Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment So now what do we do?

So now the opinion is there were no WMD in Iraq. Bush has countered to Mr. & Mrs. America that their son's death was still justified cuz Saddam was a "Bad Guy" anyways.

Should we accept this "bait and switch" from "W" ?

Should there be an Independant Council?

Can "W" kiss the White House Bye Bye no matter what? Seems to me an IC is a catch 22 situation at best.

Opinions?


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...atimes/iraqweaponsdataflawedcongresstold

RAM,

The Independent Counsel law expired at least a year ago...

John

Saddam tried to run a bluff, and had his ass handed to him.

Personally, I would suggest sending George a "thank you" card, and just move on. I hope they will decide against yet another costly investigation. We already know that our intelligence capabilities need to be beefed up.

What David Kay Really Said:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040130.shtml

.

Saddam, got what he was due from 1990, I just wished we could of continued on to Bagdad then, my unit was ready, and so was the rest of the Military. It just took until 2003 to do it, which was too long. He was involved up to his neck in anti-american operations. This just like his buddy Osama, who we've have yet to catch, but we will. Osama was the money man for Col. Adid, behind the reason for Somalia, of which I had the opportunity to participate in also. The soldiers in the Military know what they are getting into when they join. They know that they maybe called to go places and do things that they don't want to, but that's their mission. They may even have to give their life to do this. I think if you would of been there, done that, regarding the military you would have a better understanding of the process. Oh, by the way what does this have to do with the Second Amendment.

John;

Expired or not, its being bantered around the media quite a bit. I know that a Council's term can expire, but I was unaware that the theory of an IC was abolished. Could you provide insight?

At any rate, If in fact it has expired, I don't think it would take much to re-instate it, particularlly if it was by executive order.

Hunter;

I reviewed the all posts, and I don't think anyone even inferred that Saddam didn't get what he deserved. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Your counter point, though probably accurate, is irrelevant.

Apparently, in your attemp to proffer your military resume' you missed the point of the topic. [BTW, since you seem to be looking for it; thank you. Most Vets don't ask for it] Understanding Military process is a topic I do not require tutelage on. I understand it well enough. There are several others with Military understanding that have asked the same question as I, so, I must assume for all of us that you garnered some special insight or training that allows you "understand" at a deeper level than we? Can you break it down for me?

Currently on several media outlets a substantiated story, even one that Bush's own administration is making admissions on, has brought to the fore front the question as to whether or not what has transpired was just "poor intel" or an outright fraud.

What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

With an upcoming election you really have to ask that question <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

What branch did you serve in to give you your tutelage? Your statement was how Pres. Bush was going to explain to the parents, how their sons were killed, when the excuse to go to war was WMD. The Pres. doesn't have to explain to the parents.

I've personally met during the funeral services, many of the parents of former soldiers that I served with at (FTCKY) Ft. Campbell, KY. who had been killed in both Afganistan and Iraq. These parents hold no ill will against the POTUS or anyone else.

Their family members would of served no matter what. My response to you is, if you would of served, you would of had a real or I should say personal understanding of the military process of dedication to country and mission above all else. I am very glad that you never did serve this countrys military. Because all you do is whine and complain, it saved the time of an NCO or Officer to either put a boot up your ass, to either make you soldier or ship you home to momma.

Gosh RAM, I guess we're just as dumb as the rest of the world and got taken in just like them as far as WMD and Iraq go. Just weeks before the military action began the mighty UN passed a resolution about them. Golly, do you think all those other countries would have voted for it if they didn't think Saddam had WMD. I guess its just another example of the dumbing down of America, huh? It appears that the only smart ones are the Brits. It seems that after their investigation Tony Blair didn't lie about WMD after all. Lets see now, Tony Blair said they were there and didn't lie and George W. Bush said they were there and he did lie. I'm confused.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />



The IC is established by Federal law (Act of Congress for those of you from outside the USofA) and always has a Sunset provision as part of the law. It has to be revisited each time it sunsets or it expires. The last time it sunset, the sun set and it expired. To appoint an IC at this time would require a new bill to be presented, approved, signed and enacted into law. When you think IC, think Assualt Weapons Ban and hope the same thing happens. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Oh, I see your still getting you news from someone with an axe to grind. The LA Times has been known for years as having a slant that is almost, if not even further, as far to the left as the New York Times. But relax, this is America and you can read anything you want. If you read enough, sometimes you'll even get to read the truth; but I wouldn't count on it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

RAM,

This article's a pretty good short summary including links:

Timothy Noah Slate article on IC statute

Of course, the President can request executive branch employees to conduct an investigation, as the CIA has already done. And the Congress can have a committee investigation, as they've already done.

The bigger issue to my mind, is that critics are demanding an impossible standard of perfection on the part of intelligence organizations. The intel on this issue was consistent for the last decade and on some points the Brits still stand by it.

John

Don't argue with him, it only encourages him. Maybe if you stick around here long enough you'll meet up with Barak. Sometimes his points of view and arguements make RAM's look like chump change (no offense intended RAM). And for Christ's sake don't tell him what you're going to do to him over the internet or talk about his momma. Besides being bad manners its a reflection of your ability, or lack there of, to make a convincing arguement.

Skidrow, ROGER THAT! I know it's wrong, to mess with RAM. But it's so enjoyable at times, sorta like shooting stray cats. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

RAM...what's this Bait&Switch talk?
Even though the WMDs as a reason for war are a popular argument, it is not entirely true.
Do you really believe that WMDs were the primary, number one reason, or only reason, to go to war?
If so, you'd best review what the Prez said, prior to war.

Hunter;

Your chasing your tail so much trying to decern if, where, or when my military service was that your becoming obsessed. Take some lithium man.

Skid;

Where did I ever accuse ANYONE of being dumb? I really think your reaching trying to get a rise out of the L.A. times crank. That was just the first link I cut-n-pasted. If you prefer another source on the topic feel free to take a link from anywhee you wish.

Both of you;

I put a post up asking questions. 4 of them. I accused, argued or attacked no one. I was looking for opinions. Not making an arguement, not preaching a position. Simply taking sound bites from media headlines and talk radio and asking them here to see what the general concensus of opinions from a broad cross section of the country might be. If you two would stop trying to start a flame fest, grow up and add something productive to the conversation, I'ld entertain your thoughts. Otherwise, why do either of you even bother to read or "respond"?

John;

Thanx for the link, it was interesting opinion. From the latest I've heard reported [15:00 02/02/04] An IC is out and it looks as though "W" is establishing his own"blue label" commission. Reports say it will be bi-partisan , for credibility, but going this way avoids a Congressional commision and allows "W" to maintain control of the commissions members.

Right now at least it seems to me that this is a catch22 at best. If the Media or the DNC succeed in spinning this effectively, I fear we may be looking at President Kerry in the future.

You probably never did spend a day of military sevice to this country. You sound like a college boy who spent your time in Canada hiding out from the draft, still complaining about war.

Oh, don't worry Hillsborough County is not that big or the surrounding counties. A call to the local SO, give them what I've been able to retreive from your attitude towards things and etc. and I'll be able to retreive all the personal info. I need. Isn't the govt. great. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"The poll showed Bush's job approval rating at 49 percent among all the adults surveyed, the first time since he became president that his job approval has dipped below 50 percent. A month ago his rating was at 60 percent, as he enjoyed a spike in approval after the capture of Saddam Hussein. "

latest CNN poll

You don't accuse people of being Dumb RAM, you just seem to assume that they're stupid. Maybe its just your writing style and you're being misunderstood. You come off pretty abrasive sometimes so sometimes that's the type of response you draw.

I wasn't trying to get a rise about the LA Times. What I stated is true. When you're trying to make a creditable argument at least use references that are also creditable. Try the Wall Street Journal.

You seemed to take the article at face value. You also seemed to agree about the bait and switch accusation. I think its crap. I think a lot of people have selective memorys. Everyone seemed to belive there were WMD there before we went in. The UN even passed several resolutions about them. Is it an issue now because some of the people who supported and/or voted for military intervention are doing a little second guessing now and looking for a scapegoat? How about you, or anyone else for that matter, explaining to me, why, when the rest of the world, to include France, Russia and Germany, believed that Saddam had WMD, was Bush lying when he said what the rest of the world believed at the time. While you're at it, explain to me how Tony Blair could be telling the truth and Bush could be lying when they both said the same thing. I don't particularly care for Bush myself but I care even less for people who want to make something out of nothing. In the past I gave you credit for being able to think for yourself and not just follow along lapping up the latest "hot story" but now I'm beginning to wonder. If you really want to hammer Bush do it for something he actually did like his lousy overblown Medicare spending for prescription drugs or wanting to increase spending on the "Arts" or spending our money trying to be everybody's everything. That's my opinion.

Didn't start a flame fest. Even used the little smilely faces for you. If you'd bothered to read the post you'd have found an opinion on that article and would have found the answer to your question about the IC. Sometimes heads of state just get bad information from their intel agencies. It happens. Remember a little place called Pearl Harbor? That's my also my opinion.

Why haven't you mentioned the gun control bills that the Dems are trying to slip through Congress under the guise of anti-terrorist legislation? Is it because you'd rather bash Bush than actually post something germane to the 2nd Amendment? I would have thought that a little thing like someone actually trying to get a gun control bill passed might have caught your eye. Excuse me if it looks like you'd rather push an anti Bush adgenda than a pro 2nd Amendment one. That's another of my opinions.

Oh, and if you fear it looks like we may be looking at President Kerry in the future why does seem like your trying so hard to put him there? That's a serious question.

Oh two, Don't lump me in with hunter. Don't believe I've ever threatened you. Responded angrily or sarcasticly yes, but I don't believe I've ever threatened you. Hunter is a dip--it who can't seem to help himself when it comes to making ridiculous threats and asinine statements. He sounds like the kind of person who never had an original thought in his life. Yeah, that's right hunter, I'm talking about you. I think RAM is right. You never should have stopped taking your medication.

Skidrow, you don't know a damn thing about me! So don't run your mouth telling me how it is. Don't make your comments about this or that refering to me. I think your all a bunch of whining, crying radicals, who think someone is always out to screw you, or that someone might hurt my feelings. Why don't you all load your guns and march up Penn. Ave. and take over this country. It would be worth it to watch the Secret Service shoot your asses dead in the street.

Wow, what an example of Orwellian Newspeak! Those of us who are opposed to socialism are now the "radicals" in America. What does that make socialist apologits like you? Conservatives? I guess I need to update my dictionary.

Y'all are funny....

Quit the name calling and get back on topic, will ya?

Look, not finding WMDs really is hurting Bush's credibility, especially with all the spin being put on it. I think it may very well cost him the election. I think it was worth it.
But don't forget: The war was not about WMDs, it was about failure to work with the UN on WMDs.

That's the whole point. Those who are criticizing with the loudest voices are those who have conviently forgotten that right up the the deployment of troops the UN was in agreement about the WMD and main disagreement was about how to enforce the resolutions, not whether or not Saddam had WMD. Now, given that no WMD have been found to date it seems that only Bush was wrong and is lying and the whole rest of the world knew there were no WMD there the whole time. Its the same as when the media and the Democrats were trying to make a big issue when the Bush administration "admitted" that Saddam had no direct ties to AQ and had nothing directly to do with the 9/11 bombings. Anyone who took the time to look at what was actually said would have found that those accusations were never made by Bush or his administration. Alluded to perhaps, but never actually made.

Of course it will hurt Bush if it continues to get traction but its not the only issue that will hurt him. Lately he seems to be doing his damnest to shoot himself in the foot. Republicans have never been as adroit at politics as the Democrats and Bush's stumbling is just the latest example. The Republican's biggest problem in overcoming the Democrats in politics has always been that its easier to gain a following with an emotional campaign than with a cerebral one. The voting electorate, for the most part, doesn't want to think a problem though, they want to do what feels right at the moment and if it turns out later that they were wrong for the most part they just shrug and say, "well, we did our best."

Those of you that think GW was not lying will not be convinced otherwise. Admittedly, I will not be convinced that acted completely honestly in this whole mess. Just a few points to consider:

1. It isn't that we believed or that the whole world believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, it was that we "knew" he had those weapons. In the days leading up to the invasion, the president and more importantly, members of his administration, stated that we had concrete evidence, that we "knew" the locations of some of these weapons or weapons facilities.

2. As it has become apparent, either we lied about knowing where some of these facilities were, or we were wrong. Two choices: Either we lied, or we were incompetent.

3. It is possible that while we did not know exact locations or types, we were so certain that the WMDs were there and that they would be found, that we invaded with the sure and certain belief that the would soon be found. So it is possible that we engaged in the worst kind of irresponsibility by going to war to eliminate WMDs (so dangerous to mankind) but had no real idea where they were, exactly what they were, or if they would be used. Knowing, however, that an invasion would be sure to either see them used or dispersed to more unreachable areas of the globe into even more unfriendly hands. This course of action would be criminaly stupid and dangerous. Therefore, it doesn't take too much thought to realize that somebody wasn't too worried about WMDs from the start.

I knew from about day 3 or 4 in the invasion when it was announced that the troops were coming down to MOPP Level 1 in many cases that there was little threat of any WMDs. You don't do that unless you're pretty certain.

I am convinced that the case for WMDs was purposly overstated. Was it the only reason for going to war? No. But it was the reason used to sell the American public on the urgency of the war.

As to the Saddams failure to cooperate. Everytime he said he didn't have weapons, we said you're a liar. Everytime, inspectors went to a plant and found nothing, we said "see how well they hid things". Everytime he offered to have someone else come and look, we said, "Saddam is just trying to delay the inevitable". Not to mention the incongruity of going to war to protect the integrity of the U.N. but not being supported by the U.N. in our war efforts. It is analogous to your neighbor shooting a trespasser on your land with you standing there yelling at him not to shoot the guy.

Say what you will about whether we needed to go to war. I find it distasteful and contrary to a free republic that a calm, reasoned, and persuasive argument could not be made without resorting to the sham of WMDs. Lies should never be condoned, even if they help accomplish a "good" goal.

Before, some of you question my manhood or say that I am downing the military, let it be known that I served my time in the Army as an artillery officer, and know a thing or two about military affairs. I support our troops, (I have many friends over there) but I don't think we honestly got into this war.

Joe...I am still on the fence when it comes to GW lying. If it can be proven that this administration purposely, knowingly, and willfully lied, I will be the first to call for impeachment and criminal trials.
I think things aren't looking that good for GW, and his credibility is on a steep downhill slope. I am still giving him the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I think Saddam never proved what happened to the missing items of his UN report. There was widespread evidence of non-cooperation with UN inspectors, i.e. tipping the Iraqis off, them holding inspectors off for hours, not letting the Inspectors into certain facilities (Palaces) etc.
We will see.

I cannot stand the thought of a Democrat (Kerry would be the worst) in office.
But even more than that, I cannot stand the thought of a murdering liar in office.
We will see.

A man doesn't call another man a liar without proof . I haven't seen any proof.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040203.shtml

I relish the thought of a debate between John Kerry and President Bush. We will see who lies.

Don't relish it too much. Don't kid yourself: Kerry would fare far better in a debate than GW would. Public debating that requires charisma is not one of his strengths, as much as I like the man.

Are you saying that you think John Kerry has charisma?
Do you mean like Jane Fonda's charisma?

I still like the match-up.

I am simply saying that more than likely, Kerry come off better in a debate than GW would. It's not about what he says....it's about how he says it and how he presents it to the watchful public eye.
Look, I don't like Kerry. But he ain't no dummy.

Geeze, whatever happened to that little sign that sat on Pres. Truman's desk?

Bob

Matthias;

I share your opinion. That, combined with virtually limitless cash, media spin for him, and media spin against "W" will quite possibly send "W" back to Texas.

What amazes me is the "hands off" policy everyone, even the other democrats are having tword him. The only commercials Kerry ran up here was one with him toting and M16 in Nam, and one telling how he was CURED of colon cancer in 3 months "...because as a U.S. Senator I can get the best medical treatment available...." "....and if President I will see that every American can access this care...."

The cancer commercial ran only in the beginning weeks, I think his camp came to the realization that it was sending the wrong message to the pleabs <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Boy those senators must get some goooooood doctors. I have a friend who survived Hodgkins, and I have two family members fighting colon cancer. All three were told by their doctors that to not consider themselves "cured" till they get 5 YEARS of negative tests.

And Kerry was "cured" in 3 months?????? Amazing!!!

Why hasn't ANYONE brought up that in 20 years in the Senate he has not accomplished passing ANY of his initatives??? He's ridden coat tails his entire career.

Do you think the RNC will go there when Kerry is the democrat nominee???

His voting record is frightful. And yes, he is a real danger to GW.

I didn't call anyone a liar explicitly, I merely stated several reasons why I suspect someone lied or stretched the truth.

Fact: There have been no WMDs found and it now appears as though they never were there. Therefore, there can only be two conclusions: 1. Someone lied about their existence; or 2. We were wrong about their existence. Therefore, either someone is a liar or incompetent.

Among the reasons I gave for suspecting that we knew there were no WMDs and that we were not merely incompetent, two especially strike a chord with me.

1. We appeared to take no special precautions about finding, isolating, or destroying Saddam's WMDs before the war. If we truly believed they were there, then this would be criminally irresponsible because a war with the U.S. would insure that they would be used or dispersed to other nations and factions unfriendly to us. If we truly knew they were there or where they were, a responsible leader would have made sure they went nowhere by securing them with special ops or taking them out before hostilities began or shortly thereafter. I do not believe they were there and moved anywhere. A single JStar aircraft (modified KC-135) can spot literally every single car, and very nearly persons, moving on the ground for an area roughly half the size of Iraq. If those weapons were there and were moved, we would have seen it and we would have sent a Block 2 ATACMS or aircraft or something to take them out. The simplelest conclusion is that they were never there.

2. Within a day or two of U.S. forces crossing over into Iraq the imbedded reporters were reporting that many of the units were coming out of MOPP gear and going to MOPP Level 1. Therefore, they had pretty good intelligence that there were to be no NBC attacks, since at a minimum it takes three or four minutes for well trained soldiers to suit completely up, (as opposed to 9 seconds for mask, and 30 or so for gloves when already at MOPP 2). Long enough for everyone to be dead if there was an attack with a nerve agent. Therefore, the only conclusion is that these commanders had it on pretty good authority that there was a very low likelihood of chemical attacks since no commander would willingly risk his troops that much.

These two factors say to me that we knew there were no WMDs at least very shortly after we invaded Iraq. Too shortly to know, unless we had already had a strong suspicion that they weren't there.

He listen, I'm not calling anyone a liar. However, I see things and I make decisions on my own without relying on what anyone else says or does. If he did lie, I am dissappointed. I voted for him and I don't want to see a liberal Democrat in office. However, there are certain things that are unforgivable in a so-called free society. Highest among those is a public official lying or even stretching the truth in order to manipulate the American people into a course of action. If he did this, then a liberal Democrat in office may be the price to pay for lying (not that the liberal will be any better).

That wasn't a very convincing argument, joe. You're not a public defender, are you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
You seem to have some unrealistic expectations of our aerial surveilance systems, impressive as they may be. No such surveilance is all-encompassing, 24/7, good weather and bad, for even weeks at a stretch, let alone months or years. Even if it were continuously operative for all that time, it could not replace trained ears and eyes on the ground, which we lack.

It appears as though they never were there????
How do you come to such a ridiculous conclusion? If you were to find an empty beer can in the back of my truck, would you deduce that, since it is empty, it must have come that way from the brewery, and that I am, therefore, still thirsty? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> ........ Not likely. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You go on to say that since no WMD's have been found:
Those are the only conclusions that can be drawn???
joe, you just aren't trying!! One would tend to suspect that you are trying to promote an agenda of some sort! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

First off, the fact that we haven't found any WMD's, doesn't mean that they don't/didn't exist. Maybe we haven't looked everywhere yet. Or, they may have been moved out of the country to WhoKnowsWhere. Or, they may simply have been poured into the sand. Maybe Bagdad Bob made off with them. It is interesting that your very first deduction is that maybe "Someone lied about their existence." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

And, you say, if they didn't lie, then they must be incompetent! (??) Seems a little harsh, joe.

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that perhaps they did the very best they could with sorely limited available resources (thanks to years of post-cold war neglect of "intelligence gathering" infrastructure and manpower) within the constraints of a time frame shortened by seasonal/tactical/situational necessity? I don't think so. And I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that they just may have done EXACTLY the right thing, whether we ever find a single WMD or not! The world is safer. My kids are safer. Osama has cave ass. I think I'll have a beer now, and contemplate his capture. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

There's several valid interpretations of the current situation.

1. WMDs are there, have been very well hidden or destroyed after the war began

2. WMDs are there, have been moved out of the country

3. WMDs are not there, we had faulty intelligence and Saddam wasn't able to prove us wrong

4. WMDs are not there, intelligence was manipulated and cherry-picked to justify the war for whatever reasons. Saddam couldn't have proven us wrong if he'd tried.

There ya go.

Matthias

Your wrong about what a JStar can do, I've seen it. I know about a little convoy taken out during the first Gulf War with a protype weapon. The JStar can see almost everything on a battlefield. It is the ground equivilant, only more advanced, of the AWAC. It is all part of the Force 21 concept of the totally integrated battlefield and is a major component of it.

In any case, even if you are correct and our techonology is not so advanced, (you're not, but admittedly there are variables) do you honestly believe that we would not have concentrated our resources on likely areas of escape before the war? Remember, before the war the Bush administration claimed that Saddam possessed tons of WMDs. In order to move tons of any substance, it takes trucks and trailers, etc. Do you not think that we would have seen that activity in the weeks leading up to the war?

Look at it this way. You claim that we had good enough intelligence to insist that Saddam had these weapons, to know where they were, and to know what they were. Yet, you claim they may have been moved or destroyed without our knowledge. If we knew where and what they were, then how did we not know when they were moved?

The only concrete evidence we've ever had about WMDs in Iraq was when Saddam used them on the Kurds in the 1980s. I don't seem to remember it being such a big deal back then. Was that because at the time Saddam was a U.S. client in the fight against radical Islam?

I remember such a big fuss being made that Saddam had WMDs such as weaponized smallpox which could decimate the world. It always struck me as odd that we were willing to invade a and conquer someone who had such a terrifying weapon. Afterall, if you invade him and make it known that his ultimate fate is death, what does he have to lose? Surely, he will use it. Yet we invaded. If he had had it, you and I might not be here today. We knew he didn't have it and much else.

If he had really had the weapons we said he did, then it would have been pure madness to invade him. Afterall, we didn't attack the Soviets for 50 years and they didn't attack us because each of us knew it would be the end of civilization. We don't attack the North Koreans because we know they have nukes and other WMDs and a large army. They would kick our ass in the short term and a war would be horribly costly in the long term.

We knew Saddam didn't offer much of a threat and we could defeat him easily. Doesn't sound like someone who supposedly possessed massive amounts of WMDs.

And, Matthias, you never addressed my concern about how our soldiers knew it was okay to come completely out of their MOPP gear so soon.

Joe...I don't see how what you posted jingles with what I posted.
I never said anything about J-Star.

I listed four possible scenarios.

Sorry Matthias,

My post was actually mostly in response to the Walker post above yours.

He is the one who said our air surveilance wasn't that good.

No sweat.

"""" Do you not think that we would have seen that activity in the weeks leading up to the war?""""""

Doubtful, not without hard intelligance regarding exact locations, times, movment. You know how big Iraq is? How many trucks are on the roads at any one time? I have a friend, typically from a 3rd world country, that has convinced himself that Americas space assets can see everything on the ground, everywhere, at every time. That nothing is hid from Americas intelligance assets.

This is a common delusion in the 3rd world, especially in the MidEast where America is to blame, and controls, everything. I think that predator attack in Yemen added to this. The bottom line is that attack was sucesssful due to Human Intel on the ground. Sats, spyplanes, AWACs, J-Stars...ect give us only limited information and without human intel they really arent much good, outside of a conventional war envirement..........10

Joe ... If you keep beating that J-Star drum, I'm sure the hip-hop crowd will dance to it. This seems to be going nowhere, so I'll just move on. Later, boys.

Listen, space assets are overrated. However, in the weeks leading up to the war, it is unreasonable to believe that we didn't have J-Star and AWACs patrolling the perimeters of Iraq and noting movements of vehicles in and out of Iraq. Needless to say, a J-Star can't tell you what is inside a truck, that is where human intelligence comes in, but it can spot the truck. Seems to me that we would have noticed any unusual movements of trucks and other things before the war.



In any case, you still don't really see the point. You're saying our intelligence wasn't that good and they likely got the WMDs out of the country. Well, that is not how it was represented. Just this morning I saw Collin Powell's speech to the U.N.. He said quote, "Saddam Hussein has biological weapons...", "Iraq has two thirds of the capabilities in place to begin manufacture of nuclear weapons...", "...all of the assertions are backed up by ROCK SOLID sources". I remember at the time that there were anonymous leaks from the CIA and State Department who said that there was no real evidence of WMDs in Iraq. These sources were ridiculed and drowned out by hawks in the administration who repeatedly stressed the reliability of our sources and claimed that we had satellite intel, etc.



My point in all of this is that if the administration had really believed that its intel was so rock solid and that the WMDs really existed, they would have had every asset available looking for those WMDs and making sure they didn't get out of the country. I remember how we found out after the first Gulf War that Seal teams and SAS teams had been inside of Iraq for weeks before the beginning of the war looking for Scuds. It seems to me that such teams, operating with the assistance of J-Stars and other intelligence assets, could have been directed to check out suspicious convoys and vehicles. It seems that special ops and air assets could have been detailed to make sure that the WMD sites "known" to the administration were secured in the first hours of the operation. Anything less would have been horribly irresponsible.



Since we have not heard of anything like these operations having taken place then only a few options exist. 1. We did those sorts of things and found nothing. Huge intelligence gaff. I would call it incompetence. I would call it worse, since before the war there were insistant sources and voices that were saying the intelligence on hand did not warrant the administrations conclusions about WMDs in Iraq. 2. We did not do that sort of thing or even attempt to do so. If we didn't do it, then why? Maybe we really knew there were no WMDs. Maybe we didn't know where they were or what they were. Well, if those are true, then the Adminstration lied because in the days and months leading to the war, it was said repeatedly that we knew he had WMDs and that we knew where they were and what they were. If we didn't have the capability of securing WMDs, then it was terribly irresponsible to go into that country and possibly trigger an NBC attack.



Look, it is obvious that this administration was hell bent on war and that they were going to interpret any intelligence in the most favorable light possible. There were many reasons to sell a war to the U.S. public. The one they chose was WMDs and Saddams imminent threat to the U.S. with those WMDs. There are no WMDs and it appears that any programs they had were tiny to the point of extreme insignifigance.



The administration overplayed its cards. It chose to ignore signs pointing to no WMDs. It either lied or was so sure that Saddam was lying that they felt they would be found anyway.



Does it not bother any of you that a war was started on what have turned out to be false pretenses? Does it not bother you that this administration may have known from the start that the WMDs were not there?



Over 500 American boys and girls are dead today who would have been alive had this war not happened. We are losing about 40 people a month with no sign of let up. Countless innocent Iraquis were killed (yes we can lob a bomb through an open window, but when the bomb is a 2000lb bomb, it is still going to take out the neighborhood). The war is costing untold billions of dollars. No matter what we do, when we leave there will still be a 70 percent Shiite majority in that country. If democracy takes hold, those Shiites will likely win control and want to institute an Islamic country something like Iran. Is that why we went to war, to topple Saddam and set up another Iran? Will we be safer? After all, Iraq will still be oil rich and any government there will be able to fund any kind of weapons program it wants to. Do we we want an Iraq and Iran alliance against U.S. interests in the Middle East.



Bottomline is that war is a serious deal with serious consequences. In this case they don't appear to have been all that well thought out. And remember, a government that will overplay some bit of information to invade a foreign country, will also overplay information to do something here at home. It is about trust. What has any government in our country, Republican or Democrat controlled, ever done to warrant the kind of trust we seem to be giving the Bush administration when it comes to Iraq? It is unpatriotic to blindly trust the government. If our forefathers had done it, we would be one of the dominions of the Queen of England today. Constant vigilence is the price of freedom.



By the way, not one of you has addressed how it was that our troops knew it was okay to come out of their MOPP gear so quickly if we really thought Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMDs.

Joe, I find a number of facts very disturbing. I sincerely hope they will be cleared up. I surely will not vote for Kerry.
But if Bush doesn't come clear, I might just choose 3rd Party.
Gosh, I hate that! No real choice.

Well said.

Ram: It needs to be proven that there WEREN'T any. The fact of the matter is that it is a matter of RECORD that Saddam USED WMD on his own people ( the Kurds). But even if there weren't any, the past three administrations AND the Congress, not to mention the intelligence services of just about evey credible country out there AND the UN said that he had them. Who cares, we should go after Syria, then Iraq, the North Korea if they don't fess up. AS far as the "Independent Counsel" goes, there is really no such thing. Just because one gets appointed that is not part of the administration, he still brings to the table his OWN political bias, only it's harder to detect. Look at what happened with Iran-Contra. THAT independent counsel was a frigging democrat and even though the evidence was insurmountable and accurate that the Reagan administration was not at fault, he persisted on it. THe original law was written by democrats to go after Republicans during the Nixon era. BTW, do you know who served in THAT SO CALLED INDEPENDENT COUNSEL back then? Hillary Clinton. Why don't you just come out and admit that all you are doing is stirring up [bleep] to hang Bush with. AS a serving member of the US military, I stand behind THIS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF 100%, unlike that other piece of garbage we had for 8 years before him. Jorge

Pretty simple Joe. If we had all the advance spy goodies you keep talking about we could see what they were wearing. If they ain't wearing MOPP they ain't using Chem/Bio. If they went to MOPP we'd have seen it and gone to MOPP. They weren't carrying MOPP gear because they thought we were gonna use it. If you've got all the experience that you say you do then you know that stuff works both ways. It doesn't take much of a mistake or change in the weather to get it blown right back in your face and if its a persistant agent its gonna be there a long time. Remember ENRAS Joe? If you had ever gone actual with that what would you have been wearing? You also seem to be forgetting that Bill Clinton believed Saddam had WMD too. So did just about everybody else in the world. Prior to our deployment the argument wasn't about whether or not he had them but whether or not he should be given more time to comply with the UN reslolutions. If we were fooled so was everyone else. How does that make the current administration liars?

Yeah Skidrow, that is real good thinking. Saddam Hussein cared so much about his own people that he would have made sure that all of his soldiers were outfitted in the proper MOPP gear before using chemical or biological weapons. Keep on believing that Skidrow. Of course, if you believe that, then you probably would have to conceed that Saddam may not have been as bad as we said he was, wouldn't you?

Besides, I seem to remember that we made a real big deal about finding 3000 unissued MOPP suits. After all, why would he have so many suits unless he planned to use chemicals?

Funny how that logic works. When our soldiers take extra precautions it is just being prudent. When other armies do it, it evidence of their devious intentions.

Try agains Skidrow. Relying on the caring nature of Saddam Hussein for his soldiers goes against everything we said about him before the war. If I had been one our commanders and genuinely concerned about WMDs, I might have suspected a trick if none of the Iraqi soldiers had any MOPP gear on them and been extra alert. Better yet, ask the Iranians about how Saddam always used to be extra careful about his own soldiers before he launched a poison gas attack. Even better, ask all the Iraqui widows and orphans how Saddam would never do anything as devious as launch a gas attack against the Iranians (or anyone else) before first making sure that all of his soldiers were properly outfitted and prepared. Yeah, that's the ticket.

All is good. Keep on believing the war is good and that because it is good, it doesn't matter what was said or how we got into it. Keep on believing that we should go into Syria and then North Korea. That way, when the body bags really start to come home and Tokyo or better yet, San Francisco is a smoking radioactive hole in the ground, you can take comfort in the fact that our government and this administration has the purest of intentions and that everything they do is for our own good.

Saddam would have to protect his troops not out of concern for their individual future, but for tactical and strategic reasons. After all, he needs them.

Joe...I think we should pull out everywhere, leave the world to itself, and use our military to defend ourselves and seal the borders.

I second that motion.

I'm all for that. Pull out and pretty much disband the active Army. Keep a strong Navy, Air Force, and ICBM force. Dare anyone to mess with us, but stop messing with other people. Protect our borders and get stricter on immigration, but allow our markets to be open to all and trade with all nations on earth with favoritism to none.

Some might say that would leave us open to oil embargos or other such chicanery. Well, it is a two way street. If they aren't selling, then we ain't buying. Wouldn't take too long for someone to start selling.

Live and let live. When someone invades Texas, l'll be there on the line. Otherwise, let's leave everyone else alone.

Of all people, YOU second THAT motion?!?

Hawkeye, I am shocked! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Hawkeye, Tell me what real terrible thing or things that the govt. has done to you? This being a 2nd Amend. page, has the govt. seized yours or anyone else you know of weapons? If they were seized, it was legally through a warrant or violation of the law.

Many complain about the Assualt Wpn. ban. It's interesting that it was passed with at least 2/3 majority in both the house and senate. It was probably signed by reps and senators from your own state, that you put there. Many blame the Pres. but it couldn't get to his desk, unless it went through the house and senate. What do you and others really need these weapons for anyway? I've got a fully auto. M4, that I carry in my car each day. I use it during felony stops of stolen veh's, felony warrant service and etc. Other then to have something else to go and shoot you really have no use of one. Most were designed for only one thing and that's to shoot people. Sure most can be redesigned to hunt varmits, and target shoot, but that wasn't there primary design, it was for military or LE, are you either one? Most people have other weapons that can do the same job and probably do it better.

The same with hi-cap mags. do you use these on a daily basis? Most people can't bring their weapons to work unless they are in LE or military. Could you just as well get by with 10 shot mags. Most people only carry on the weekend or when they are not at work. I could get by without the hi-caps. When I started in my career it was all 6 shot and speed loaders or drop pouches. Some of the finer semi-auto handguns ever produced only carried 7 or 8 rounds. So I can fully understand your reasoning, please explain all the actual, not perceived screwings you got from the govt.

Hunter, the point isn't whether you need it or not: Need is highly subjective and shouldn't be gov't mandated. The second amendment specifies the right to bear arms. I don't think it's there to guarantee your hunting pleasure, wherefore you only need 10rd clips.

The intent was a well armed citizenry.

If that's the concept, then I should be able to own or do about whatever I want to. I don't have problems with bearing of arms and have been doing such for many years. People can bear any arms they want, with the exception of some. You don't need certain weapons to protect yourself. I'ld rather have a hand grenade many times then a handgun, but I can't. Hell, we need to repeal the laws not allowing convicted felons and mental patients from possessing weapons, they have rights too.

I am not trying to be an [bleep], but your experience and time in the saddle as an American who has the right to bear arms is mighty slim <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> As far as knowledge of the American political system and Constitution, you are just now eligible to vote. This is being explained to me from a young man who lived in a country that was under Soviet/East Germany Control until 1989. Prior to that the people living there were told that the fences and the minefields were there to protect them from the American/NATO troops attacking, raping and killing them. I do hope they understood it was to keep them under control and from leaving. It's only been 15 years ago (Jan 89) since the wall fell. So I'll just figure that you came to the US after that time period, don't get me wrong I am glad that you did immigrate, I would also to get away from that part of Germany. I wouldn't put your age past 30, even if that much. I am in my mid 40's and your telling me how it is regarding American Cons. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well..tell me then how the 2nd amendment is to be interpreted, and what gives the gov't the right to restrict what types of arms you can own.

Why is it so bad and worth of legislation against it, to have high capacity magazines, pistol grips, automatic weapons (properly licensed)?

Ten or twenty years down the road semi-automatics will be something that the average "Citizen" just doesn't need. Legislate against it.

A little further down the road pump actions will be illegal.

And so on....



Look, I think that there should be licensing of Class III arms.

Where did the felon law come from, anyhow?



Regarding AWB and say, hi-cap clips...where's the harm? What significant advantage does it bring?



I might check back with you in ten, twenty years, whenever I am "eligible" to discuss constitutional matters. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I think I understand the US constitution well enough to discuss it. Probably better than a large chunk of native US citizens. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

And we believed all of it, too! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


We could go anywhere we wanted...Bulgaria, Poland, Rumania, Chechoslovakia.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


25. And like I said, I'll get back to ya when I am at an eligible age <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It isn't a question of need. If we start justifying what one person "needs" we start down the path of licensing, restictions on numbers, types, calibers, gauges, actions, etc. Eventually we come to the point where a citizen's right is granted not secured by the government. After removing the 2nd Amendment which one should come next?


That has nothing to do with his ability to express an opinion. Also, as a Naturalized Citizen he may actually know MORE than you or I. We both grew up with kids who should never have graduated school, but because they simply got too old or disruptive moved on. They couldn't pass any form of standardized test, but still they get all the rights simply by virtue of being born here, whether they understand them or not.

No actually it was Nov 9th, 1989. I was studying in Munich at the time and managed to get up to Berlin to get my piece. Hunter, if you can't get a simple fact like this right...



Again, his age has nothing to do with it. He understands the concept of "shall not be infringed", obviously you don't.

Bob

Gunny Bob, nice to see you here...didn't know you hang out here.

Oh, the irony of a lifelong American citizen, Hunter1960, lecturing a former Communist subject, Matthias, on the meaning and responsibilities of freedom and sounding more like a Communists than the Communist refugee.

Hunter1960 probably thinks that the quote "To each according to his need, and from each according to his ability" comes from the Declaration of Independence or possibly the Constitution.

Hunter1960, if need is a question, then why do you need a V-8 in your car. After all, a six cylinder or four cylinder will get better gas mileage, be less harmful on the environment, and demonstrate that you understand your responsibilities as a citizen. For that matter, there is no real reason that anybody needs to make over $80,000.00 in a year. Let's just confiscate everything over $80,000.00 from people and give the rest to the more deserving poor. As to guns, well, you can kill a deer just as dead with a muzzle loader, so why is it necessary for a responsible citizen to want something that could do harm to someone else if it fell in the wrong hands.

Hunter1960 if you have fallen into the trap of evaluating rights based on need, then turn in your citizenship at the door, and get on down to Cuba as that it is about the last Communist country left around.

I really couldn't care less if the AWB was ever repealed or not. It doesn't effect me in one bit. If I want to buy these items I can now, no problem and not at the mark up that citizens pay. It just fires people up who really think their getting screwed out of something, if they can't have it. It's my right, It's my right they complain. One of the ideas of the AWB was to give LE an advantage in safety over the scroats who had access to certain weapons but LE didn't. The reason they didn't was that most citizens complained if their taxes were increased to pay for this equipment (better weapons & body armor). The pendulum of the govt. swings back and forth, this time it's toward the govt. side. If it swings back to the other side, you'll be happy for awhile then you'll piss & whine about something else. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Somehow, I expected a reply of that sort. Thanks for not disappointing me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />



I am sure glad responsible older boys like you keep watch over the more dangerous toys, so that us younger tods don't get hurt.

Come on Joe, you can do better than that. Caring about the welfare of your troops has nothing to do with how you equip them. How badly you want to win, or at least survive as a government does. 3000 MOPP suits is a big deal when dealing with an army of hundreds of thousands? I think not.



I didn't say that, you did. As I said, and you failed to acknowledge, Chem/Bio works both ways. Prudent usage would dictate the use of proper MOPP posture to preclude accidental exposure. Accidental exposure on the initiating side produces severe casualties and loss of the advantage sought by the use of Chem/Bio agents. Unless you're a Voodoo master you can't fight a war with an army of dead soldiers.

As for the rest of your diatribe, rather than showing your vast knowledge of military tactics, stratagy and leadership all you're showing is your bleeding heart. Shouting at the top of your lungs "THEY LIED" just isn't a very pursuasive argument. If you have some creditable personal knowledge as to how you know that they lied, why aren't you telling us about it? Why aren't you including UN in your accusation since every one of their resolutions assumed the presence of WMD in Iraq? How about some facts and logic on your part?

You know a good tour in the military would not hurt you one bit. This now that your a red, white and blue American, you could stand up and help protect this fine country. You would get to be around the toys that you so much want to play with. You could join the WA. Natl. Guard, the training would be of good use to you. The PT probably wouldn't hurt you either. You would do well, the Army would love you, I bet your Drill Sgt. would just be impressed about a 25 year old. You could tell them how it is, and straighten them out with your knowledge and been there, done that experiences. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Oh! I almost forgot, think about it you could become General Matthias and someday run for President, no rush at this time you still got eleven years until your old enough to hold the office. (36). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

My my...you are displaying some awesome knowledge of the Constitution there. You're dead wrong. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> Of course, what do I know.



To tell you the truth, I was considering the military for a while. But, my current situation doesn't allow for that, as I am both going to school and working 60 hours a week, with a two hour drive each day.



BTW, you might want to read up on some constitutional issues.

The WMD's just haven't been found yet. It's a big country and biological weapons are very small.

Before Saddam was found about a month ago, you could apply the same logic to him. He hasn't been found in Iraq yet therefore he was never there.

Remember they waited 14 months to go after him, he had plenty of time to hide the weapons in Iraq or Syria.

Skidrow, your mistake is assuming that Saddam is prudent or that he even thinks like us. During the Iran/Iraq war he commonly launched chemical attacks that did as much damage to his own troops as the Iranians.

During our invasion Saddam logic may well have dictated that he use the weapons, his army be damned. Afterall, the battle was lost anyway. You can't argue that he cares about the individual lives of his troops. In fact, as Saddam watched his army disintegrate, he might have felt betrayed. What better way to get back at your betrayers than to launch a chemical attack that would get some of your own soldiers who were showing less than wholehearted devotion and the enemy as well.

All of this is to say that any American commander who based our MOPP level on the MOPP level being maintained by opposing troops, was crazy. I seriously doubt anyone did that. Therefore, the question remains, why did we come out of MOPP so quickly? What intelligence did we have that made us so sure NBC weapons would not be used?

Listen, I know I won't convince you and you won't convince me. We have two competing theories. I don't think the WMDs were there, except possibly as residuals left over from the programs we helped them with in the 80s and the weapons we supplied them with back then. Many people believe there were WMDs and despite the fact that they haven't been found and that all the inspections before the war found none, they are still there waiting to be found. Maybe, but I doubt it. Who knows? But I'll bet in 10 years this country is deeply sorry we invaded Iraq and GWs name will almost never be spoken without someone spitting after they say it. I'm content to wait and see, sorry if I have given any offense.

We shall see, indeed. The future will tell.

The only Con. Amend. that I even worry about is the 4th and this is only how I can get around it, and still have the case hold up in court. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



You only have to serve one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer. The military will pay you and even pay for your college. Like you stated, you only thought about it. Step up to the plate and take the pitch. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

And a couple of months of bootcamp to start off with....sorry, but my bills and the fact that I am a sole provider won't allow for that.
So, I'll prefer to stay second class citizen for now.

Purdy bad to have a second class, immigrant citizen, who's all wet behind the ears when it comes to the Constitution, correct YOU on constitutional matters....eh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I really couldn't care less about the Constitution, that's a Supreme Court issue. If it doesn't effect the 4th, it means little or nothing to me. State Constitution and laws that, I worry about. Besides you should be well versed in the Constitution, you just finished "wetback" school and had to take the test. I haven't even worried about that stuff since graduating from college in 81. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> You can always enter the military later, up to the age of 32, but they'll be another excuse later too. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Take care

None taken. Just wondering when you're going to be intellectually honest. Rather than asking objective questions you seem to be promoting an agenda. If so, have at it but at least be honest about your motives. Either way I don't think your argument holds water. I don't necessarilly think this was the right war at the right time in the right place but neither do I think that Bush lied outright.

That's kinda my stance, as well.

You're kinda pathetic. First you start off lecturing me how I am not fit to discuss constitutional matters with a bigwig like you, then you start showing your true ignorance about the constitution you claim to know, and when that's pointed out to you, you start back paddlin' and saying how you don't really care. BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

My knowledge on these issues has little to do with any test I had to take. I have known simple facts that you don't, for a number of years.

Do you recommend the military to everyone you meet, or just as a conversation starter to piss people off?
See, I am just sorta wondering what the intent was.
Ever read Heinlein?

Come clean?

He has.

What did you expect him to do?

Take the word of an insane mass murderer when all the evidence appeared to the contrary? "Wing it" and hope the insane mass murderer, who was boasting about paying suicide bombers $25,000 each, and who had clearly violated the 1991 treaty, would never give some anthrax to some Arab terrorists? Or just "pray" there would never be another 9/11?

Saddam, who had used WMD whenever he could, who kicked out and impeded the inspectors, who was shooting missiles at their airplanes, was sure acting like he had WMD. Instead of giving the UN 20,000 pages of gobbledegook, all he had to do was say, "I got rid of them. They were buried over there. Achmed did it. Here, you can talk to him."

Certainly Bush had no motive to lie. And don't give me that crap about his "oil buddies." Enron gave as much money to the Democrats as to the Republicans.

Indy, I like it! Simple answers to simple questions. Works for me.

Bush had plenty of reasons to lie, or at least want to get rid of Saddam very badly.

10. Appear to be doing something about the war on terror.

9. Pretend to be a strong leader.

8. I'm on a mission from God.

7. Richard Perle and the guys say it is a good thing to do.

6. Ariel Sharon said it sure would be helpful if I did something.

5. Put the fear of God in those Ragheads.

4. Avert attention of stupid American voters from fading economy.

3. Start new world order and bring truth, justice, and freedom to the Middle East (after we bomb you to the stone ages, of course)

2. Show that I'm no pussy like Bill Clinton was.

and the number one reason to get Saddam

1. He tried to kill my daddy!

The only significant question is whether GW is a liar or a dupe.

Joe...I don't buy any of those reasons. But, something may not as it seems. I am increasingly concerned about the WMD claims.

I figurerd a proud American like yourself would want to serve a country that has just made him a citizen, but I see that's not the case. A man of all of your knowledge and skills would be an asset to the military. But your probably not cut out to do those type of activities, so it's best for both parties, you and the US. As far as the Constitution and what I know or don't know has no impact upon my life. If I wanted to learn more about it I would ask one of the Judges that I deal with or look it up on the net. As for just knowing the stuff to throw out at people, I couldn't care less. That's sounds like a good job for a 25 YOA college boy. Oh! FU-K Heinlien and any other anti-military or such BS, he needed to be directly involved in GRENADA,PANAMA,DESERT STORM,SOMALIA, like myself and thousands of other Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines.

I have paid my dues. And I work for the government, so I guess you could say I am a civil servant.

I just don't think you really care about any military service I might be involved in. I think that you have nothing else left to talk about, since you got shot down on everything else.



By your ignorant comments, I see that you haven't read Heinlein.

Thank you for your military service.



College boy...you're funny.



See you on another thread.

First I hope we arent all making enemies with each other as all of this politiical stuff heats up for election. I have myself placed in the Republican side, but get this clear, I have no time for far right republicans, I find them just as discusting as far left democrats.

Ram, I dont agree with you on the bait and switch accusation as that is too huge of a leap. What it clearly points out is our intelligence community got it wrong. But, and this is a big but, not only did the US intelligence get it wrong, so did the British, French, German, Russian, the UN, etc, everyone really thought he still had WMD. But, let's not forget the possibility that they were hidden, or they were trucked to Syria. I still think this issue is coming on too fast. Iraq is the size of Texas, there are alot of things we still dont know.

Your comments about Kerry I support 100 percent. I think he is a phony, Kennedy want a be. I was a Vietnam Vet also, and I never agreed with the radical war protesters. I did agree it was a classic example why you dont want polititians running your military decisions. And let's not all forget all the money LBJ made off helicopters in Vietnam. I say that, because alot of people love to bash Nixon, when in fact, Nixon wanted us out of that situation just as fast as the next guy. LBJ frankly resigned from running for a second term because he knew he had mired us into a war we never should have been involved with "in the manner" that we were. The cause was good, the method was not. That's the point.