The last two guys in the US figure it out

[RawAlex]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041007/D85ISTE80.html

Now they are trying to say "it was about the UN thing".

COME ON!

Alex

[Buff]

I'm not trying to make the case that Bush and his administration are competent, but I will say that I don't believe that Saddam abandoned his weapons programs. Everyone else in the world -- in his own neighborhood -- is feverishly trying to develop them, and he's just not interested? Or are we supposed to believe his hands were tied? He can funnel billions to the French and Germans and others in the oil-for-food scam, but he can't or doesn't want to build or hide any weapons?

Sounds naive to me. I think a more competent administration would have found weapons there -- unfortunately, this one gave Saddam more than a year of notice before going in, which is plenty of time to cover tracks, bury containers, hide shit, etc.

I'm very disilusioned about the capability of any politicians to protect us from people who are hell bent on killing us.

Luckily (for me, anyway) the terrorists seem to be targetting those areas which have the highest percentages of pacifists e.g. New York. It's my belief that pacifism in the face of murderous zealots is a self-correcting problem.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Buff@Oct 7 2004, 05:57 PM
It's my belief that pacifism in the face of murderous zealots is a self-correcting problem.
God damn, that was good. That's a pearl.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Buff+Oct 7 2004, 06:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Oct 7 2004, 06:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Buff@Oct 7 2004, 05:57 PM
It's my belief that pacifism in the face of murderous zealots is a self-correcting problem.
God damn, that was good. That's a pearl. [/b][/quote]
:pearl:

[Mike AI]

Hindsight is indeed 20/20

The consensus of the entire world during build up to war, was tha Saddam had weapons. This includes the Russians, British, French, Germans, and our Intelligence agencies. There was never a debate about that.

I still beleive Iraq was done to put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran. The problem is Bush cannot come out and explain this because American's need to have more exciting rallying points.

I think Bush did make a mistake in not sending more troops early to pacify the country. He was right we only need a small force to topple the gov't, but they had poor plans based on rosey predicitions.

They probably should not have disbanded the Iraqi army as well. it would have been better to keep it togethe to keep tabs on these guys.

They also should have ruthlessly smashed opposition - they should not have called the Marine's off when they were close to taking back Fallujah. The only thing it did was allow our enemies to regroup and inspire our enemies. Every day they operate freely, is a victory for them.

I do have hope the Iraq force that the US used in the latest successful attacks will get experience and confidence, so they can take on future operations.

I still do not think Kerry would do better..... that is the sad part. We have a choice between a bumbler, and a internationalist. At the end of the day, the US people lose no matter what.

Maybe I will stay in Costa Rica!!

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 7 2004, 07:12 PM
This includes the Russians,
talk for yourself!
THIS Russian KNEW they didn't have zilch!
;-)))

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Oct 7 2004, 07:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Oct 7 2004, 07:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Oct 7 2004, 07:12 PM
This includes the Russians,
talk for yourself!
THIS Russian KNEW they didn't have zilch!
;-))) [/b][/quote]


How did you KNOW?

I really don't care. Saddam calculated wrong, Bush called his bluff.

I read somewhere we are construcint 14 permanent military bases through out the country.

If we can get Iraqi Military to stabilize the cities, we can move our troops to bases. From there we can leverage Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

[Winetalk.com]

How did I know?
Common sense and if you search Oprano,
you'll find that I posted long ago,
BEFORE the war,
that he doesn't have shit but we have to go there anyway.

Unlike the NEXT US President,
I am NOT flip flopping!
;-)))

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Oct 7 2004, 07:26 PM
How did I know?
Common sense and if you search Oprano,
you'll find that I posted long ago,
BEFORE the war,
that he doesn't have shit but we have to go there anyway.

Unlike the NEXT US President,
I am NOT flip flopping!
;-)))


I trust you Serge.

I figured Saddam had to have something, since it was the main arguement for the war from Bush. It would be political suicide. Which I guess it might turn out to be.

Would Bush be where he is if they found some stockpiles of WMDs?

[Winetalk.com]

Mike,
WMD pretense was a GOOD way to sell the war to American public.
The REAL reasons, I beleive, we went in the war for reasons you outlines earlier,
to have proximity control over Iran, Syria and entire Middle East,
which is OK by me.