Uncovered in Iraq...Buried WMD

[Chris]

Just remember, this is not the political forum. If it turns that way, it will be moved there.

[Rave]

During an interview between an Israeli general and Larry King the general said that Iran had the nuclear bombs,the missiles and they were not goint to live under the shadow of that threat.
Larry king then asked him if that was'nt the same thing Israel said about Iraq and the general said yes,bit this time we have intelligence.
Larry king then asked him if they were going to do a pre-emptive strike and the general said,"Not at this time."
History keeps repeating itself,but.....

[jerry]

Originally Posted by troy2000

It's still happening, Jerry...

I agree the issues are Troy. The pics and "news" are dated though.

I'm steppi'n out & taking Chris's recommendation.

[Pred]

Originally Posted by Chris

Just remember, this is not the political forum. If it turns that way, it will be moved there.

Be moved where?

[mym1a]

I remember watching on TV ,"The News" just prior to the war, convoys of trucks from Iraq heading into Syria?Of course our news media down played that.chemical weapons were found in Iraq but apparently not enough to satisfy the news media's interpretation of "WMD'S" only enough to kill a few thousand if it was used!I guess it depends who is president as to how accurately the news is reported.AS we know most if not all news media are bias favoring the left's ideolgy.!Lets face it,if Bush could walk on water he would be accused of not knowing how to swim.Doesn't matter what he does he will always being ridiculed!

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Pred

Be moved where?

To the political forum.

[troy2000]

I think it may be time for Bush's supporters to stop hiding behind the "biased media" excuse, and simply admit the man screwed up big-time. If our troops weren't still dying in Iraq, the media couldn't cover their deaths, and if the bombs weren't going off they couldn't publish pics of the damage.

And it's obviously silly to claim the war went south because liberals have a bad attitude. The war went south because Rumsfeld didn't put enough boots on the ground to stop the trouble before it started, not because liberals hate America.

I've been mildly encouraged by what's been happening there lately, though. Bush's surge was the last chance to reverse the flow, and I didn't think it stood much chance of doing so, but it seems to have done some good.

Also, we're finally bringing the Sunnis back into the process. Remember, they ran the country for years; that's where the experience and the expertise is. The Al Queda types helped cut their own throats with those Sunnis, too. You can't kill off tribal leaders for disagreeing with you without teeing off the whole tribe...

But in the long run, it's going to be up to the Iraqis themselves, and especially the Shi'ite politicians. We've certainly had their backs long enough to give them the opportunity to start putting the country back together, but they don't seem to be doing it.

[Pred]

Originally Posted by Chris

To the political forum.

Again, where?

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Pred

Again, where?

The political forum is available to contributing members.

[Mooseman684]

What really surprises me is that nobody realizes what this really means. Sadaam was hiding weapons in the Desert...Plain and simple. Why bury perfectly good Jets ??? To Hide Them...Why Hide Them ???
This was a Violation of U.N. Sanctions...
So this begs the question...What else is Buried and where ???
We know he had Chemical weapons...He Murdered Thousands of Kurds with Them...Did he use them ALL ?

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by troy2000

That makes about as much sense as saying we should've attacked China after Pearl Harbor. Does it really take a liberal to tell the difference between a country that attacked us, and one that just has a lot of oil and happens to be full of Muslims?

We'd have made our point better by actually getting the people who attacked us, instead of sidetracking into another country entirely and taking out one of the few secular, non-religious leaders in the Muslim world. Instead, Bin Laden is still running loose. What do you think that says about us?

And this crap of lumping "liberals" in with the jihadists is getting old, Zen. No one has ever explained to me just why liberals would want to destroy the country, considering we and our children live here too...

Anyone who calls me a traitor and says I hate America doesn't understand my beliefs, his own beliefs, or those of the people who founded this country and didn't want blind loyalty to whoever happens to be in charge.

some one used the L word!!!!!!! okay troy2000 lets say you are 100 percent right,would you then agree that we should of declared war on pakistan? after all they do appear to be harboring Mr.Binladen?

Originally Posted by troy2000

I think it may be time for Bush's supporters to stop hiding behind the "biased media" excuse, and simply admit the man screwed up big-time. If our troops weren't still dying in Iraq, the media couldn't cover their deaths, and if the bombs weren't going off they couldn't publish pics of the damage.

And it's obviously silly to claim the war went south because liberals have a bad attitude. The war went south because Rumsfeld didn't put enough boots on the ground to stop the trouble before it started, not because liberals hate America.

I've been mildly encouraged by what's been happening there lately, though. Bush's surge was the last chance to reverse the flow, and I didn't think it stood much chance of doing so, but it seems to have done some good.

Also, we're finally bringing the Sunnis back into the process. Remember, they ran the country for years; that's where the experience and the expertise is. The Al Queda types helped cut their own throats with those Sunnis, too. You can't kill off tribal leaders for disagreeing with you without teeing off the whole tribe...

But in the long run, it's going to be up to the Iraqis themselves, and especially the Shi'ite politicians. We've certainly had their backs long enough to give them the opportunity to start putting the country back together, but they don't seem to be doing it.

maybe just maybe if the Bush admin wasn't forced to fight a politicaly correct war our troops would of been home by now???

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mym1a

some one used the L word!!!!!!! okay troy2000 lets say you are 100 percent right,would you then agree that we should of declared war on pakistan? after all they do appear to be harboring Mr.Binladen?

It would've made more sense than attacking Iraq...

I think most of the Bush Administration's mistakes in the war on terror, Iraq, etc., can be traced back to trying to do it on the cheap, instead of committing enough resources to do the job properly. For example, we kept our forces out of Tora Bora to avoid American casualties, and sent the Northern Alliance in instead, or we'd have had Bin Laden right then and there. And then we wouldn't be dealing with the hill tribesmen sheltering him in Pakistan.

In Iraq we toppled Saddam with what was essentially a glorified raiding party on steroids, instead of sending in enough occupation troops to quell unrest before it could started. We won the war but lost the occupation because, again, Bush and Rumsfeld were trying to do it on the cheap.

For crying out loud, who ever heard of passing tax cuts in the middle of a war?

It's bad enough in my opinion that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and counter-productive. But doing it poorly was inexcusable.

[knightRider]

mooses mans right America needs to finish what they started , iran , pakistan , thier all evil <not the people > but the people in power . they all hate america , they all hate americans , and they hate our freedom of faith . btw this is my opioin be pissed but i wont be !

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by mym1a

some one used the L word!!!!!!! okay troy2000 lets say you are 100 percent right,would you then agree that we should of declared war on pakistan? after all they do appear to be harboring Mr.Binladen?

maybe just maybe if the Bush admin wasn't forced to fight a politicaly correct war our troops would of been home by now???

If the Bush admin hadn't been pressured to fight a politicaly correct war maybe just maybe he would have our troops on the US/Mex border? those little border towns are under siege!of all the things the federal government has its nose in the one thing they are constitionaly obligated to, is protecting our borders! that hasn't been done since the days of pancho via!!!!!!!and I don't believe Bush has served a 90 year term????????but then again, he is our patsy!The one thing I don't agree with concerning the Bush admin. is their reluctance to secure the border??

[troy2000]

Yeah...that's it...right...Bush is cowed by public opinion and evil, America-hating, liberal politicians; that's why he screwed up Iraq...

Get serious. Iraq is a mess mostly because Rumsfeld ignored the second part of being a winner: it's who gets there fustest, with the mostest.

Speed, mobility and close air support are good tactics, but he mistook them for a strategy.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by troy2000

It would've made more sense than attacking Iraq...

I think most of the Bush Administration's mistakes in the war on terror, Iraq, etc., can be traced back to trying to do it on the cheap, instead of committing enough resources to do the job properly. For example, we kept our forces out of Tora Bora to avoid American casualties, and sent the Northern Alliance in instead, or we'd have had Bin Laden right then and there. And then we wouldn't be dealing with the hill tribesmen sheltering him in Pakistan.

In Iraq we toppled Saddam with what was essentially a glorified raiding party on steroids, instead of sending in enough occupation troops to quell unrest before it could started. We won the war but lost the occupation because, again, Bush and Rumsfeld were trying to do it on the cheap.

For crying out loud, who ever heard of passing tax cuts in the middle of a war?

It's bad enough in my opinion that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and counter-productive. But doing it poorly was inexcusable.

first you blame Bush for over spending then hes to cheap ?can't have both? classic case of damn if you do damn if you don't.thanks for proving my point.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mym1a

first you blame Bush for over spending then hes to cheap ?can't have both? classic case of damn if you do damn if you don't.thanks for proving my point.

When I say "cheap," I mean he was unwilling to commit the resources needed to do the job properly. I think he was trying to have his cake and eat it too; he wanted to wage a war without putting the country on a war footing.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by troy2000

It would've made more sense than attacking Iraq...

I think most of the Bush Administration's mistakes in the war on terror, Iraq, etc., can be traced back to trying to do it on the cheap, instead of committing enough resources to do the job properly. For example, we kept our forces out of Tora Bora to avoid American casualties, and sent the Northern Alliance in instead, or we'd have had Bin Laden right then and there. And then we wouldn't be dealing with the hill tribesmen sheltering him in Pakistan.

In Iraq we toppled Saddam with what was essentially a glorified raiding party on steroids, instead of sending in enough occupation troops to quell unrest before it could started. We won the war but lost the occupation because, again, Bush and Rumsfeld were trying to do it on the cheap.

For crying out loud, who ever heard of passing tax cuts in the middle of a war?

It's bad enough in my opinion that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and counter-productive. But doing it poorly was inexcusable.

first you blame Bush for over spending then hes to cheap ? first he has to many troops then he doesn't have enough? can't have both? classic case of damn if you do damn if you don't.thanks for proving my point.the news media screamed that he didn't have enough troops, then when he applied for funding for the surge the media was screaming about that? ?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mym1a

first you blame Bush for over spending then hes to cheap ? first he has to many troops then he doesn't have enough? can't have both? classic case of damn if you do damn if you don't.thanks for proving my point.the news media screamed that he didn't have enough troops, then when he applied for funding for the surge the media was screaming about that? ?

There you go again, blaming the media instead of the man making the decisions.

Exactly where did I say he has too many troops? The whole thrust of my argument has been that he committed too few resources at the beginning in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In the long run, that has cost us a lot more casualties than doing it right would have.

[mym1a]

If my memory is correct the other side wanted to re-inact the draft?now im not totaly against the draft even if i was called! "tho I fulfilled my obligation years ago" but did the other side realy have the best interests of the country in mind when they attempted this?after discovering they would be committing political suicide those that introduced their own bill shot it down when it came to vote.it appeared at least to me,that the other side wanted to recreate another vietnam era enviroment where civil discourse was running very high!!! thats just my humble opinion!!!!

steriods implies over kill to me thats my humble opinion

steriods Troy2000? what did you mean? to much fire power to many troops? i thought the objective of any war was to win?

Originally Posted by Mooseman684

What really surprises me is that nobody realizes what this really means. Sadaam was hiding weapons in the Desert...Plain and simple. Why bury perfectly good Jets ??? To Hide Them...Why Hide Them ???
This was a Violation of U.N. Sanctions...
So this begs the question...What else is Buried and where ???
We know he had Chemical weapons...He Murdered Thousands of Kurds with Them...Did he use them ALL ?

the truth doesn't count mooseman we are dealing with raw emotions and the fact Bush won in 2000!!!