Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on October 25, 2004, 10:25:44 AM
-
source (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ZITSH1WWERWGICRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=6600227)
Kerry Slams Bush for 'Great Blunder' in Iraq
Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:44 AM ET
By Patricia Wilson
DOVER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry accused President Bush on Monday of committing "one of the greatest blunders" of his administration in failing to secure tons of explosives in Iraq and said the Republican incumbent did not deserve to be commander in chief.
Eight days before the Nov. 2 election, a potentially damaging report in The New York Times said that almost 380 tons of explosives vanished from an Iraqi military installation amid widespread looting after the U.S.-led invasion.
A spokeswoman for the United Nations nuclear watchdog confirmed the explosives were missing and said International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei would immediately report the matter to the U.N. Security Council.
"George W. Bush who talks tough -- talks tough -- and brags about making America safer, has once again failed to deliver," Kerry told supporters in Dover, New Hampshire. "After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this president failed to guard those stockpiles."
Kerry said terrorists could use the material "to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings."
"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the greatest blunders of this administration and the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at greater risk."
"The unbelievable blindness, stubbornness, arrogance of this administration to do the basics has now allowed this president to once again fail the test of being commander in chief." The New York Times reported that the interim government of Iraq had told Washington and international inspectors that nearly 380 tons of conventional explosives were missing from al Qaqaa, a sensitive former military installation.
As usual, Bush did not think things thru. Now there is 380 tons of HE floating around. How many suicide bombs will that make?
-
Oh my! (http://d21c.com/LooneyRon/sounds/2yawn.wav)
"Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year."
.
.
.
After the Persian Gulf war in 1991, the United Nations discovered Iraq's clandestine effort and put the United Nations arms agency in charge of Al Qaqaa's huge stockpile. Weapon inspectors determined that Iraq had bought the explosives from France, China and Yugoslavia, a European diplomat said.
None of the explosives were destroyed, arms experts familiar with the decision recalled, because Iraq argued that it should be allowed to keep them for eventual use in mining and civilian construction.
-
So this is no big deal Rip?
-
Originally posted by rpm
So this is no big deal Rip?
Well it is, but you must look at the UN for not taking care of this sooner.
-
The UN? The UN did'nt invade Iraq. This was a blunder that falls squarely on Bush's watch.
-
This was an interesting point I heard last night..
If Iraqi had so many WMDs layed around in 1000s of areas, why is it our president invaded with too few troops? Too few troops to stabalize just the iraqi masses let alone guard the supposed 1000s of WMD caches throughout the country.. Clearly another failure from this administration. What if there really were WMDs in Iraqi?? Seems pretty clear to me who's hands the WMDs would be in right now.. Certainly not the US's..
-
Originally posted by rpm
The UN? The UN did'nt invade Iraq. This was a blunder that falls squarely on Bush's watch.
So, to summarize:
You are now aware that Saddam operated a clandestine nuclear arms program that escaped the notice of the IAEA, and was only uncovered as a consequence of intrusive inspections that required a War to put in place, and arguably challenging Iraqi sovereignity.
While those intrusive inspections were active, the IAEA and UN inspectors shut down the program, and essentially "mothballed" the hi-technology, restricted equipment, but did not destroy it.
In 1988, the inspectors were expelled from Iraq. For the next five years, the situation vis a vis monitoring was much like before the first Gulf War, a time when demonstrably the monitoring capabilities of the IAEA were not sufficient to prevent Saddam from operating a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Arguably, the monitoring conditions were even worse, as Saddam knew he was under the microscope, and therefore had motivation to be that much more careful and secretive.
-
If I were looking for someone to do a better job militarily I sure as hell wouldn't find it in John Kerry and his democratic party.
-
Nice tap dance Rip, but you failed to answer the question. Dude seems to get it, you don't.
-
May be militants in Iraq will call Mr. Bush Santa Claus :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Well it is, but you must look at the UN for not taking care of this sooner.
all of that stuff were sealed by UN and UN watched it for several years baby....untill brum brum boyz came in
whats next excuse ? ;)
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
This was an interesting point I heard last night..
If Iraqi had so many WMDs layed around in 1000s of areas, why is it our president invaded with too few troops? Too few troops to stabalize just the iraqi masses let alone guard the supposed 1000s of WMD caches throughout the country.. Clearly another failure from this administration. What if there really were WMDs in Iraqi?? Seems pretty clear to me who's hands the WMDs would be in right now.. Certainly not the US's..
actualy UN did claim that those things were not WMD. They used to clam, that it were army materials monitored under "WMD monitoring" it include some hi-tech (not from HTC :D ) devices, various detonators for missiles, and sutch stuff......
But whats odd about this case in my opinion is 380 TONS.... LOL
it doesnt seems to be 1 or 2 forgoten depots, does it ?
-
I'm just hoping that after this election the losers will shut the hell up and let our president (whoever he may be) get on with the job unencumbered by his own countries continual cries of lies, deceit, and inadequacy. If I were one of those parents that gave in to the demands of a spoiled child I'd be tempted to vote for Kerry just to create at least the appearance of unity for the sake of the country.
-
Kerry has a plan to find this stuff, right?
-
Boy, the world is just full of armchair generals who it seems are just great in the art of hindsight expertice.
If any of you armchair generals ever hear a loud popping sound followed by a bright light, that would be from your head popping out of your asses.
dago
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm just hoping that after this election the losers will shut the hell up and let our president (whoever he may be) get on with the job unencumbered by his own countries continual cries of lies, deceit, and inadequacy. If I were one of those parents that gave in to the demands of a spoiled child I'd be tempted to vote for Kerry just to create at least the appearance of unity for the sake of the country.
If this election is used to show unity in the country, that would mean our country was never unified because no american president has ever recieved 100% of the vote..
Sake of country Iron? How about the sake or our countrie's troops.. What is it again they are dieing for??
-
skerry would never of let that happen
LOL LOL LOL
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
.... What is it again they are dieing for??
the beginning of the end to terrorism in the ME
it'll kill you when history actually gives Bush credit for it ..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
If this election is used to show unity in the country, that would mean our country was never unified because no american president has ever recieved 100% of the vote..
Sake of country Iron? How about the sake or our countrie's troops.. What is it again they are dieing for??
What part of "shut the hell up" don't you understand? I'm only hoping that in the face of a murderous enemy we can present ourselves as strongly resolved to deal with them until the end.
Our troops are dying for the same reason they have always died. To free the oppressed and preserve democracy and freedom.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Well it is, but you must look at the UN for not taking care of this sooner.
Irony has been redefined..... film at 11.
-
according to the IAEA they "forgot" to tell the US army about the explosives, "we thought they knew about them"
don't worry, the explosives are only going to be used for mining and construction.
-
Those damn looters. I bet one of them put 380tons of explosives in the back of his mercedes taxi and drove off with them. Of course, it's doubtfull that this was a coordinated effort to move the explosives by actual military personel during the war. You know.. the military that seemingly vanished. Nah. It was those damn looters and bush should have done something about it. Without spending any more money... of course.
-
hmmm, am I the only intelligent being on this bsb
====
Eight days before the Nov. 2 election, a potentially damaging report in The New York Times
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Those damn looters. I bet one of them put 380tons of explosives in the back of his mercedes taxi and drove off with them. Of course, it's doubtfull that this was a coordinated effort to move the explosives by actual military personel during the war. You know.. the military that seemingly vanished. Nah. It was those damn looters and bush should have done something about it. Without spending any more money... of course.
So you are saying Bush subjected his war stratigies to a cost effective program?? Wow, how nice of him!! And I bet the troops on the gound love him for it..
380tons of HE was not looted.. What makes it even a worse outcry is it had to be an organized group that took these explosives and we had no one around to even have a clue about it..
How is a president going to goto war over WMDs but not send enough troops to contain and protect these WMDs caches from falling into the wrong hands?? Good thing we had enough troops there to protect the oil fields! They could have blown up the oil fields with those explosives!
-
I'm only hoping that in the face of a murderous enemy we can present ourselves as strongly resolved to deal with them until the end.
Seemed that after 9/11 this country and world did stand together and we were presenting ourselves as strong as ever, BUT somehow Bush has destroyed that.
68Parker
-
the beginning of the end to terrorism
Let's all hope the war on terrorism does not turn out like the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Sad part is that more than likely it will.
68Parker
-
Mini D and Yeager obviously have'nt watched "Off to War". In it National Guard officers were shocked to find loose stockpiles of bombs, mortars, rockets, and artillery just laying open on the ground with nothing more than a broken barbed wire fence securing them. Unsecured bunkers were empty that should have been full. Oddly enough some of those missing mortars were finding their way home every night, right into the troops sleeping quarters. So yes, insurgents did just walk off with them and use them against our troops later.
Remember the looting of Baghdad? Do you think they just grabbed the tractor tires and left everything else alone?
-
What part of "shut the hell up" don't you understand? I'm only hoping that in the face of a murderous enemy we can present ourselves as strongly resolved to deal with them until the end.
Is this murderous enemy your referring to AQ or the people from Iraqi, fighting for Iraqi in Iraqi??
-
Originally posted by parker00
Seemed that after 9/11 this country and world did stand together and we were presenting ourselves as strong as ever, BUT somehow Bush has destroyed that.
68Parker
I don't think so. I blame those willing to exercise no restraint in ridiculing the president in pursuit of their various other political agendas. It's not new but it has gotten ever uglier.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't think so. I blame those willing to exercise no restraint in ridiculing the president in pursuit of their various other political agendas. It's not new but it has gotten ever uglier.
Now this almost made me laugh.
So... the real problem with the division in this Country is that there are people who don't agree with the President.
Got it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't think so. I blame those willing to exercise no restraint in ridiculing the president in pursuit of their various other political agendas. It's not new but it has gotten ever uglier.
lmao
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/thedudeDVant/bush_obey.jpg)
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Is this murderous enemy your referring to AQ or the people from Iraqi, fighting for Iraqi in Iraqi??
Are you truly incapable of seeing the wider picture of the middle east? Iraq would never have been invaded if Saddam had not built up a huge army (4th largest in the world) and begun a campaign to conquer the middle east. Saddam hated the US for thwarting his dreams. It was only a matter of time before he was allowed to rebuild and resume his conquest. Of course he would have (if he hadn't already) supported those intent on destroying our way of life.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Are you truly incapable of seeing the wider picture of the middle east? Iraq would never have been invaded if Saddam had not built up a huge army (4th largest in the world) and begun a campaign to conquer the middle east. Saddam hated the US for thwarting his dreams. It was only a matter of time before he was allowed to rebuild and resume his conquest. Of course he would have (if he hadn't already) supported those intent on destroying our way of life.
Ya.. I see a big picture.. In my big picture hate for America has been magnified 1000s of times over..
Let me ask you a question Iron.. When do you see America winning the War on Terrorism??
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Now this almost made me laugh.
So... the real problem with the division in this Country is that there are people who don't agree with the President.
Got it.
We are at war and Bush did not start it. The picture froggie posted would give the appearance to all of the world that Americans have no confidence in their leadership. This is very similar to what Jane Fonda and so many others did during the Vietnam war. Need I remind you that we lost that one?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We are at war and Bush did not start it. The picture froggie posted would give the appearance to all of the world that Americans have no confidence in their leadership. This is very similar to what Jane Fonda and so many others did during the Vietnam war. Need I remind you that we lost that one?
Clearly Iraqi sank our battleship before we invaded. Or did they threating to? Gee, I cant remember. But I am only seeing American soldiers dying in Iraqi?? That is not the war on terror..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
So you are saying Bush subjected his war stratigies to a cost effective program?? Wow, how nice of him!! And I bet the troops on the gound love him for it..
Not at all. That's all you talking right now.
I'm saying that if he'd spent more to attempt to secure something, we'd be hearing about that instead.380tons of HE was not looted.. What makes it even a worse outcry is it had to be an organized group that took these explosives and we had no one around to even have a clue about it..
What's even more rediculous is thinking that they were there when the bombing started. Trains were running to Syria every day before the attack. How is a president going to goto war over WMDs but not send enough troops to contain and protect these WMDs caches from falling into the wrong hands?? Good thing we had enough troops there to protect the oil fields! They could have blown up the oil fields with those explosives!
I've got a tip for you... THEY WERE IN THE WRONG HANDS ALREADY. Maybe you could identify the wrong hands they've now fallen into and scream about what an outrage it is, then scream some more when we take them back from the "wrong hands" you claim we should have never let them fall into.
It's also important to remember that Suddam Husseign would not have given these explosives to terrorists. There is absolutely no way that would have happened. So you can rest assured, that wherever they are, they are in non threatening hands. Afterall... you've said so.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Clearly Iraqi sank our battleship before we invaded. Or did they threating to? Gee, I cant remember. But I am only seeing American soldiers dying in Iraqi?? That is not the war on terror..
You are either unwilling or incapable of seeing the bigger picture. I'm just sorry that you and those like you won't understand who is to blame when our shopping malls and corner restaurants are frequently bombed by militant Muslims.
-
BTW... doesn't the fact that these explosives were just "reported" but never actually found after the war imply that they never actually existed?
-
There are so many things in this thread that make no sense, I figured I'd post something that did.
(http://www.stupidpicture.com/pics/bearinals.jpg)
-SW
-
We are at war and Bush did not start it. The picture froggie posted would give the appearance to all of the world that Americans have no confidence in their leadership. This is very similar to what Jane Fonda and so many others did during the Vietnam war. Need I remind you that we lost that one?
I would agree that Bush did not start the war with Afghanistan, but Iraq DID NOT attack us. The Vietnam war was not lost by the soldiers it was lost in Washington because we didn't have the proper leadership. Yes you are correct that this very similar to Vietnam and yes many Americans have lost confidence in their president, but does that mean we are supposed to ignore the fact that we have no faith what so ever in him so that the world will see us as united. I thought we didn't care what the outside world thought of us or are we caring on this issue and no other.
68Parker
-
Not at all. That's all you talking right now.
no, that was you talking in your post about some looter making off with all those explosives in the back of his mercedees..
I'm saying that if he'd spent more to attempt to secure something, we'd be hearing about that instead.
Which is a farcry better than our troops being killed on the side of the road from these explosives, wouldnt you think?
I've got a tip for you... THEY WERE IN THE WRONG HANDS ALREADY. Maybe you could identify the wrong hands they've now fallen into and scream about what an outrage it is, then scream some more when we take them back from the "wrong hands" you claim we should have never let them fall into.
Understand, I know this. Of course all weapons were in the wrong hands.
I'm referring to the supposive WMDs. What if they were really there, we had TOO FEW troops to secure them even if we found them. Before we got there we had TOO few troops. If WMDs were indeed spread all over the country there would have been nothing we could have done to stop them from being looted. As is demonstrated by America's inability to secure the non-WMDs..
-
Yep, it's all our fault that weapons are being looted and civilians and soldiers alike are being killed in Iraq by weapons that American troops obviously couldn't secure.
Thanks...your insight has opened my mind. I think I'll go join the Army right now...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You are either unwilling or incapable of seeing the bigger picture. I'm just sorry that you and those like you won't understand who is to blame when our shopping malls and corner restaurants are frequently bombed by militant Muslims.
I'll blame these war mongers we have in power ATM. Bush's invasion has placed the 'muslim cause' on the doorstep of 25million more people.. I wonder how many terrorist this false invasion has produced?
I find that YOU are the one unwilling or incapable of seeing the bigger picture Iron. Winning the war on terrorism is not possible. You kill one, you make 2 more..
-
Originally posted by texace
Yep, it's all our fault that weapons are being looted and civilians and soldiers alike are being killed in Iraq by weapons that American troops obviously couldn't secure.
Thanks...your insight has opened my mind. I think I'll go join the Army right now...
Good for you!! They need you!
-
Originally posted by parker00
Iraq DID NOT attack us.
68Parker
Neither did Germany.
-
WWII was/is nothing like Iraq.
-SW
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Good for you!! They need you!
And if it was one of your relatives that said that? Running off to the nearest recruitment station to join up and fight a war that you obviously think is wrong...a war started for the sole reason to go to war and to take the spoils of a country all under the guise of a war on terror.
A complete stranger...an American college student...posts something out of sarcasm and you endorse him because "they need you."
Wow...
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
no, that was you talking in your post about some looter making off with all those explosives in the back of his mercedees..
No... it is you implying that they needed "protection" when it was obvious they had enough protection to be systematically relocated. Which is a farcry better than our troops being killed on the side of the road from these explosives, wouldnt you think?
Are you trying to tug at my heartstrings here or what? Cause other than that... this statement has little to do with anything. Or are you implying that if only we'd protected this 380 tons of explosives, suddam wouldn't have given it away to terrorists to kill Americans with? Because if that's what you're trying to do, I'm going to laugh right in your face.Understand, I know this. Of course all weapons were in the wrong hands.
I'm referring to the supposive WMDs. What if they were really there, we had TOO FEW troops to secure them even if we found them. Before we got there we had TOO few troops. If WMDs were indeed spread all over the country there would have been nothing we could have done to stop them from being looted. As is demonstrated by America's inability to secure the non-WMDs..
LOL! welcome to the double edged sword. THERE WERE NO WMDS SO WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ATTACKED! BUT IF THERE WERE WMDS, WE SHOULD HAVE HIT THEM HARDER!!!!
Damn... you're getting dumber by the minute.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Winning the war on terrorism is not possible. You kill one, you make 2 more..
One has only to look so far as Spain to see the results of not fighting this war on terrorism.
-
Are you trying to tug at my heartstrings here or what? Cause other than that... this statement has little to do with anything. Or are you implying that if only we'd protected this 380 tons of explosives, suddam wouldn't have given it away to terrorists to kill Americans with? Because if that's what you're trying to do, I'm going to laugh right in your face.
Couldn't care less bout your heart.. I'm saying if your going to goto war, damn the cost(money).. Fight to win.
You in a lame attempt try to justify Bush commiting the military in a rush to war. Had he actually gone to war the right way, with a plan, people would be complaining about the cost. I said that would be better than people complaining about the dead.. So burn your heartstring for me, ok??
LOL! welcome to the double edged sword. THERE WERE NO WMDS SO WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ATTACKED! BUT IF THERE WERE WMDS, WE SHOULD HAVE HIT THEM HARDER!!!!
Nope.. Not my thinking at all. I'm simply saying that IF Iraqi actually had WMDs like Bush said they did, we were not ready for the invasion because we had too few troops to secure the WMD sites had they really been there..
Damn... you're getting dumber by the minute.
Thanks..
-
Sorry "dude"... you're talking a bit from both sides of the fence right now. Unless you realize that you're actually saying the proper response would have been a tactical strike with no notice to either the U.S. people or Iraq.
WMDs were not the problem. Saddam having control over their manufacture was. This thread only proves it.
-
Originally posted by texace
And if it was one of your relatives that said that? Running off to the nearest recruitment station to join up and fight a war that you obviously think is wrong...a war started for the sole reason to go to war and to take the spoils of a country all under the guise of a war on terror.
A complete stranger...an American college student...posts something out of sarcasm and you endorse him because "they need you."
Wow...
I dont really follow this too well. Sorry if I get it wrong..
If a close relative wanted to go fight I would express my opinion and leave it at that.. After all, this is america and each has there right to attempt service with the military..
If you agree and are for the war, by all means sign up! Cause, they DO need you.. 8)
I'm all for our military, just not our present president..
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Sorry "dude"... you're talking a bit from both sides of the fence right now. Unless you realize that you're actually saying the proper response would have been a tactical strike with no notice to either the U.S. people or Iraq.
WMDs were not the problem. Saddam having control over their manufacture was. This thread only proves it.
I dont think this thread could stand for proof of anything factual about Iraqi..
I'm not talking from both sides. I'm sayin all things being equal with the invasion the way it was, America invaded undermanned, ill-equiped, and too soon without a plan.. A clear failure from our 'war president'...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
One has only to look so far as Spain to see the results of not fighting this war on terrorism.
Iron, I will ask you again...
When do you see America winning the war on terrorism?? What will have to be done to win it??
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Iron, I will ask you again...
When do you see America winning the war on terrorism?? What will have to be done to win it??
within 20 years, about a generations worth of western influence in Iraq/Afgan
or all out nuke war when we get down to the brass tacks with NK and Iran, the other sides of the axis
either way, terrorism will end
-
Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.
-Yoda
However, we can see the past pretty clearly and we know that not fighting terrorism led us to 9/11.
-
Last year, towards the end of the year, I bought some 10 boxes high velocity Winchester Supreme pheasant loads at a great sale.
I stockpiled them with my other WSPD (Weapons of Singular Pheasant Destruction) in a "secure area" that is routinely patrolled.
It seems now that some of these boxes may have been STOLEN!!!!
Investigations continue, but it's likely that known terrorists that target the males of the pheasant species are in possession of these shells and may have already used them on pheasants as early as January of 2004 towards the close of the season.
I've called UN inspectors to check this out. I'll let you know if I find out anything.
As much as I hate to admit it, some of my own family members cannot be ruled out as potential suspects.
-
You did not answer either question..
I liked the quote though! hehe made me laugh
-
Neither did Germany
Japan did. What is going on in Iraq is nothing compared to WWII.
-
the troops did not find 380 tons of explosives, therefor there were no 380 tons of explosives, saddam got rid of them along with the WMD's before the invasion.
troops did not find WMD, so there were no WMD.
troops did not find 380 tons of explosives, so there were no 380 tons of explosives.
i don't know how it could be more simple.
-
Originally posted by parker00
Japan did. What is going on in Iraq is nothing compared to WWII.
So you say. I find the similarities to be remarkable.
-
LOL TOAD
:aok
-
I find the similarities to be remarkable.
How, has Iraq taken over half a continent?
-
Originally posted by parker00
How, has Iraq taken over half a continent?
Uh, has Hitler?
Granted that Hitler was more successful in his efforts than Hussein but Saddam wasn't a conqueror for lack of effort. I don't believe he had or ever would have given up his dream of conquest.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
I'll blame these war mongers we have in power ATM. Bush's invasion has placed the 'muslim cause' on the doorstep of 25million more people.. I wonder how many terrorist this false invasion has produced?
I find that YOU are the one unwilling or incapable of seeing the bigger picture Iron. Winning the war on terrorism is not possible. You kill one, you make 2 more..
So we just sit at home, watching CNN, and wait for them to start bombing our shopping malls,attack our schools,and set off car bombs in our streets?
Think of all the extremists flowing into Iraq now to "fight the infidel" Dude, if they did'nt have a close, convienent place to go to do that, they'd be doing it here, in the good ol USA.
And I've noticed that "vahalla bombings" in Isreal have gone way down-Gee maybe because Saddam is no longer capable of paying off on his"rewards for killing Jews"program.
The problem here is people like you , who have'nt a clue about whats going on, and instead of standing up and helping win this (according to you) "unwinable war", do everything you can to undermine any progress that might be made.
This IS a winnable war, but not with the attitude that a lot of dems seem to have.All they can do is point out any mistakes that might be made and claim It's all Bushes fault.Well guess what- it's not.
Muslim extremists don't give a **** about anything but dying for thier god, which is a totally alien concept to %99 of non-muslims.
Ya see , They don't care how many "innocent" lives are lost, 'cause if you ain't muslim, you ain't "innocent"That includes women and children.
The attack on WTC was perpetrated on the financial hub of the free world.I'm sure that if we dropped a daisy cutter on Mecca, the muslim world would sit down and discuss what sanctions to put on us.Not.
As for the casualtys, hey we're at WAR.I think that the @1000 kia we have had so far is incredibly light considering the amount of fighting we've had to do there so far.Hell, what did we lose on D-day, 2500 in a couple of hours?
Or Tarawa,Okinowa, siapan ?
As long as you "anti's" keep harping on whats gone wrong, instead of whats gone right, this war will be unwinnable.
And that is undermining the goverment, otherwise known as sedition.
Ya know, like what Kerry did in '71 ?
As far as I'm concerned, Kerry should be sharing a federal penitentry cell with Ted "The Wet One" Kennedy.
-
you guys are making this too complicated...
The way it plays out is this. The guys who were gonna vote for Bush will think this is no big deal and happens all the time in a war zzone and... who knows what really happened? they will still vote for Bush.
the guys who were gonna vote for kerrie will see this as proof the Bush is in leauge with the terrorists and personaly stole the explosives to aid the terrorists.... They will not change their vote and will still vote for kerrie.
The undecided voters will be.... undecided on what to think of the whole situation.
Even ol snakehead carvel said it.... "do you know what they call the party that is depending on the undecided voter? The losers."
lazs
-
Bush is in it for the oil.
-SW
-
what he said
-
Seemed that after 9/11 this country and world did stand together and we were presenting ourselves as strong as ever, BUT somehow Bush has destroyed that.
I second, third and fourth this comment. If we had stayed the course in "just" Afghanistan, OBL probably would have been caught by now.
:aok
-
It vanerished!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by 2stony
I second, third and fourth this comment. If we had stayed the course in "just" Afghanistan, OBL probably would have been caught by now.
:aok
OBL would be living in one of saddam's 26 palaces, and paying his terrorsts with saddams "oil for food" money.
-
Originally posted by 2stony
I second, third and fourth this comment. If we had stayed the course in "just" Afghanistan, OBL probably would have been caught by now.
:aok
and the dem cry this election would be
"WHY HASN"T BUSH INVADED IRAQ!! INTEL SHOWS SADDAM HAS WMD'S!!! WE GAVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO ACT BUT HE HASN'T!!! ELECT ME, I HAVE A PLAN FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ !!"
-
If we had found WMD's in Iraq they would have been guarded 24/7 by American troops until they could be moved to a secured location. 360 tons of HE? I suspect that is *chump change* in comparison to SH's total stock of HE before we invaded.
I dont believe anyone forsaw the mass looting that went on in Baghdad. If they had I am sure contigency plans would have gone into effect as soon as the looting started.
One thing that seems to have quietly slipped into oblivion is the several hundred tons of chemical muntions that was verified as existing but has never been verified as being destroyed. Where are those munitions now? No one seems to know. SH knows, but I doubt if he will ever tell.
-
OBL would be living in one of saddam's 26 palaces, and paying his terrorsts with saddams "oil for food" money.
If this was the case then I would agree that we attack Iraq just like we did the Taliban. This scenerio would be justified because they were harboring the guy that planned and admitted to 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I dont believe anyone forsaw the mass looting that went on in Baghdad. If they had I am sure contigency plans would have gone into effect as soon as the looting started.
There lies the root of the problem, they didn't think. Sure it was no problem defeating the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard. Was there ever any doubt? We outclassed them tremendously in training, personnel and equiptment. Now trying to maintain peace and order after we captured them is the "hard work" Bush either didn't forsee or ignored warnings about. Either way, Bush fumbled.
-
and the dem cry this election would be
Do you vote Republican no matter who the candidate is Eagler? I hope not.
There was no reason to open another front after we went into Afghanistan. SH wasn't going to do much in the time we could have concentrated on Affy. By then, maybe the intel we had on the WMD would have been a little better.
If Georgie's dad hadn't stopped in 1991, we wouldn't have had this problem with SH. Looks like Georgie is almost making up for papa's mistake.
:rolleyes:
-
I don't know if Bush's people could have forseen or avoided this problem, but I am certain that if Kerry or Clinton were in charge.... there would be no stopping the conservative pundits in their attacks, including the pundits in this BBS.
just sayin.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
This was an interesting point I heard last night..
If Iraqi had so many WMDs layed around in 1000s of areas, why is it our president invaded with too few troops? Too few troops to stabalize just the iraqi masses let alone guard the supposed 1000s of WMD caches throughout the country.. Clearly another failure from this administration. What if there really were WMDs in Iraqi?? Seems pretty clear to me who's hands the WMDs would be in right now.. Certainly not the US's..
The BC comic this morning had it right.
Those werent WMD's
They were just MDW's
Masses of Destructive Weapons
-
>>Do you vote Republican no matter who the candidate is Eagler? I hope not.
<<
I wouldn't waste a lot of oxygen on obvious party line voters. Time would be better spent asking a duck not to quack...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I don't know if Bush's people could have forseen or avoided this problem, but I am certain that if Kerry or Clinton were in charge.... there would be no stopping the conservative pundits in their attacks, including the pundits in this BBS.
just sayin.
I'll confess to that.
That doesn't make it right or wrong, though, just partisan.
-
Some of you folk need to do a bit more then just pay attention to party rhetoric and accept as gospel
After reading thourh all tof the posts in this thread. From start to finish.
I find the one post I agree with the most is this one.
Originally posted by Dago
Boy, the world is just full of armchair generals who it seems are just great in the art of hindsight expertice.
If any of you armchair generals ever hear a loud popping sound followed by a bright light, that would be from your head popping out of your asses.
dago
-
Good point TweetyBird, I should have known better.
;)
-
If memory serves, the Iraqi military had more than 500 munitions dumps scattered throughout the country, with hundreds of thousands of weapons and explosives of all types.
What measures would YOU have taken to make certain that NONE of them were stolen?
Did it never occur to you that the suicide bombers and "insurgents" had to have a "source" of supply for their explosives? Where did you THINK they were getting them...the local A&B?
If you are complaining that planning for the post-war period did not allow for enough troops to secure the towns and the military depots are you also beaching about the mobilization of national guard units to provide additional troops?
With the U.S. military's manpower needs at the critical stage, I must ask why I should be expected to elect a man who voted to cut the military and intelligence budgets in 1993?
Is it in our best interests, during this time of war and crisis, to place a pacifist in the White House?
The nations most critical of the Iraqi invasion by the U.S. have been proven to have had major government officials conducting shady or illegal business deals with Saddam Hussein. Should Americans elect a president who is going to play kissey-face with the leaders of these same countries?
Why do you consider it a mistake to remove from power a government that practiced mass murder against its citizens and subsidized terrorist movements in the Middle East?
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The nations most critical of the Iraqi invasion by the U.S. have been proven to have had major government officials conducting shady or illegal business deals with Saddam Hussein.
Same with American oil companies, but our tool-in-cheif doesn't want to embarass his masters.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Same with American oil companies, but our tool-in-cheif doesn't want to embarass his masters.
How much profit has Exxon posted due to Iraqi Oil operations last year? Anybody know?
just wonderin'
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Same with American oil companies, but our tool-in-cheif doesn't want to embarass his masters.
Name one.
-
MZ...have you got proof of that? Or are you just repeating election year inuendo?
-
Originally posted by 2stony
Good point TweetyBird, I should have known better.
;)
Yes, I vote Republican as I do not believe the dems "know better" about anything
-
Originally posted by GScholz
OMG! Iraq had dangerous conventional explosives!!! Why didn't the UN do something about them long, long ago?!? Luckily the US invaded Iraq because of the WMD that wasn't there so these explosives could be taken by terrorists! WTG!! The world is truly a safer place now!!! Thankyouthankyouthanyou America!
You're welcome, as usual.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Same with American oil companies, but our tool-in-cheif doesn't want to embarass his masters.
bs
if it were there the media would be crammin in our faces every night at 6:30 pm
-
Rip,
Any chance you can make a post in a thread without resorting to cut n paste something you've found on the net.
...-Gixer
-
GSholtz, "Proven" is a strong word. As the investigation is ongoing, alleged is a better term.
The corruption rumors surfaced in January when an Iraqi newspaper published a list of about 270 prominent figures from more than 46 countries, saying they received oil money from Saddam Hussein's regime.
Top vote getters are Russia and France. Russia was the biggest oil buyer, France handled the money.
Follow the money and find the corruption. Several very close to Chiraq are alleged to have received vouchers for oil worth many tens of millions.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I've heard that a lot, especially on this bbs ... but I've yet to see a single piece of evidence posted.
Go read the ISG report.
-
those munitions sound like WMDs to me and sKerry is using these missing WMDs as a tool to scare and manipulate ignorant people and liberals (I know...whats the difference) into voting for him.
These munitions can be used in detonating nuclear warheads?
Sounds like WMDs for sure.
These same munitions came up missing MONTHS ago yet we find out about them 8 days before the election. What sort of cheap political scam is this? Its DNC politics per usual. Scaring old people and kids to death. Is this the October surprise the liberals have been planning?
Makes no difference to me.
Bush/Cheney 2004
-
Originally posted by rpm
source (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ZITSH1WWERWGICRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=6600227)
As usual, Bush did not think things thru. Now there is 380 tons of HE floating around. How many suicide bombs will that make?
One reeeeely big one? :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You're a bigger idiot than I though, amazingly enough.
It that an admission you're an idiot, or are you missing a 'T'?;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Will I find evidence there?
Won't know until you read it, will you?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Have you read it?
Only excerpts.
Why, do you need me to tell you what to think so you don't have to read it?
-
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. In this instance there are several times that amount that has been declared missing since early this past year.
It is indeed a case of WMD in Iraq and the leftest europanzies in my country are openly declaring it depsite themselves.
Now go on with your bad self.
-
I wonder how many city blocks 360 tons of HE would level? I guess you could classify that as a weapon of mass destruction.
-
no WMD found, so there were no WMD.
no 380 tons of explosives found , so there were no explosives.
saddam must have got rid of the explosives when he got rid of the WMD.
-
Originally posted by rpm
There lies the root of the problem, they didn't think. Sure it was no problem defeating the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard. Was there ever any doubt? We outclassed them tremendously in training, personnel and equiptment. Now trying to maintain peace and order after we captured them is the "hard work" Bush either didn't forsee or ignored warnings about. Either way, Bush fumbled.
Rpm, NO ONE can think of every single possiblity before the fact. Some things are always unforseen. Doesnt mean they didnt think.
I sugest you run for President in '08, I'll even vote for the office of President in '08. Then 2 years after you are in office (assuming people vote for you besides me), all of us on this bbs can nit pick on every single thing you do. It will be great fun!! :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I wonder how many city blocks 360 tons of HE would level? I guess you could classify that as a weapon of mass destruction.
Again, it strikes me as so odd that you and others have stumbled onto such a significant realization (WMD FOUND!), and yet the folks at the top who could only benefit from parroting that same argument, wouldn't touch that logic with a 10 foot aluminum tube.
-
Let's see if I'm understanding here....
380tons of HE were just reported, but can't be found, so they "obviously were looted"?
Since they can't be found it's GW's fault that the HE isn't there, never mind that the IAEA or whoever never bothered to tell us about it in the first place?
And now skerry and his buttboy fanbois are jumping all over GW about it?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Again, it strikes me as so odd that you and others have stumbled onto such a significant realization (WMD FOUND!), and yet the folks at the top who could only benefit from parroting that same argument, wouldn't touch that logic with a 10 foot aluminum tube.
Nash, if you detonated 360 tons of HE, wouldnt there be *mass destruction*? Just saying :p I also said *I guess* you could classify that as a WMD. Read it all, let it sink in :D
Otoh, everyone seems to ignore the hundreds of tons of chemical munitions that have yet to be accounted for, whether its by the US (post invasion) or the UN weapons inspectors (pre invasion). Where are they? I think we can safely say they didnt just *disappear into thin air* heh
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
Let's see if I'm understanding here....
380tons of HE were just reported, but can't be found, so they "obviously were looted"?
Since they can't be found it's GW's fault that the HE isn't there, never mind that the IAEA or whoever never bothered to tell us about it in the first place?
And now skerry and his buttboy fanbois are jumping all over GW about it?
Pretty darn close, except the total tonnage is supposedly 360, not 380 ;)
-
I don't know about all that.
But you can be mightily sure of two things.
If WMD was ever found, Bush would be saying it. If WMD ever gets found, Bush will be the first to let you know.
-
Kerry said WMD are crossing our borders every day. Even Kerry can seems to know what a WMD is.
-
I'm sorry, but no amout of high explosive is a WMD in the sense of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons...
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Pretty darn close, except the total tonnage is supposedly 360, not 380 ;)
Ok, so GW lost 360T of HE that he didn't know existed until after it was already gone?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm sorry, but no amout of high explosive is a WMD in the sense of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons...
well, I like to carry statements to the extreme.
Are you saying that 500 billion tons of HE placed around a city would not be considered a WMD?
That being said.... no, HE are not WMD.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm sorry, but no amout of high explosive is a WMD in the sense of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons...
That would be an incorrect statement, you could theoretically detonate enough HE to equal a nuclear detonation. Don't know if you would get the mushroom cloud though, and certainly wouldnt be any radioactive fallout.
Also explosives are used in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. I dont know exactly how they are used, or the *why* of it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Kerry said WMD are crossing our borders every day. Even Kerry can seems to know what a WMD is.
The ketchup man said that? :lol
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
Ok, so GW lost 360T of HE that he didn't know existed until after it was already gone?
Din't know existed? Everyone knew it existed. For years. The specific location and what it contained. And Bremmer was told about its theft back in May.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Din't know existed? Everyone knew it existed. For years. The specific location and what it contained. And Bremmer was told about its theft back in May.
If Bremmer was told about it in may, and "everyone" knew it existed, why is it suddenly in the news as a big issue?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Din't know existed? Everyone knew it existed. For years. The specific location and what it contained. And Bremmer was told about its theft back in May.
Yep, like Nuke said, if it's common knowledge, why is it suddenly such a big issue?
Just looks like a desperate grasp at a straw from the dems to me.
-
And you could theoretically kill 7 million people by shooting each and every one of them in the head with a 9mm pistol bullet. Therefore a store of 9mm ammo is a WMD.
You could theoretically kill 7 million people by slitting their throats with a kitchen knife. Therefore 1 kitchen knife is a WMD...
You can theoreticaly kill 7 million people by pusing each one of them out the window of a sufficenbtly high buildings, thertfore stairs, elevators and windows are are all WMD..
Yea absurdity is fun!
High explosives are not WMD, not in the sense of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Anny suggestion otherwise is absurd...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Din't know existed? Everyone knew it existed. For years. The specific location and what it contained. And Bremmer was told about its theft back in May.
Information on this board at least, contradicts that. I also highly doubt that Bush personally knew of the existance and exact locations of each and every one of SH's arms/ammuntion caches.
If Bremmer was told about it in may, and "everyone" knew it existed, why is it suddenly in the news a a big issue?
Thats a very good question. Most likely has to do with the liberal media digging for dirt just before the elections.
-
Hitler killed how many million? Was he a WMD?
-
High explosives are not WMD, not in the sense of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Anny suggestion otherwise is absurd...
360 tons of HE detonated all at once in a major city would cause massive destruction and would most likely be called a WMD after the fact. Nothing absurd about that. Five pounds of HE here, another 5 pounds over there.....nothing massive about that, hundreds of tons all at once....very massive.
Killing people one at a time with a knife, pistol, pushing them out of a window would most certainly be called something other than WMD. WMD are called that because they can kill enormous numbers of people all at once, with just one weapon. In the case of nukes the property damage would be staggering also.
-
Originally posted by 2stony
I second, third and fourth this comment. If we had stayed the course in "just" Afghanistan, OBL probably would have been caught by now.
:aok
OBL is eithier dead or in Iran
Keep in mind he needs dialysis once a week
-
Originally posted by Flit
OBL is eithier dead or in Iran
Keep in mind he needs dialysis once a week
but.. but.. but..... Kerry said he "KNEW" that he was in Afghanistan. He said it in the debates.
Kerry knows best.
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
Yep, like Nuke said, if it's common knowledge, why is it suddenly such a big issue?.
Because unlike the Bush admin, we all just found out about its dissapearance NOW.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Because unlike the Bush admin, we all just found out about its dissapearance NOW.
I thought the UN announced it.
-
Huh?
The Iraqis told Bremmer about it back in May. They were told to shut up about it. Only two weeks ago did the Iraqis tell the IAEA, who told Condi who appearently didn't tell Bush. Bush, just today, found out about it?
This whole thing is a load of bunk....
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.
Now, what's been killing US soldiers since May? Since the insurgency really began to take hold?
Gee... I wonder....
-
Could it be... Satan?
-
Well, I admit that I don't know the ins and outs of the story....I was just reacting to what you stated.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, I admit that I don't know the ins and outs of the story....I was just reacting to what you stated.
Careful... someone might consider you a typical republican. ;)
-
I'm not really gonna invest myself in this thing... It all starts looking the same. And the excuses start to all look the same.
It aint worth it.
But, I'm not sure flippancy is the right answer either.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Careful... someone might consider you a typical republican. ;)
I'm not a typical anything.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, I admit that I don't know the ins and outs of the story....I was just reacting to what you stated.
That's why alla the excuses look the same.
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's why alla the excuses look the same.
I never make excuses.
-
Hmmm... Feeling okay, Mr. Nuke? you seem to have a different, more terse "tone" this evening.
Hope everything is well.
-
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.
-
Sandy, I'm always on an even keel my friend. What have I said that seemed terse?
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
lol, when has knowing about anything ever stopped you?
Well okay.... touche. :D
-
Nash
-
"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..?
-
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
-
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 :rolleyes: I don't know why the generals were denied more divisions in Iraq.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
how would you classify that kind of weapon?
A large bomb, certinly not a WMD.
WMD is a single weapon nuclear,chemcial,biological that can cause a massive amount damage/casualties.
I think the following of Bush so blindly by some people on this board seems to disconnect their own brian and ability to think for themselves.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I don't know why the generals were denied more divisions in Iraq.
I thought the Generals (or one in paticular was quoted as saying) that they needed about 250,000 troops. But Rummy and co thought they would be welcomed as hero's and liberators. LOL
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
A large bomb, certinly not a WMD.
WMD is a single weapon nuclear,chemcial,biological that can cause a massive amount damage/casualties.
I think the following of Bush so blindly by some people on this board seems to disconnect their own brian and ability to think for themselves.
...-Gixer
Im trying not to get too far into this one. its such a silly arguement and all that but.
Didnt they at one point consider the planes that hit the twin towers a form of WMD because of the massive amount of destruction they caused?
I think some folks may be getting their alphabet wrong and may be thinking of NBC's.
Doesnt have to be an NBC to be a weapon of mass destruction.
Just has to be a weapon that causes massive destruction.
Now I'd say 360 tons would cause a considerable amount of destruction. Certainly massive.
Now am I saying that because he had these explosives he had WMDs? No these are not the type of WMDs we were looking for.
Certainly not the ones that everyone including France, Germany, Russia, Saidi arabia and a host of other countries Intel said they had. Hell even the Iraqis thought they had them. Everyone agreed he had them. The question was to go in or not.
and the REAL question people should be asking is what happened to the ones everyone knew he already had
but thats a different arguement.
The point I am trying to make is 360 tons of explosive can certainly be made into a WMD. Depending on how its used.
Now is it likely to be used that way? no.
But it could be.
and it isnt always what it is that makes it a WMD. Its how its used
-
Good answer Drediok, Sometimes I have difficulty putting things into words ;) I think they did at one point consider the planes that hit the WTC as WMD for the very reason you stated.
and the REAL question people should be asking is what happened to the ones everyone knew he already had
I've brought that up several times on this board including in this thread. No one seems to want to acknowledge those. I guess because we havent found them yet that they never really existed. :rolleyes: Good chance they got buried in the sand the same way they buried those MiG's.
Certainly not the ones that everyone including France, Germany, Russia, Saidi arabia and a host of other countries Intel said they had. Hell even the Iraqis thought they had them. Everyone agreed he had them.
Funny how GWB is the only one responsible for faulty intel now. I guess its just easier to point the finger at the US for faulty intel even though it wasnt just the US intel that was faulty.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I thought the Generals (or one in paticular was quoted as saying) that they needed about 250,000 troops. But Rummy and co thought they would be welcomed as hero's and liberators. LOL
...-Gixer
I can recall one General officer saying they had wanted more troops. If you recall when we first liberated Baghdad we WERE welcomed as liberators. There were celebrations in the streets. The general populace appeared to be overjoyed that Sadaam had been ousted.
Always amazes me how quickly people forget.....
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I can recall one General officer saying they had wanted more troops. If you recall when we first liberated Baghdad we WERE welcomed as liberators. There were celebrations in the streets. The general populace appeared to be overjoyed that Sadaam had been ousted.
Always amazes me how quickly people forget.....
Celebrations in the street? Ever wondered why during the camera shots in the square of the soilders pulling down the statue of sadam there was only about 100 people or so in the camera and TV shots, out of a city of how many million?
General populace stayed well away and at home. Hardly the scene of a city/population being liberatated that Bush and co had hoped for. Though that's what they'd like you to believe.
(http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200304/r1900_4153.jpg)
...-Gixer
-
Good chance they got buried in the sand the same way they buried those MiG's.
I find it hard to believe that we found people who were willing to give up the location of some old mig's, but no one wants to tell us were the WMD are. After being offered large amounts of money and probably a new home almost anywhere they wanted, still no one is willing to speak up. I mean come on, someone would know something a soldier, a scientist or even some farmer or villager that saw them move or bury it. Someone by now would of taken the money and said where they were hidden.
-
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."
—George W. Bush
Is this a joke? :confused:
-
Is this a joke?
I think he said that in a speech but I could be wrong.
68Parker
-
Report: Explosives already gone when U.S. troops arrived (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html)
CNN:
Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. According to NBC, troops from the 101st Airborne arrived the next day to find that the material was already gone.
Is this what all this hullabaloo is about?
-
so kerrie blasting Bush onm the trail about "losing" the end of the world weapons is just him not knowing what really happened or... do you think he is lying about it?
lazs
-
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?
Pot, meet kettle.....
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Celebrations in the street? Ever wondered why during the camera shots in the square of the soilders pulling down the statue of sadam there was only about 100 people or so in the camera and TV shots, out of a city of how many million?
General populace stayed well away and at home. Hardly the scene of a city/population being liberatated that Bush and co had hoped for. Though that's what they'd like you to believe.
(http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200304/r1900_4153.jpg)
...-Gixer
I remember seeing lots of people on the perimeter when that statue of Saddam was pulled down, some of them came running up when the statue was pulled down, but there were many people watching (and cheering when it hit the ground). Even the picture you posted shows a significant number of people in the background, and thats not even a wide angle shot. I watched it happen live (iirc), I watched those people celebrate. That was just one small part of Baghdad. There were hundreds of people at that event at the very least.
A large bomb, certinly not a WMD.
WMD is a single weapon nuclear,chemcial,biological that can cause a massive amount damage/casualties.
I think the following of Bush so blindly by some people on this board seems to disconnect their own brian and ability to think for themselves.
I was using my own *brian*. :lol
-
another example of liberal spew before all the facts were in ...
problem is the Republicans have too much class to rub their noses in it...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
another example of liberal spew before all the facts were in ...
problem is the Republicans have too much class to rub their noses in it...
What example is that??
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I wonder how many city blocks 360 tons of HE would level? I guess you could classify that as a weapon of mass destruction.
But it means, that every country have WMD... cool i were so pissed of that we dont have any :rofl
anyway.... 360(or380) tons of sealed materials, including HE are missing..... and not 360 Tons of HE
(trying to imagine face of ppl, who are at war and they just hear, that their military suck at seccuring hundrets tons of HE and they fall to the hand of enmy.... IMAO and they love their army leader more and more :cool: )
However fact that some ppl call it WMD convice me, that they will still belive in those WMD untill end of their days... Coz they used to hear it on television from some realy good acter
:aok
-
Originally posted by lada
But it means, that every country have WMD... cool i were so pissed of that we dont have any :rofl
anyway.... 360(or380) tons of sealed materials, including HE are missing..... and not 360 Tons of HE
(trying to imagine face of ppl, who are at war and they just hear, that their military suck at seccuring hundrets tons of HE and they fall to the hand of enmy.... IMAO and they love their army leader more and more :cool: )
However fact that some ppl call it WMD convice me, that they will still belive in those WMD untill end of their days... Coz they used to hear it on television from some realy good acter
:aok
That's rich. You say it ISN'T a big deal in the same comment that you say it IS a big deal.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Report: Explosives already gone when U.S. troops arrived (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html)
Is this what all this hullabaloo is about?
Don't worry Toad. Kerry and his staff are busily manufacturing documents to prove all this and will fedex them to CBS asap.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
Report: Explosives already gone when U.S. troops arrived (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html)
Is this what all this hullabaloo is about?
I don't think you get it Toad. If Kerry had been president he would have invaded with enough troops to cover every square inch of Iraq, and without necessitating a draft. But that would be before he didn't invade Iraq at the wrong time for the wrong reason. Or would it be after? At least with Kerry we'll get lots of options, or perhaps none. It's so confusing. ;)
-
I guess I'd have used the "instantaneous secure" strategic option myself.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I guess I'd have used the "instantaneous secure" strategic option myself.
Well, if Kerry is gonna make the lame walk again how far behind can star trek teleporters be? If he promises flying cars I'm gonna see if I can change my vote.
-
Originally posted by parker00
Seemed that after 9/11 this country and world did stand together and we were presenting ourselves as strong as ever, BUT somehow Bush has destroyed that.
68Parker
It wasn't Bush who detroyed it, it was the Dumbocrats who, seeing their favorite issues co-opted by the Republicans, decided to fall back on their old stand-by: devicivness, class envy, lies and general deceit.
-
Did anyone point this out to the armchair generals of this board? If so, my apologizes for the repeat:
(CNN) -- The mystery surrounding the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives from a storage depot in Iraq has taken a new twist, after a television news crew embedded with the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq reported that the material could not be found when American troops arrived.
NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.
While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC.
The International Atomic Energy Agency revealed Monday that it had been told two weeks ago by the Iraqi government that 380 tons of HMX and RDX disappeared from Al Qaqaa after Saddam Hussein's government fell.
In a letter to the IAEA dated October 10, Iraq's director of planning, Mohammed Abbas, said the material disappeared sometime after Saddam's regime fell in April 2003, which he attributed to "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."
Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. According to NBC, troops from the 101st Airborne arrived the next day and could not the material.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html)
dago
-
I just read on the Drudge report that CBS was gonna break the story on the 31rst ( I think) on 60 minutes, and once agian try to influence the election by useing Lies and Innuendos.
The NYT just beat them to it
Will they never learn?
-
So kerrie is going around telling everyone that Bush handed all this stuff to the terrorists through personal incompetence when it's all just a big fabricated lie that not even CNN is willing to perpetuate?
maybe it really is true that kerrie is dumber than Bush.
lazs
-
It wasn't Bush who detroyed it, it was the Dumbocrats who, seeing their favorite issues co-opted by the Republicans, decided to fall back on their old stand-by: devicivness, class envy, lies and general deceit.
I would of thought it was Bush's my way or the highway attitude he took towards everyone that caused the division. Just a guess though. And why is it that anytime someone doesn't agree with bush they are automaticlly called liberal or democrat. I know some of you have a hard time believing that not all republicans like bush, but I for one am one of them. This is even the first time I've ever voted for a democrat for president and just can't see how anyone votes on party lines along. I know some just bash Bush on everything under the sun, but at the same time all the pro-bush people think he is like a god that dosn't make any mistakes.
68Parker
-
"I know some just bash Bush on everything under the sun, but at the same time all the pro-bush people think he is like a god that dosn't make any mistakes."
Including Bush himself. Amusing watching the 2nd debate where Bush was pretty loud and vocal on all the issues, but when he was asked if he'd made any mistakes. Out came this quiet voice and he mumbled something about how he could of made better choices with some of the appointments he'd made.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
MZ...have you got proof of that? Or are you just repeating election year inuendo?
Don't you know me better than that?
NEW YORK TIMES
October 9, 2004
THE SANCTIONS
Report Cites U.S. Profits in Sale of Iraqi Oil Under Hussein
By JUDITH MILLER and ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 - Major American oil companies and a Texas oil investor were among those who received lucrative vouchers that enabled them to buy Iraqi oil under the United Nations oil-for-food program, according to a report prepared by the chief arms inspector for the Central Intelligence Agency.
The 918-page report says that four American oil companies - Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil - and three individuals including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr. of Houston were given vouchers and got 111 million barrels of oil between them from 1996 to 2003. The vouchers allowed them to profit by selling the oil or the right to trade it.
The other individuals, whose names appeared on a secret list maintained by the former Iraqi government, were Samir Vincent of Annandale, Va., and Shakir al-Khafaji of West Bloomfield, Mich., according to the report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer.
The fact that these companies and individuals received oil from Iraq does not mean they did anything illegal, experts on the program said. Such allocations may have been proper if the individuals and companies received appropriate United Nations approval.
In interviews on Friday, spokesmen for the oil companies and for the El Paso Corporation, which assumed control of the assets of a company, Coastal Corporation, once run by Mr. Wyatt, said the transactions had been legal. But each confirmed that they had received subpoenas from a federal grand jury in New York, which is investigating "transactions in oil of Iraqi origin" as part of the oil-for-food program, according to a federal financial filing by El Paso.
The largest of the allocations went to Mr. Wyatt, who the list said had received allocations totaling 74 million barrels. At the profit rates of 15 cents to 85 cents per barrel that were reported in the arms inspector's study, he could have earned $23 million. The names of the American companies and citizens who benefited from the vouchers were not included in the published report prepared by the Iraq Survey Group that was released Wednesday by the C.I.A., since the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws. But the names were contained in unredacted copies given to the White House and to several Congressional committees. A copy of the unedited list was shown to The New York Times.
Tony Fratto, a Treasury Department spokesman, said United States sanctions on Iraq had prohibited American companies and individuals from interacting directly with Iraqi officials. But the oil dealers were permitted to get special authorization from the federal government to bid on United Nations contracts under the oil-for-food program. He said the agency was "actively investigating" whether the American entities and people circumvented that requirement.
Reid Morden, the staff director of the Independent Inquiry Committee, the United Nations-appointed panel headed by the former United States Federal Reserve chairman, Paul A. Volcker, said his committee too was "reviewing" the new report "to see if it helps us with our investigation."
The oil-for-food program, which was started in 1996, was intended to allow Iraq, in a closely monitored way, to sell enough oil so that the country would have the resources to buy food, medicine and to maintain certain critical public facilities.
The program was abused when Saddam Hussein intervened, personally selecting individuals and companies to receive oil allocations. The allocations, also called vouchers, could be sold so that the recipient approved by Mr. Hussein did not have to trade the oil but could simply profit from the transaction.
Ultimately, Mr. Hussein began to demand kickbacks in return for these oil allocations, a requirement that some oil dealers were willing to honor given the large profit margins associated with oil trade.
The proceeds may have been used by Mr. Hussein to pay for purchases of arms in violation of sanctions, the report says.
Among American companies and citizens, Mr. Wyatt, who did not respond to messages left on Friday at his Houston office, was by far the largest recipient of oil allocations, as recorded on the secret list maintained by the Iraqi government, the report says.
For decades, Mr. Wyatt has been a hard-driving - and controversial - oil merchant who did business with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and helped rescue hostages in Kuwait. In 2000, his Coastal Corporation merged with the El Paso Corporation. Mr. Wyatt is still a large shareholder in El Paso, but he is not an executive with the company, which last month received the subpoena related to the Iraqi oil deals.
Mr. Khafaji and Mr. Vincent, who both received much smaller allocations in the secret Iraqi list than Mr. Wyatt, could not be reached for comment. Mr. Vincent is an Iraqi-born businessman who headed Phoenix International.
Mr. Khafaji financed a controversial film about Iraq by Scott Ritter, the former United Nations arms inspector who opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq.
Rep. Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who heads the subcommittee on government reform, which has been investigating the oil-for-food program, said his panel would "follow the list wherever it takes us."
"We want a full explanation of the involvement of all American oil companies and individuals who were involved in a thoroughly corrupt program," he said.
Representative Henry J. Hyde, Republican of Illinois, chairman of the International Relations Committee that is also investigating the seven-year oil-for-food program, said in a statement that the Iraq Survey Group's report showed the "full breadth of Saddam Hussein's corruption and manipulation of the U.N. Oil for Food program."
-
Originally posted by parker00
I think he said that in a speech but I could be wrong.
If he took a word from French and said they had no word for it then he's an idiot.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
What example is that??
=======
skerry:
The Massachusetts senator accused Bush of trying to hide until after next week's election news that 380 tons of powerful explosives were taken from an Iraqi military installation following the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
"He has stood in front of the American people day after day, telling us how much progress we are making in Iraq (news - web sites) and how much safer we are under his leadership," Kerry said. "And what did the president have to say about the missing explosives? Not a word."
"Mr. President, what else are you being silent about? What else are you keeping from the American people?" he asked.
===================
the truth:
(CNN) -- The mystery surrounding the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives from a storage depot in Iraq has taken a new twist, after a television news crew embedded with the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq reported that the material could not be found when American troops arrived.
NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.
While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC.
The International Atomic Energy Agency revealed Monday that it had been told two weeks ago by the Iraqi government that 380 tons of HMX and RDX disappeared from Al Qaqaa after Saddam Hussein's government fell.
In a letter to the IAEA dated October 10, Iraq's director of planning, Mohammed Abbas, said the material disappeared sometime after Saddam's regime fell in April 2003, which he attributed to "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."
Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. According to NBC, troops from the 101st Airborne arrived the next day and could not the material.
===================
Like I said, the Reps need to get better at rubbing the handsomehunkcrat noses in it every time one of their "shoot from the hip" spews backfire...
-
RPM you and keryy have been pawned
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."
—George W. Bush
Is this a joke? :confused:
Well... it might be a joke.
...but it's not true. (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.htm)
-
By this time, I now feel anyone quoting the NYT as a news source ranks right up there with my Grandmother telling me about aliens living among us because she read it in the Enquirer. For Gods sakes man, choose a professional news source, not an extremly biased rag that has been proven to publish blatant lies.
dago
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Don't you know me better than that?
NEW YORK TIMES
October 9, 2004
THE SANCTIONS
Report Cites U.S. Profits in Sale of Iraqi Oil Under Hussein
By JUDITH MILLER and ERIC LIPTON
Okay, Newsmax is less bias than NYT. Find a better source.
-
I thought it might be that since it's pretty obvious the word is French when English people pronunce it. It doesn't sound english.
Things like that makes me wish people had better things to do with their time then invent dumb quotes to make someone they don't like look dumb. I guess it's just the American way. :p
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Okay, Newsmax is less bias than NYT. Find a better source.
Maybe in your little world it is, but here in reality the NY Times is recognized as America's greatest newspaper. NewsMax is about as unbiased as Mother Jones.
Anwyay,
LOS ANGELES TIMES
October 7, 2004
Snip-
U.S. companies and individuals made at least $30 million in profit by participating in the illegal oil voucher scheme, according to figures in Duelfer's report. The names of two, and perhaps three, U.S. citizens and an unspecified number of U.S. companies appeared on 13 "secret lists" maintained by the Iraqi Oil Ministry to keep track of payouts.
Duelfer said that U.S. law prevented him from listing the names of the companies and individuals in the report, though he said the names had been turned over to appropriate authorities. He said he had argued strongly for releasing the names, but government lawyers had stopped him.
"I am not a lawyer, and so if someone tells me I'm going to go to jail for something … I listen carefully," he said.
The exclusion of the U.S. companies drew outrage from Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.
"Isn't it interesting that we print the names of petty criminals in the police blotter sections in weekly newspapers across the country, but somehow the names of these companies don't get in?" Nelson asked during the hearing.
At least four U.S. companies have received subpoenas in connection with an investigation of the U.N. program by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., El Paso Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. have not been named as targets of the investigation.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I remember seeing lots of people on the perimeter when that statue of Saddam was pulled down, some of them came running up when the statue was pulled down, but there were many people watching (and cheering when it hit the ground). Even the picture you posted shows a significant number of people in the background, and thats not even a wide angle shot. I watched it happen live (iirc), I watched those people celebrate. That was just one small part of Baghdad. There were hundreds of people at that event at the very least....
Funny, I just saw a show on TV about this event. One some wide angle shots, you can see that there are at the utmost 100 people massed in one place of the perimeter. In the close-ups, you can see that this crowd is 50% journalists, 50% arabs (not necessarily native). According to the commentary, those peoples were mostly the drivers and translators working with the journalist.
You can indeed ask yourself why the US Army is taking down the statue, and not the Iraqi population (like it happened during the Fall of Berlin's Wall).
The event was staged, and there was no sincere cheering.
-
You can indeed ask yourself why the US Army is taking down the statue, and not the Iraqi population (like it happened during the Fall of Berlin's Wall).
I watched this live and what I saw was Iraqi's were trying to get it down, but after they realized it wasn't moving very much the US moved in with a tank and pulled it down. I will say that I didn't see all that many people compared to what lives in Bagdad but it was Iraqi's who first attempted to pull the statue down.
68Parker
-
Originally posted by deSelys
You can indeed ask yourself why the US Army is taking down the statue, and not the Iraqi population (like it happened during the Fall of Berlin's Wall).
The event was staged, and there was no sincere cheering.
One can indeed ask why you post such drivel, since the entire thing was shown live on TV as it happened.
Saddam statue toppled in central Baghdad (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue/)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqis danced and waved the country's pre-1991 flag in central Baghdad's Firdos Square after a U.S. Marine armored recovery vehicle helped topple the square's huge statue of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
The statue -- the height of about four men -- was one of the symbols of Saddam's rule over Iraq and came down about 6:50 p.m. Wednesday (10:50 a.m. ET).
Iraqis had begun tearing down portraits of Saddam and throwing shoes -- a grave insult in the Arab world -- and chipping away at the base of the statue with sledgehammers after a column of Marines advanced into the square Wednesday afternoon.
A small group of men climbed the statue's pedestal and attached a rope around its neck. Shortly afterward, Marines backed an armored recovery vehicle up to the monument and attached a chain to the statue, which was erected last April to mark Saddam's 65th birthday.
-
Yup, I forgot that everything you see on TV is pure reality. My bad. I'll look up the pics where you see the area around the statue deserted with the exception of one particular zone.
BTW your cut n'paste seems to confirm my 'drivel':
"Marines backed an armored recovery vehicle up to the monument and attached a chain to the statue"
and
"A small group of men"
You forgot about the US flag put around the neck of the statue by US troops than... oops... a new iraqi flag. Such a believable and understandable mistake!
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Yup, I forgot that everything you see on TV is pure reality. My bad. I'll look up the pics where you see the area around the statue deserted with the exception of one particular zone.
BTW your cut n'paste seems to confirm my 'drivel':
"Marines backed an armored recovery vehicle up to the monument and attached a chain to the statue"
and
"A small group of men"
You forgot about the US flag put around the neck of the statue by US troops than... oops... a new iraqi flag. Such a believable and understandable mistake!
Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy finding trivial matters to argue about?
-
After 2 mins of google search:
(http://shock-awe.info/graphics/statuekilling0.jpg)
edit: not clear enough to be convincing I'll admit.
-
I happened to be watching CNN at that time.
They were showing the square on TV long before the Marines arrived. There were lots of Iraqis around doing the "beat Saddam with a shoe" thing, climbing on the stature, smiling, etc.
This went on for quite some time before the Marines got to the square. It was even longer before the Marines offered to help. Longer yet until the vehicle with the winch showed up.
Maybe you can get CNN to make you a copy of their feed for the hour before the statue actually fell. Then you'd at least know how incorrect your statements are and how they make you look in this thread.
-
What Toad said :D I believe it was CNN that I was watching as well, other networks may have shown it also.
-
Before you care about how I look, you should care about your exact recalling of the event:
From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.int.war.main/index.html)
Despite uncertainty about Saddam's fate, cheering and chanting Iraqis danced in Baghdad's Firdos Square on a toppled statue of Saddam, dragged off its massive stone base by U.S. Marines in a tank.
Though there was a muted reaction from the crowd when a Marine draped a U.S. flag over the statue's head -- after one minute it was replaced by an Iraqi flag pre-dating the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
After the statue was pulled down the Iraqis broke it into pieces and dragged its head around through the streets while others -- including children -- pounded it with shoes, an act considered a supreme insult in the Arab world.
The toppling happened first (after the flag scene). Then the 'crowd' showed its joy.
-
From my undestanding they had sealed off the area and imported a few dozen Arabs for the chorus line to follow.
Alone the same lines as the saving of Private Lynch hoax, storming a hospital while shooting blanks and rolling tape.
(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/2PHOTO.gif)
-
Finally an interesting article from the BBC: here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3611869.stm)
It feeds both theories actually: sincere joy but from a very small group of Iraqis, the event seemed to have been used directly on the field (and maybe not carefully planned) by the army. Not a true staging, but definitely filmed in a way that made it seem much bigger than it was.
-
Originally posted by Toad
One can indeed ask why you post such drivel, since the entire thing was shown live on TV as it happened.
Saddam statue toppled in central Baghdad (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue/)
Toad,
If there was such joy by the Iraqi people in this then how come in those TV images you only see a few people, maybe a 100 or so at most?
It was just propergander.
...-Gixer
-
amazing the lengths some will imagine to discredit & hate the US and her allies and any success they may achieve
-
you should care about your exact recalling of the event
Apparently you did not see the footage on TV that day. I won't say anything about the size of the crowd, but it was Iraqi's who first tried to pull down the statue, then after they couldn't a US tank moved over and helped pull it down.
68Parker
-
Originally posted by Eagler
amazing the lengths some will imagine to discredit & hate the US and her allies and any success they may achieve
Oops sorry I forgot:
USA ackbar! USA ackbar! USA ackbar!....
Seriously, there is no 'hate' in my post. Grow a tougher skin. But the only success your country achieved during that event was a stronger support for the war at home after the broadcasting (+12%). For the Iraqis....well they weren't there.
Parker I haven't indeed seen the live coverage. I'm just pasting data from different sources. The BBC article states that a half dozen of young men were trying to pull down the statue when the Marines arrived. Would you qualify them as a 'crowd'?
-
Parker I haven't indeed seen the live coverage. I'm just pasting data from different sources. The BBC article states that a half dozen of young men were trying to pull down the statue when the Marines arrived. Would you qualify them as a 'crowd'?
Like I said, I won't say anything about the size of the crowd because it was small compared to what we thought it would be. I'm just saying, it was not the marines who first tried to pull down the statue, it was the Iraqi's.
68Parker
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Funny, I just saw a show on TV about this event. One some wide angle shots, you can see that there are at the utmost 100 people massed in one place of the perimeter. In the close-ups, you can see that this crowd is 50% journalists, 50% arabs (not necessarily native). According to the commentary, those peoples were mostly the drivers and translators working with the journalist.
You can indeed ask yourself why the US Army is taking down the statue, and not the Iraqi population (like it happened during the Fall of Berlin's Wall).
The event was staged, and there was no sincere cheering.
Lets not try and rewrite history shall we
I watched it live flipping back and forth between several different new stations as it happened and saw the crowd start off fairly small (less then 100) and gradually grow to what was at least 1,000 at its height.
There was a hell of alot more then 100 people there.
I saw the satue come down. Started off witha couple of guys taking turns banging away at it with a sledge hammer and then a few people trying to bring it down with a rope (which turned out to be too short).
At that point they went and requested the help of the americans
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Before you care about how I look, you should care about your exact recalling of the event:
" Despite uncertainty about Saddam's fate, cheering and chanting Iraqis danced in Baghdad's Firdos Square on a toppled statue of Saddam, dragged off its massive stone base by U.S. Marines in a tank.
Though there was a muted reaction from the crowd when a Marine draped a U.S. flag over the statue's head -- after one minute it was replaced by an Iraqi flag pre-dating the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
After the statue was pulled down the Iraqis broke it into pieces and dragged its head around through the streets while others -- including children -- pounded it with shoes, an act considered a supreme insult in the Arab world."
The toppling happened first (after the flag scene). Then the 'crowd' showed its joy.
CNN got part of it wrong also. Might be a minor detail and I forget the exact name for it Im sure someone here will know but it wasnt a tank. It was one of those vehicles used to tow damaged tanks. Like a giant towtruck.
I can understand CNN calling it a tank.
A Tank sounds more dramatic
-
I love the guys that didn't see it live telling the guys that did see it live how it was.
Was there 10's of thousands in the crowd? No.
But there was a crowd and it was more than 150.
As for crowd size, you might remember actual combat was still going on in and around Baghdad and lots of folks might have figured it'd be best to stay down for a while yet.
But you're welcome to form your own opinion from articles someone else wrote later. I'll just stick with what I saw.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Lets not try and rewrite history shall we
I watched it live flipping back and forth between several different new stations as it happened and saw the crowd start off fairly small (less then 100) and gradually grow to what was at least 1,000 at its height.
There was a hell of alot more then 100 people there.
You saw wrong guy. I saw it live on TV as well. Although it did look to be a larger crowd than it actually was, the numbers never approached 1000.. 100 people would be a much better guesstimate. Besides, there are many many pictures from that day. Find a real one that shows 1000s...
-
Amazes me the propergander that some of you are willing to believe.
It was a staged media event! There was no more then about 150 people there in the square. Though it was promoted as a massive uprising. Some state that those Iraqis that were there, were from a pro american milita anyway.
Find any image on the net or from the TV footage at the time and at most you can only find a few people in the shots. And often the same person or group of people repeated.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/davest/Sadam.jpg)
...-Gixer
-
Damn right it was staged, and damn well done too. What's wrong with that?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Damn right it was staged, and damn well done too. What's wrong with that?
Everything, as the media and Bush admin portrayed it as a public uprising helped by the military to bring down the statue. Thing is if the army didn't get involved then or anytime at a later date that statue would still be standing.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
... Thing is if the army didn't get involved then or anytime at a later date that statue would still be standing.
You're absolutely correct, and Saddam would still be in power too.
I had some faith in this guy though.
(http://trojanhorseshoes.blogfodder.net/archives/statue1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Everything, as the media and Bush admin portrayed it as a public uprising helped by the military to bring down the statue. Thing is if the army didn't get involved then or anytime at a later date that statue would still be standing.
...-Gixer
I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. By staged I mean it was planned, and carefully as all good military operations are. I think you mean it was faked which of course it was not.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. By staged I mean it was planned, and carefully as all good military operations are. I think you mean it was faked which of course it was not.
It wasn't Suppose to be a Military operation, it was portrayed as the Iraqi people taking down the statue of Sadam. Hence a staged photo opportunity. Papers all over the world carried the headline of the celebrating crowd and the falling statue of Saddam which is untrue and nothing more then a cheap propergander shot.
...-Gixer
-
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm)
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.