about this. I think the comming weeks will be telling. If some insurgants have found a stockpile of chemical shells there will be more bombings. Or, it could have simply been a misplaced shell that got racked with all the conventonal shells and forgotten about.

Since the shell had exploded and only a small amount of sarin was relased.  I'd bet that the shell was from the Iran-Iraq war. And that the sarin was long past it's effective shelf-life. This might qualify as a chemical weapon but I doubt causing "minor nerve damage" can be construed  as a WMD unless the M actually means minute.

[Riggswolfe]

Sorry, but the fact that the UN did NOT openly support us lent more credibility to what we were doing in my mind, and the Bush Administration bent over backwards to get the UN on-board and still, in the end, they pussied out.  At least we had the courage to take the moral high-ground alone.

I love ya Aslan but stop with the willful ignorance. The Bush administration didn't bend over backwards. Bush can't even spell diplomacy let alone order it done. They went before the UN yes, because they wanted to be able to say "see we tried." But it was half-hearted and everybody with a brain knew it. They basically said "wanna help us? We don't really care if you do cause we'll do it anyway".

Yes, the UN is corrupt in alot of ways, but don't even say the Bush regime bent over backwards to get help. Bush has done more damage to our diplomatic ties around the world than anyone in my memory. He couldn't do more damage if he took a piss on the leader of foreign countries.

He's so goddamned sure of himself that he totally fucks us in the world community for years to come. After 9/11 we could have easily, easily gotten the world to support us in almost anything we wanted to do, but Bush brushed people off and pissed off the world faster than I've ever seen such a thing done. It makes me sick to think of the huge oppurtunity we had and Bush basically shit it all down the toilet. His father was able to rally nations around us to push Saddam back into Iraq a decade ago, Bush couldn't even rally them after we'd suffered a major attack.

Pathetic. I don't think history will treat this particular appointed president well.

[Margalis]

"WMD" is a joke. Now Mustard Gas is a WMD. Next week it will be Windex. Or WMD "programs" as if that is the same thing.

There is a big big fucking difference between Sarin, Mustard Gas and a Nuke.
---

As far as Bush going to the UN and bending over backwards, it was a foregone conclusion we would be invading Iraq from the second the idea was first "floated" to the press. Going to the UN was just a formality. It was plain as day that we would somehow find some rationalization for entering Iraq, and that rationalization has changed many times since we started.

It's the same with tax cuts. First we need tax cuts because we have too much money and need to give it back, then we need those SAME tax cuts because we need to stimulate the economy...bottom line is we want tax cuts and we WILL justify them somehow.

That's how idealogues work. Come up with a course of action, then justify it. The pursuit of truth or knowledge never comes into play. We made up our minds to attack Iraq, and 9/11 was the excuse, which is quite sad. Iraq was never a threat to us, that's a fact.

[DarkDryad]

"WMD" is a joke. Now Mustard Gas is a WMD. Next week it will be Windex. Or WMD "programs" as if that is the same thing.

There is a big big fucking difference between Sarin, Mustard Gas and a Nuke.
---

Uhhh you have not one freakin clue what you are talking about do you? 3 ccs of mustard gas attomized can kill 3000 or so people. You may be focusing on the destruction part but ALL chem, bio and nuke weapons are WMD. Please study up on the stuff before you comment please. Any moron knows a nuke will do more damage but 3000 is a shit load of folks ya know.

It's the same with tax cuts. First we need tax cuts because we have too much money and need to give it back, then we need those SAME tax cuts because we need to stimulate the economy...bottom line is we want tax cuts and we WILL justify them somehow.

And *GASP* it worked to do both... wow how did that happen?

[Comstar]

I don't see how any of this is the Bush Administration's fault.  We tried over and over again to get the UN to support us, and in WORDS, they did.  But their actions show the truth.  One bomb and they run like a girl who got a Black Cat tossed near her.

Actually, the UN left Iraq because a lot more than 1 bomb were headed in thier direction.

PRE WAR.The UN was in Iraq, and searching. They found some misslies that had a longer range than allowed, and they were destroyed. Some shells under 10 years od bird droppings were found, and destoryed.

The UN weapon instpectors left the country because BushCo was about to invade. Misson...Accomplished.

[HaemishM]

His father was able to rally nations around us to push Saddam back into Iraq a decade ago, Bush couldn't even rally them after we'd suffered a major attack.

Remember, Bush Sr. had help. The fact that in 1991, Saddam not only invaded a country he had no cassius belli to invade, he also was stupid enough to hold Americans hostage as "human shields." Fucking stupid. It was quite easy for Bush Sr. to rally support, as Americans were in danger, and Saddam had no justification for his actions.

Bush Jr. couldn't rally the international community because he couldn't prove that Saddam had any goddamn thing to do with an attack on our country. Afghanistan was easy, considering the sovereign government there WAS willfully and publicly harboring the attackers. Bush and Co. should never have tried to link Iraq to 9-11, because now and then, he just looked like he wanted to attack and would find any justification for it.

I hate the fact that Bush used a man I used to respect (Colin Powell) as his liar's mouthpiece to the UN. Powell specifically states that "we know they have WMD, we know where they are, and here are pictures of where they are." And yet, when we go there, the weapons were not there.

I only hope the American voting public will actually remember how much this administration has lied to us in November.

[DarkDryad]

Do you think its conceivable that they like moved it in the 4 fucking months we dicked around sucking off the UN? I mean shit thats sound military planning tell the fuckers you are comming to kick them in the nuts.

[Dark Vengeance]

Do you think its conceivable that they like moved it in the 4 fucking months we dicked around sucking off the UN? I mean shit thats sound military planning tell the fuckers you are comming to kick them in the nuts.

I think Saddam realized that short of the Islamic world uniting to fight off the invasion, his best bet to hurt Bush and the U.S. was to make sure we didn't find any WMDs.

Using them or allowing them to be found would have simply proven Bush right.

Whether he actually had them or not, he was representing that he had them...or at the very least, leaving some ambiguity that he might have them. Why? Because he didn't want to appear weak to his own people, or Iraq's enemies.

Not to even mention the corrupt Oil for Food program, and the conflicts of interest associated with some of the nations that opposed our invasion.

Al Qaeda sucker punched us on 9-11, under the safe harbor of the Taliban in Afghanistan. So we smacked the piss out of the Taliban and told the world "Don't fuck with us". Saddam decided to thumb his nose at us at the wrong time, so we smacked him, and said "WE TOLD YOU NOT TO FUCK WITH US".

Shortly afterward, while they certainly had additional reasons for doing so (mainly economic), Libya exposes their stockpile of WMDs, volunteers them for destruction, and suggests that the entire world do the same. I think denying that the events in Afghanistan and Iraq were a factor in this decision is willful ignorance.

Whether Bush wins another term or not (which seems about 50/50 right now, IMO), I think he did the right thing under the circumstances, and I think his intentions were good. Some people disagree, which is why Kerry currently stands a 50/50 chance by running primarily on the "I'm not Bush" platform.

Of course, we can attribute some of the discontent with Bush to our economic troubles. He got 2/3rds of the economic triple whammy under his Administration, and inherited the 3rd from Clinton. How much stronger would his support be if not for the corporate accounting scandals, and the dot com implosion?

It'd be all well and good if the election were simply about foreign policy....but it's not. People are not strictly divided on Iraq or Afghanistan. There are several issues that have soured people on Bush...enough so that a Democratic candidate with any talent or reasonable alternative plan could step in and unseat him. Quite frankly, the jury is still out on Kerry on both counts, IMO.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............