Author Topic: Nice Job Bushie! (Read 5282 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #135 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:09:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Your entire series of posts were one giant disjointed excuse.

Now it turns out you don't even know what the story is.

So I find myself wasting I don't know how many posts in a thread about a subject about which the person I'm talking to has no idea of.

That's just great. Thanks.

Nash, relax.

Nash · « **Reply #136 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:11:47 PM »

Pardon me for assuming your participation in this thread meant that you knew what you were talking about.

That your quesetions were sincere ones, based on things you've gone ahead and learned yourself.

Sometimes I think you just like to argue for argument's sake.

Bone up on the material yer own self before you ever ask me another thing please. Thanks.

Sandman · « **Reply #137 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:13:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Sandy, I'm always on an even keel my friend. What have I said that seemed terse?

I'm not a typical anything.

I never make excuses.

You're typically more verbose.

NUKE · « **Reply #138 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:14:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Pardon me for assuming your participation in this thread meant that you knew what you were talking about.

That your quesetions were sincere ones, based on things you've gone ahead and learned yourself.

Sometimes I think you just like to argue for argument's sake.

Bone up on the material yer own self before you ever ask me another thing please. Thanks.

Nash, take 5 seconds and review my posts in this thread. When did I make a statement that made you assume I knew anything about the issue? Be honest.

Elfie · « **Reply #139 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:17:39 PM »

Quote

All that you can take away from it, or where it all points to once again, is the lack of troops in Iraq. They couldn't guard against even the obvious threats to them.

With the enormous amounts of arms and ammunition the Iraqis had I really dont think that even with 10 times the number of troops that we could have kept the looters at bay everywhere.

With the number of troops we did send, so far we have one report of missing explosives? Granted its 360 tons of explosives. I saw elsewhere in this thread that there were over 500 ammo/arms dumps in Iraq? Nothing at all has been said about the other 499. We missed one it looks like, now people want to scream bloody murder? Of course, its all Bush's fault that we missed one ammo dump.

Nash · « **Reply #140 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:18:34 PM »

Then why are you here?

To make drive-by anti-Kerry jabs? Which have zero connection to this thread?

Knowing nothing about what the thread is about.

Seriously, why are you even posting?

NUKE · « **Reply #141 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:19:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Then why are you here?

To make drive-by anti-Kerry jabs? Which have zero connection to this thread?

Knowing nothing about what the thread is about.

Seriously, why are you even posting?

lol, when has knowing about anything ever stopped you?

Nash · « **Reply #142 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:23:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
"With the enormous amounts of arms and ammunition the Iraqis had I really dont think that even with 10 times the number of troops ...."

No, you didn't need ten-times the troops.

Just the 30-40,000 more that several generals said they needed.

At, what did you say? 500 of these ammo dumps? That equates to 800 troops guarding each one of them.

Instead, ya got none.

Now this ammo is blowing up what troops there ARE there.

Nash · « **Reply #143 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:24:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
lol, when has knowing about anything ever stopped you?

Well okay.... touche.

NUKE · « **Reply #144 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:25:11 PM »

~~Nash~~

Otto · « **Reply #145 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:45:00 PM »

"But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: 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. "

Next..?

Gixer · « **Reply #146 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:45:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
gsholz, I have never considered you an idiot in spite of
overwhelming evidence but I must to rebuke you on your latest foray into the realm of intelligent discourse: One hundred tonnes of high explosives indeed constitutes a WMD.

So Bush invaded Iraq because they had 100 tonnes of high explosives? Please you have to be kidding? How on earth does conventional explosives equal WMD's? WMD is Nuclear,Chemical Biological not a few hundred tonnes of TNT if that was the case even NZ would have WMD's LOL

That's even more desperate then the fake trailer claims.

The whole WMD and Iraq thing is a farce and it's amazing to think some people are still trying to back that argument for war up. The war was unjust and nothing more then a war of choice by an idiot president.

~~...-Gixer~~

Elfie · « **Reply #147 on:** October 25, 2004, 11:14:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
No, you didn't need ten-times the troops.

Just the 30-40,000 more that several generals said they needed.

At, what did you say? 500 of these ammo dumps? That equates to 800 troops guarding each one of them.

Instead, ya got none.

Now this ammo is blowing up what troops there ARE there.

You are *assuming* that the HE being used on our troops came from that dump. No one knows that for sure at this point. No one even knows where it went yet. The number 500 was quoted from someone else in this thread. I'm sure you can re-read the thread to see who's original info that was

10 times the troops was just an example. I should have known after reading your posts over the last couple years that you wouldnt have recognized that for what it was.....an example

I don't know why the generals were denied more divisions in Iraq.

Elfie · « **Reply #148 on:** October 25, 2004, 11:18:40 PM »

Quote

WMD is Nuclear,Chemical Biological not a few hundred tonnes of TNT if that was the case even NZ would have WMD's LOL

If it was used all in one place to make a single very large bomb it could be seen as a weapon of mass destruction. I agree that conventional wisdom classifies WMD as Nulcear, Biological, Chemical weapons. It is unlikey that several hundred tons of HE would ever be used like that, but if it was....how would you classify that kind of weapon?

Elfie · « **Reply #149 on:** October 25, 2004, 11:21:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Otto
"But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: 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. "

Next..?

If thats true, it pretty much kills the arguement that BOOSH IS AT FAULT YET AGAIN!! It also kills the arguement that more troops would have prevented the theft.